DC Watson: CAIR's Perpetual Twists & Turns

Longtime Jihad Watch reader DC Watson's latest:

The CAIR Mission Statement declares that "CAIR's mission is to enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding."

Fair enough. But let's revisit some statements made by members of this group -- in public and on the record -- about their vision of America, and how they’ve put in practice their mission of "encouraging dialogue, and building coalitions that promote justice and understanding."

Omar M. Ahmad, CAIR's Board Chairman: "Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran . . . should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth." (Ahmad began to deny having said this, over five years after it was first reported, but the original reporter sticks by her story.)

Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR spokesman: "I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future."

Nihad Awad, CAIR Executive Director: "I am in support of the Hamas movement."

How's that for American patriotism, respect for our Constitution, and tolerance of all religions? Oh, but there's more.

1) Muslim cleric Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman was convicted and is now in prison for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

CAIR’s response: Despite the vast evidence of Sheikh Omar's guilt presented in the case, CAIR called the conviction a "hate crime" against Muslims.

2) 2001: President Bush orders the closing of a Muslim charity, the Holy Land Foundation, after it was found to be raising money to support Hamas terror attacks.

CAIR’s response: It called Bush's move "unjust" and "disturbing," and circulated a petition exhorting the government to unfreeze HLF assets, claiming "there has been a shift from a war on terrorism to an attack on Islam."

3) Tuesday, February 15th, 2005: Fox’s "Hannity & Colmes" featured Ahmed Bedier, Communications Director for the Florida chapter of CAIR. From the program:

Hannity: "Did you not have a spokesman for your group at one time, a guy by the name of Royer that was on your staff that was convicted?"

Bedier: "I think several years ago we had that individual in our group. And if you're inciting that somehow we're responsible for the actions or behavior of the individuals after they left our organization, that would be similar to somebody that worked for FOX five years ago and then commits a crime and FOX would be responsible for it."

The "guy by the name of Royer" that Hannity asked Bedier about is Randall Todd "Ismail" Royer, former CAIR Communications Specialist. He is now serving a 20-year prison term for terrorist plotting.

But did Royer really, as Bedier claimed, commit his terror-related crimes after he left CAIR? Timelines listed in Royer’s indictment, specifically for September 2001, and a news article that demonstrates Royer speaking as a representative of CAIR on September 18, 2001 are on record. His crimes took place at around the same time. (See pages 15-20 of the pdf.)

If Royer’s conviction were an isolated incident, Bedier’s response to Hannity’s question might have had some legitimacy. However, it is by no means isolated:

In September 2003, Bassem K. Khafagi pleaded guilty to charges of visa and bank fraud in federal court in Detroit. At the time of his arrest, Khafagi was Community Affairs director with CAIR.

12/17/2002: Ghassan Elashi, the founder of CAIR's Texas chapter, according to his indictment, was involved in selling technology, goods and commodities to designated terror-sponsoring states.

In July 2004, the Holy Land Foundation, an Islamic charity organization, was shut down by our Government and indicted on charges of providing material support to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization. Lo and behold, the name of the Holy Land Foundation’s Chairman of the Board was ... Ghassan Elashi.

Details of all this can be found here. See pages 6-12.

And again, who petitioned the U.S. Government to unfreeze HLF’s assets? Wasn't it CAIR?

(On page 8 of the indictment, incidentally, the name Sheik Ahmed Yassin appears. This is the same individual whom CAIR is on record as labeling an "Islamic religious leader." This is the same "religious leader" who was instrumental in founding the jihad terrorist group Hamas.)

Ghassan Elashi also has an interesting family member. He is the cousin of Nadia Elashi, aka Nadia Marzook, who happens to be the wife of Mousa Abu Marzook, aka Abu Omar, Deputy Chief of the Hamas terrorist organization’s Political Bureau. For details, see:

http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/infocom/uselashi121702sind.pdf (Pp. 6-9)
http://www.4law.co.il/hlf2.htm
http://www.dallasarena.com/t040730cbs11.htm
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13175
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=9981

No matter what side of the political arena we are on, it is of the utmost importance that we always recognize when and from where an enemy is coming at us, retain the ability to turn in their direction -- and relegate the enemy to history.

We would be dishonored if we ever allowed the United States to be brought down from within. Unless, of course, all of the information about CAIR in this column is purely coincidental.

Please keep this information in mind. Be aware: there are foxes in our henhouse, and their removal has become necessary for the good of the country.

Assyrian Christians of Iraq Wanted to Vote But Were Not Allowed

No democracy for dhimmis. From AINA, with thanks to Nicolei:

Mubarak Sliva (58) sits in front of "Muntaka" coffe shop by an old table and drinks tea out of a little glass with his friends Michael and Jacob, He watches Shiites and the Kurds celebrating their election victory which will allow them to rule the country. Again and again Mubarak looks at this but seem like every time he feels like being stabbed in the heart. His friends feel sad also. The "Muntaka" is social center of the city of Qaraqosh located 15 kilometers distance from Mosul. All 30,000 inhabitants are Christian Assyrian who were prevented fom voting during the Iraqi elections."No one heard our voices, we were deprived of our constitutional right as in the Saddam Husseins time, nothing has changed", shouts Mubarak Sliva.

East of Mosul, there are many places where only Christians live but because they wear the typical Arab clothing they are not noticed. Out of the 200,000 Assyrians in the region 90 percent were not allowed to vote. "The large iraqi parties celebrate, and the USA wants to establish democracy in Iraq but the minorites will not be part of it", complained Mubarak Sliva: " not even once any body cared to mention in Baghdad that we were deceived. It was alleged that they did not know what happened. That is a lie. Three weeks ago the American consul from Mosul visited us."

Louis Markus Ayoob (45), the deputy mayor and representative of the electoral committee for Qaraqosh, has testified that it was Kurd's intention to keep Christians from voting.

Turkey: 'Missionaries the new crusaders'

In response to EU requests that Turkey treat its religious minorities more fairly. From the Turkish Daily News, with thanks to Nicolei:

The Religious Affairs Directorate, as a reaction to missionary activities in Turkey and European Union demands for religious expression, has prepared a sermon that will be read on March 11 describing missionaries as the current embodiment of the Crusaders.

The sermon says: “Some powers, afraid of the incredible expansion of Islam, had formed crusading armies to wipe out Muslims. They failed because the Crusaders were fighting a self-confident society whose members believed in justice. The same powers are trying to sever our people's links to Islam because they see it as the biggest obstacle to their domination.....”

Norway: Pro-Israeli Politician Gets Death Threats

From Norwegian Kafir's superb new weblog, Fjordman. Links throughout at the Fjordman site:

Member of Parliament for the rightwing Progress Party, Ulf Erik Knudsen, was accompanied by a bodyguard during a debate arranged by the Immigration Council in the town of Drammen outside Oslo this week. The debate was about whether or not Islam could function as a bridge with Christianity:

He is an internationally certified bodyguard, hired by the party, Knudsen confirms. According to him, both the police and the security services at Parliament have been informed, since MPs for the Progress Party have received a marked increase in the number of death threats recently. Knudsen claims the threats are aggressive, but not specific in nature, saying that ”the next time somebody from the Progress Party takes part in a debate about immigration, the person will be taken care of forever”. – I don’t know for how long I will employ a bodyguard, but it is clear that the security precautions during this fall’s parliamentary elections will be extensive. Usually, it is primarily party leader Carl I. Hagen who gets special protection, but this may now change. Knudsen in particular is exposed to these kinds of threats for other reasons: - I have on many different occasions voiced my support for Israel in the conflict with the Palestinians. Last year this lead to a number of serious threats against my person.

Drammen has one of the highest percentages of Muslim immigrants of any Norwegian city, but being harassed for suspected pro-Israeli opinions isn’t a problem unique to Drammen. A municipally employed teacher in Kristiansand was prevented from wearing a Star of David around his neck. Kristiansand Adult Education Center, where the man works, ruled that the Jewish symbol could be deemed a provocation towards the many Muslim students at the school.

Read it all.

Anti-Americanism in the Turkish Media

Looks as if they'll be a natural for the EU. Note the straightforward Islamic references from the "secular" Turkish media, sounding as strong as anything we have seen from any forthright jihadist. From MEMRI, with thanks to all who sent this in:

"Bush is America's Hitler. Like Hitler, he too has become a curse for the world. If the world's sensible leaders don't unite against Bush to stop him, a great number of people will die because of his ambitions.

"Hitler was very racist. Bush, who is an ally of the Zionists, belongs to the racist philosophy too. The beliefs of Bush's evangelical church coupled with Jewish racism, which exceeds Hitler's, are sufficient proof that the 'Sharon and Bush duo' are militants of the same fanatical philosophy.

"Hitler said that he would establish a new world order if Germany won. Bush is after similar invasions. First he targeted Afghanistan and Iraq. Later he expanded his invasion map to include 22 more Islamic countries where he wants to change the order and the borders. He says that he wants to bring the likes of Karzai and Allawi [to these countries] to power, and in doing so establish his colonial empire....

"Conclusion: It is clear that these developments will finally come to the end that our beloved Prophet [Mohammed] promised us. Our Prophet Lord said: Around the time of 'judgment day' there will be a war between my peoples [Muslim believers] and the Jews. And the Jews will be vanquished.During that war the rocks will speak and say, 'O Muslim, there is a zionist hiding behind me, come and kill him…'" [3]

'The Pervert Enemies of Islam'

In the Islamic daily Milli Gazette, columnist Burhan Bozgeyik wrote: "At the present, the American administration is in the hands of the worst enemies of Islam. Their hate is so deep that no amount of Muslim blood [spilled by them] satisfies them. Tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of (Muslim) dead, seem little for them....

In the Turkish business daily Dunya, columnist Dr. Burhan Ozfatura, who is a former mayor of Izmir, wrote: "It is my sincere belief that the USA is the biggest danger for Turkey, today and in the future. At the present the U.S.A. is run by an incompetent, very aggressive, true enemy of Islam, brainwashed with evangelical nonsense, a blood-thirsty team that is a loyal link in Israel's command and control chain."

Putting the fear of God into Holland

A provocative and important story from the Times Online, with thanks to Twostellas:

Not long ago, Holland prided itself as being the most tolerant and welcoming country in Europe for immigrants and asylum seekers. It had the credentials to prove it. So many have settled there, ethnic "minorities" are often in a majority. In the great Dutch cities of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and the Hague, the newcomers already outnumber the native Dutch among under-20-year-olds. They will soon be an absolute majority. Although the slump that followed the 1973 oil shock removed the urgent need to recruit labour, the Dutch accepted that the "guest workers" in the country could remain. The policy was to create a multicultural society in which cultural and ethnic differences were accepted and appreciated....

No longer. A sea change has taken place. It was evident after the death last month of a young Dutch Moroccan, identified only as Ali El B. Several hundred Moroccans congregated on the street where a driver had run him over, reversing into him after he had stolen her bag. They had made a shrine on the pavement, with flowers and candles, and there was talk of racism and murder. The crowd set off on a march to pay their respects at a mosque not far away. The boys were in a long gaggle at the front. The girls, neater, were in disciplined ranks at the rear. Some had Moroccan flags draped over their shoulders. They chanted in Arabic for a while, and passers-by looked and scurried on.

The mosque was on the ground floor in a row of old gabled houses, some converted into offices, that looked out over a broad waterway. A racing skiff, a pair, was splashing through the wavelets thrown up by a blustery gale. Television cameramen darted round the crowd as it milled outside the mosque. An elderly Dutchman looked down from his flat at the sea of hoods and scarves and red-and-green flags, with an utterly forlorn expression.

Nobody doubts that Ali El B would once have become a martyred innocent. Now, attempts to portray him like that were sat on fast and hard. The fiercest comment came from Geert Wilders. The hard line this right-wing MP takes on immigrants and terrorists has made him the fastest-rising star in the political firmament.

It has also brought threats of beheading from radical Islamists, so he is now shackled to six bodyguards and has secure lodgings on army bases. "All Moroccan troublemakers should be expelled," Wilders says. "The government wants to expel terrorists. The same process should be used for street terrorists like Ali El B. Detain them, de-naturalise them and deport them." Wilders is a firebrand. Rita Verdonk is the minister for immigration and integration, and a mainstream Conservative. She, too, is implacable. "If the boy hadn't stolen the bag," she says, "he'd be riding around on his scooter today."

Read it all.

Christian Copts of California to Hold Candle Light Vigil TODAY in Santa Monica

A press release from the Christian Copts of California:

Christian Copts of California: Even If It Leads to Cells of Radical Islamists in America, Justice Demands That Jersey City Police Search Every Clue to Find Murderers of Armanious Family

The Armanious family fled Luxor, Egypt to escape Islamist extremists and came to America where they could express their freedom of speech. It wasn't far enough. They have been murdered. Is it religious motivated?

To the Copts, Egyptian Christians - an American community of several hundred thousand, this is old stuff ... it's why they fled Egypt. But here? In America? Are quiet and hidden Islamist extremist cells coming to life in America? These cells, comprised of U.S. citizens - nice guys next door - don't share our love of the First Amendment: freedom of speech, freedom of religion.

Christian Copts of California will hold a candle light vigil on February 27, 5 to 7 PM at the Santa Monica, California pier (Ocean and Colorado) to rouse the Jersey City police to investigate fully every clue of the Armanious murder.

A large turnout of Coptic Christians from all of Southern California is expected.

Contact: Mounir Bishay of the Christian Copts of California, 310-641-3387 or Calcopts@aol.com

'How many more women have to die before this society wakes up?'

Honor killing in Germany. Note the attitudes of the students. Hatin Sürücü update. From The Telegraph, with thanks to EPG:

Shortly before nine o'clock one Monday evening earlier this month, Hatin Sürücü left her five-year-old son asleep in their small apartment in the Tempelhof district of Berlin and made her way to a bus stop in the main Oberlandgarten Strasse. Minutes later, a volley of pistol shots rang out but no one came to help Mrs Sürücü, 23, who was of Turkish origin. A bus driver discovered her body, with multiple wounds to the head and chest, about 40 minutes later and called the police.

Last week, Mrs Sürücü's three brothers, aged 18 to 25, who were arrested six days after the attack, were formally charged with the murder. They have pleaded not guilty and were remanded in custody.

Police are investigating whether Mrs Sürücü was the victim of a so-called "honour killing" after she made the decision to leave the cousin with whom she had been forced into an arranged marriage eight years earlier.

The police said that Mrs Sürücü had frequently complained of being threatened by her brothers.

If they are found guilty, Mrs Sürücü's murder will be the sixth "honour killing" within Berlin's 200,000-strong Muslim community in four months. Shocking as that is, the reactions of some Turkish immigrant children at a school whose main gates are yards from the scene of the shooting has caused even graver concern.

Asked by teachers what they thought of the murder, several 13-year-old pupils are said to have implied that they thought Mrs Sürücü had "earned" her death. "Well, she lived like a German, didn't she?" remarked one. Mrs Sürücü got married in Turkey at the age of 15 but returned with her son to her birthplace, Berlin, more than five years ago.

Minneapolis: Christian Afghan fears for life if deported

Another story showing that the threat of death for those who leave Islam is not a relic of history, but is very real today. And it's a positive development that the appeals court is actually taking this seriously. "Christian Afghan fears for life if deported," from Knight Ridder, with thanks to Twostellas:

Years after his conversion to Christianity, Ahmad Ahmadshah, 43, a Minneapolis cabdriver, explained that moment to a U.S. immigration judge. Ahmadshah described how he had received a Bible from friends in Pakistan and read it in secret at his home near Kabul, Afghanistan, in 1988.

"I read a book, and my heart accepted," Ahmadshah said. "I believe that this is the book that says the truth."

Today, Ahmadshah is convinced that his faith could cost him his life.

He has lived in the United States since 1996, but U.S. immigration authorities are trying to deport him for visa violations - despite evidence that his sister was killed for her Christian faith in 1993 by religious soldiers answering to a warlord still active in Afghanistan.

This month, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals made Ahmadshah's deportation less certain. A three-judge panel threw out an order from the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals, which had rejected his application for asylum.

The judges ordered immigration judges to reconsider his case, taking into account how apostates - Muslims who reject Islam - are treated in Afghanistan.

"The murder of Ahmadshah's sister points to a pattern of violence perpetrated against Christian converts and was coupled with a threat directed at Ahmadshah himself," the appeals court wrote.

Integration according to Qaradawi

Sharia alert. From "Integration Tops European Fatwa Council Meeting" in Islam Online, with thanks to Nicolei:

DUBLIN, February 24, 2005 (IslamOnline.net) – Eminent scholar Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi has inaugurated the 14th session of the European Council for Fatwa and Research (ECFR) with a call for the sizable Muslim minority in Europe to integrate into and contribute to the advancement of society.

“A Muslim should stick to the balanced and moderate Islam. He should be integrated into the society where he lives without violating the rules of Shari`ah,” Sheikh Qaradawi, the head of ECFR, told the opening session on Wednesday, February 23.

Of course, Qaradawi is the famous moderate who recently declared his hope that he would die in jihad warfare.

This is what makes guys like Omid Safi nervous

Anti-dhimmitude at Brandeis. "My problem is not the anti-Zionism or even that many of them are anti-American, but that they are third-rate." Such that they hide behind their degrees in order to avoid unpleasant debate on the facts, eh, Omid?

"A lesson in academic politics," from the Jerusalem Post, with thanks to JS:

When the controversy at Columbia University erupted last fall over charges of anti-Israel bias in courses on the Middle East, many American Jews saw the brouhaha as another alarming sign that pro-Arab academics had gained the upper hand in university Middle East studies departments.

Mideast studies had become polemicized, and American Jews sought to ameliorate matters by pushing for the creation of Israel studies chairs and ensuring that courses on the Arab-Israeli conflict were taught by professors sympathetic to Israel.

But where many American Jews saw political bias, Brandeis University president Jehuda Reinharz saw something else: academic mediocrity.

The controversy underscored for Reinharz what had become an endemic problem in the field: Politics had superseded scholarship as a test of who was fit to teach the Middle East, with the result that political indoctrination had replaced research-driven academic inquiry.

"My problem is not the anti-Zionism or even that many of them are anti-American, but that they are third-rate," Reinharz said in a recent interview with the Jerusalem Post at his Brandeis office, referring to university Middle East studies departments. "The quality of the people [in Mideast studies] is unlike any of the qualities we expect in any other field."

Reinharz has set out to change that by creating a new center for Middle East studies at Brandeis, which he hopes will set a much-needed example of academic rigor in the field.

"We need a first-rate center for Middle East studies that is not pro or con anything," Reinharz said.

Amen! And if it were really politically neutral and academically honest, it would have room for an Institute of Dhimmitude Studies and a Center for the Study of Jihad. And more.

Canada: Terrorist returns; Conservative party leader urges Ottawa to consider not playing the dhimmi

What natural right does a man with this kind of record have to enter Canada? "Terrorist returns: Peter MacKay urges Ottawa to consider revoking citizenship," from the National Post, with thanks to Martin:

TORONTO - One of Canada's most notorious terrorist leaders has returned home to Montreal after serving four years in a French prison for his role in an international jihadist network.

Fateh Kamel, a 44-year-old Algerian-Canadian who headed a Montreal-based extremist cell, arrived in Montreal on Jan. 29 aboard an Air France flight, sources told the National Post.

A charismatic shopkeeper who led a double life as the international terrorist operative "Moustapha," Kamel was dubbed the "Islamist Carlos" because of his remarkable exploits around the world.

"I am GIA," he once said in a conversation intercepted by Italian counter-terrorism investigators. GIA is the French acronym for the Algerian Armed Islamic Group. "Killing is easy for me."...

Captured in Jordan in 1999, Kamel was tried in Paris in 2001 and convicted for his involvement with terrorist groups. Although sentenced to eight years' imprisonment, he was released early for good behaviour. He has a Canadian wife and son.

Peter MacKay, the Conservative Party's deputy leader and public safety critic, urged the government to consider revoking Kamel's Canadian citizenship. Canada has used such tactics against Nazi war criminals.

"By all means we should be examining revocation, and certainly there is cause for the Canadian government, for our officials, to examine whether he was truthful at the time of his entry into this country," Mr. MacKay said.

"I have a real problem with us just saying we'll let bygones be bygones. I don't think most Canadians have much comfort level knowing that this convicted terrorist is now back in our country."

Peter MacKay for PM!

UK: Muslim wins right to new tribunal

More British madness: how is it racial discrimination to require a man not to walk off his job at odd hours? From the BBC, with thanks to Twostellas:

An appeals body has allowed a challenge by Mohamed Loke, from Aston in Birmingham, to an earlier employment tribunal's rejection of his claim.

He claimed he was not allowed to pray at his local mosque while he worked at Calthorpe Special School in 2003....

Mr Loke told the earlier hearing he believed he was racially discriminated against because it was every male Muslim's duty to attend Friday prayers.

Calthorpe School caters for children with severe and profound learning difficulties.

The school claimed that on 9 June, 2003, Mr Loke was responsible for one-on-one care for a pupil and was told he could not attend prayers, but did anyway.

Afghani women face misery in Nuristan

Sharia alert: this is what results from Qur'an 4:34, which sanctions wife-beating, and Islam's easy divorce. From IRIN, with thanks to Twostellas:

NURISTAN, 24 February (IRIN) - The wooden hut of Zulaikha, a 45-year-old midwife, remains the only ray of hope for destitute women in the Nuristan valley, in northeastern Nuristan province. Dozens of women gather around Zulaikha, many of them after travelling from snow-capped mountains after a day's journey by foot.

While some come for treatment, others have been severely beaten by their husbands or forced to leave their homes and children. Many women claim that their husbands have sent them back to their parents after coming down with tuberculosis (TB), the province's chief health concern, or that they had become weak as a result of poor nourishment.

"My husband beat me and kicked me out after my sickness [TB] became serious," Bibi Hawa, a 30-year-old housewife, told IRIN, after speaking with Zulaikha, the only literate woman and health worker in Kamdish and Bargmatal districts, with a population of over 100,000.

"He threw me out to take revenge on my father who had received 30 cows as a dowry for my wedding," she exclaimed.

Sharon Says Abbas Must 'Wipe Out' Militant Groups

For a long time in Israel it has looked as if one side was determined to make concessions in exchange for peace, despite the other side's manifest inability and likely unwillingness to secure peace in exchange for those concessions or any other. But here at last Sharon strikes a different, non-dhimmi pose. From Reuters, with thanks to JS:

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, responding to a Palestinian suicide bombing that killed four Israelis, said on Sunday new Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas must "wipe out" militant groups before peacemaking can resume.

"There will not be any diplomatic progress, I repeat, no diplomatic progress, until the Palestinians take vigorous action to wipe out the terror groups and their infrastructure in the Palestinian Authority's territory," Sharon told his cabinet.

Anti-dhimmitude: Germany shuts down Holocaust-denying jihadist paper

It had a circulation of 10,000 from among that distressingly large tiny minority of extremists. "Germany shuts down Islamist newspaper," from DPA, with thanks to Jeff Lastname:

BERLIN - Germany closed down on Friday a Turkish-language Islamist daily newspaper that has denied the Holocaust.

Interior Minister Otto Schily put a banning order on the Yeni Akit publishing house, which brings out the European edition of Anadoluda Vakit. The title means "the times in Anatolia". Prosecutors have been collecting evidence against the newspaper for months.

The Interior Ministry in Berlin said the closure was ordered because Vakit had incited to ethnic hate. The newspaper had attacked Israel, Jews in general and the fundamentals of western society....

Despite warnings, the newspaper recently ran a letter headed "Hitler was right". In December last year, a member of parliament held up an issue that claimed "There Was No Holocaust" and appealed to the government to ban the paper.

Iraqi students protest day off on Jewish Sabbath

A day off on a dhimmi holiday? No way! And don't miss the part about the hand grenade: they don't even do that at Evander Childs, a famously lethal school located in my old haunts in the Bronx.

"Iraqi students protest day off on Jewish Sabbath," from AP, with thanks to Charles Martel:

It's not that the Iraqis do not want time off - they just want the extra day moved to Thursday.

"We don't want Saturday! It's a Jewish holiday!" students chanted as they marched in protest last week to the governor's office in Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad.

A high-school student pulled out a hand grenade and started waving it, and police fired into the air to disperse the crowd. At least three students reportedly were injured in the ensuing scuffle.

At Baghdad's University of Mustansariyah, a statement issued by a student union believed to be allied with the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr described Saturday as "the Zionist holiday" and said the government order should not be followed.

"We declare a general strike in the University of Mustansariyah to reject this decision and any decision aimed at depriving Iraqis of their identity," the statement said.

When Freedom Gets the Death Sentence

Honor killing in Germany. "I'm not saying you should murder, but Hatin's lifestyle just didn't fit the way traditional Muslims live." From Deutsche Welle, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

On a cold afternoon this week, Hatin Sürücü gazed gravely from a large poster behind a bus stop lined with flowers, cards and candles.

To the people who came to this bleak part of Berlin's Tempelhof district for Tuesday's solemn vigil -- called not by the city's Muslim community but a gay and lesbian organization -- the image of the young woman in a headscarf, a baby in her arms, was familiar from newspapers and television. A few notes at the memorial read, "Hope you get a better deal in your next life," and "Live a life on your own terms."

"It's a scandal," said Ali K, 33. "All Muslims in Berlin should take to the streets to protest." Yasemin, 22, said, "It's horrific. All Hatin was doing was leading her life the way she wanted."

But it was a choice she paid for with her life. On Feb. 7, 23-year-old Hatin Sürücü was gunned down at the aforementioned bus stop. She died on the spot. Shortly afterwards, three of her brothers -- who reportedly had long been threatening her -- were arrested. Investigators suspect it was a so-called "honor killing," given the fact that Sürücü's ultra-conservative Turkish-Kurdish family strongly disapproved of her modern and "un-Islamic" life....

At Berlin's Turkish-dominated neighborhood near Kottbusser Tor in the Kreuzberg district, 17-year-old Erkan, a high school student of Turkish origin, was divided about the issue. "I'm not saying you should murder, but Hatin's lifestyle just didn't fit the way traditional Muslims live," he said.

Bat Ye'or on C-Span tomorrow morning

From C-Span:

On Sunday, February 27 at 7:30 am

Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis
Bat Ye'or

Description: Bat Ye'or talks about her new book, "Eurabia," at the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC. She looks at the relationship between European and Arab countries since the mid-20th century and argues that Muslims living in Western Europe have significantly influenced their governments' attitudes toward Israel and other countries in the Middle East. During the talk, she also discusses why Turkey should not be allowed into the European Union and addresses the question of European anti-Semitism. Bat Ye'or answers questions from the audience following her remarks.

Turkey: "There is nothing about religious tolerance here"

Stop the presses! Religious intolerance in (gasp) secular Turkey, heir of the illustrious Ottoman Empire! "Santa Claus statue row in Turkey," from the BBC, with thanks to Susan:

Residents of the Turkish province of Antalya have held a rally to denounce the removal of a statue of St Nicholas, commonly known as Santa Claus.

Local authorities replaced the statue of the saint holding a Bible with a plastic Santa-Claus.

The statue was a donation from Moscow mayor Yuri Luzhkov, who has sent a complaint to the Turkish president....

Despite being a predominantly Muslim country, Turkey is proud of its St Nicholas connection.

Is that so? Then what explains this incident?

The Russian artist who sculpted the statue, Gregory Pototsky, reacted angrily to its removal.

"It is not decent to do such things with gifts. There is nothing about religious tolerance here," he told the Newsru.com web site.

Demre has become a major tourist attraction, with Russians comprising a large part of international holiday-makers in Antalya.

France: LePen's "racial hatred" conviction upheld

It is unfortunate that the only people saying things like this are Jean-Marie Le Pen, whose name is already so closely associated with racism and anti-Semitism. It further obfuscates the fact that Europe is facing an ideological threat, and that the only reason to object to Muslim population growth in Europe is not because Muslims are of a different race from Frenchmen. The court condemns Le Pen simply for noting this population growth; its decision shows that it is the official French view that such growth is benign, and no dissent is tolerated. But the court seems to have said nothing about the Sharia or the possibility of its coming to France with this growing population, and leading to the overhaul of French society and the denial of French history and culture. "Far-right leader’s conviction upheld," from AP, with thanks to Ian:

Le Pen, leader of the National Front party, was ordered to pay a £6900 fine for inciting racial hatred in comments in Le Monde newspaper two years ago.

Le Pen has been convicted of racism or anti-Semitism at least six times.

He blames immigrants, especially those from North Africa, for high unemployment and wants to deport all illegal immigrants.

He wants to deport illegal immigrants? Horror of horrors!

In the interview, Le Pen urged the French to beware of "the day in France when we have 25 million Muslims, not five million" — the estimated population of Muslims in France.

The appeals court in Paris said such comments could incite hatred. "In denouncing such a threat, Jean-Marie Le Pen tends to stir in the reader a feeling of hostility and rejection toward Muslims depicted as dominators," the written ruling stated.

'Insulted by a Jew'

Here is another case of dhimmitude coming to the UK. Islamic law stipulates that a dhimmi who does not behave respectfully toward a Muslim voids his contract of "protection." Riaz Burahee probably thought that 92 threatening phone calls was a perfectly reasonable response to an insult from a Jew. It reminds me of a recent incident in which a Christian church in the U.S. was sending out flyers inviting people to attend. A Muslim called the pastor in hot anger, telling him never to send him such material again -- and repeating again and again that he had "no right" to send him such a thing in the first place. And the church indeed had no right to do so, from the standpoint of the laws of the dhimma, which have become ingrained into Middle Eastern culture and so still frame interaction between Muslims and non-Muslims in many areas.

From SkyNews, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

A Muslim man bombarded synagogues with telephone calls for three days threatening to kill, rape and blow up Jews.

Riaz Burahee, 25, of Edmonton, north London, who has photographs of Osama bin Laden at his home, admitted 10 offences.

Wood Green Crown Court heard Burahee told police he made the calls because he had been insulted by a Jew.

The court heard he had made as many as 92 calls, telling people to leave the building or be bombed.

Burahee, who described himself as a Muslim with strong religious beliefs, said he had no links to terrorism.

Photographs of Bin Laden and militant US civil rights activist Malcolm X were found in his room.

Dutch expel fourth imam in anti-terror offensive

Anti-dhimmitude in Holland. Why aren't other countries doing more of this? From Expatica, with thanks to Nicolei:

AMSTERDAM — A cleric from a Rotterdam mosque has become the fourth imam to be ordered out of the Netherlands, it has been reported.

The fourth man was brought to an airport on Thursday, the biggest selling daily newspaper in the Netherlands, De Telegraaf, reported.

Although he was not named, the newspaper cited "well-informed sources" identifying him as an imam at Iskender Pasa Camii mosque on the Insulindestraat in the Rotterdam district of Bergpolder.

He was being expelled after being found to have provoked hatred and inciting people to jihad or holy war.

Iran girl gets 100 lashes for sex

How did they establish that she consented? This article doesn't say, but it was probably from the testimony of the men involved. Traditional Islamic law disallows a woman's testimony in such a case. From the BBC, with thanks to Kemaste:

A teenage girl and two young men in Iran have been sentenced to lashes for having sex.

The court dismissed the girl's claim that [she] was raped. It said she had sex of her own free will, the official Iran Daily newspaper reported.

The girl was sentenced to 100 lashes because her accusations of rape and kidnap could have landed her partners a death penalty, the Tehran judge said....

The young men in the case were sentenced to 30 and 40 lashes each. ...

Under Iranian law, girls over the age of nine and boys over 16 face the death penalty for crimes such as rape and murder, while capital punishment can be imposed in certain cases of illegal sexual relationships.

Nine year old girls facing the death penalty for rape: do you think they are the perpetrators?

Pakistan: Christian jailed for insulting Koran

The Sharia is not in force anywhere except Saudi Arabia and Iran, you'll hear. Christians enjoy rights equal to those of Muslims in other Muslim countries, you'll hear. Then why are there so many stories like this one?

From IOL.ie, with thanks to Nicolei:

A Pakistani court has convicted and sentenced a Christian man to seven years in prison for insulting Islam’s holy book, the Koran, as he practiced magic, police said today.

A court delivered the ruling on Monday against Bashir Masih, 35, in the town of Chistian, about 90 miles northeast of Multan, a major city in eastern Punjab province, said Haji Nazir Ahmed, a local police official.

Masih was arrested in August last year in the cotton-growing village of Chak 109 Fateh after a Muslim man complained to police that Masih was insulting the Koran by putting his legs on the holy book while he lay in bed at home, Ahmed said.

Ahmed said that after his arrest Masih told police he would place the Koran on his feet and tear out pages from the holy book on which he would write magic spells to put inside amulets that he’d give to fellow Christians.

This doesn't sound to me like anything anyone with the brains God gave a hamster would admit to doing in Pakistan, no matter what the actual facts of the case. This sounds to me more likely to be just another example of the way Christians are victimized by the blasphemy laws, which are so easy for Muslims to use against Christians they for some reason don't like or want around.

Masih was sentenced under Pakistan’s blasphemy laws and moved to a jail in the nearby town of Bhawalnagar. He can appeal the sentence....

Under the blasphemy laws, anyone who insults the Koran, Islam or its prophet Muhammad can be punished by death. Throwing the holy book on the ground, touching it with feet or saying derogatory things about it are deemed insulting.

Human rights groups have demanded that the blasphemy laws be abolished. Christian groups allege persecution under the legislation.

Turkish Prime Minister's Lawsuits Draw Cartoonists' Ire

Let them into the EU! Note that Kart has drawn Erdogan's ire (that's right: he has irked the Turk) by noting the encroachment of Islam into public life in this secular state. From the LA Times, with thanks to Nicolei:

ANKARA, Turkey — This nation's best-known political cartoonists gathered in Istanbul on Wednesday to protest legal action taken by the prime minister against artists who criticized him through their work.

Members of the Turkish Cartoonists Assn. accuse Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of trying to stifle free expression even as Turkey is preparing to launch talks to win membership in the European Union.

"We cartoonists have long faced pressure from politicians," Metin Peker, the association's president, said at a news conference.

"Just as we thought those dark days were over, we have been confronted with this."

Peker was referring to a defamation suit filed recently by Erdogan against Musa Kart, a cartoonist for the secular daily newspaper Cumhuriyet. Kart was fined $3,500 by an Ankara court last week on charges of assailing Erdogan's honor in a cartoon that depicted him as a cat enmeshed in a ball of wool.

The work was published by Cumhuriyet in May, when the Turkish leader proposed a legislation that would allow graduates of Islamic clerical training schools to enter secular universities. In the cartoon, Erdogan, who is entangled in yarn labeled for the Islamic religious schools, says: "Do not create tensions. We shall resolve this matter."

Turkish secularists accused the former Islamist leader of doing just what the cartoon figure warned against by trying to increase the role of Islam in public life. The bill was rejected by the country's secularist president, Ahmet Necdet Sezer.

Give dhimmitude a chance

"Give peace a chance," by James Carroll in the Boston Globe, recounts a Jewish/Christian/Muslim meeting in Jerusalem to stand "against a global holy war."

In Jerusalem this week, Jews, Christians, and Muslims have gathered to examine the ways their own respective theologies -- "I'm saved, and you're not!" -- have sacralized this habit of negation, making it a source of political denigration, even violence. More accurately, we Jews, Christians, and Muslims are searching our traditions for countering sources of affirmation of the "other," precisely as a way of standing against a global holy war.

This is the 18th International Theological Conference at the Shalom Hartman Institute, a long-established gathering of distinguished Jewish and Christian theologians (founded by Rabbi David Hartman and Harvard Divinity School Dean Emeritus Krister Stendahl), which, some years ago expanded to include Islamic religious thinkers.

This year several dozen men and women are arrayed around one large block of tables, about evenly divided among the three traditions, and among Europeans, Americans, Israelis, Palestinians, and others from the Middle East. Notre Dame, Duke, and the University of Arkansas are here; so are Lund, Haifa, Al Quds, and Bethlehem universities. A leading Catholic authority on Thomas Aquinas is here, together with a Protestant expert on Roger Williams, and a major scholar of Jewish political thought. A foremost Muslim-American scholar is here.

When this three-way seminar began a few years ago, the discussions were braced by the local war between Israel and Palestine. That remains, but now the new threat of a "civilizational" war between Islam and "the West" underscores the relevance of otherwise abstract discussions. But even before the "dialogue" begins, the presence at the table of Muslims from Europe and the United States requires an opening up of stereotypes: Are there no Muslims in "the West"? And what about the Palestinians who are Christian? As each group reexamines its attitude toward "the other," the titles of the formal presentations indicate the range of the week's moral and political reckoning:

"Catholic Struggles Toward Full Religious Liberty; Appreciating Vatican II."

"The Earliest Concept of an Islamic State with Non-Muslim Citizens."

"Beyond Bi-Polarity: Shared Civic Discourse of Jews and Non-Jews."

"Roger Williams on Civil Rule and the Religiously Other."

"Building an Islamic Theology of Pluralism: Pre-modern Sources."

"Ways of Peace in Rabbinic Literature."

Such topics might once have seemed impossibly arcane, but not here; not now. Justice for Palestinians, authentic security for Israel -- the very peace of the world are all at stake in such questions. For every person at the table, any temptation to devotional piety is preempted by the acknowledged fact of history, put succinctly by a rabbi; "Religion has never been a source of tolerance. Again and again we must ask, 'Why has there been all this killing in the name of God?' " Instead of glibly honoring the Christian tradition as a source of peace, a Jesuit salutes the civic tolerance made possible by the French Revolution. A Muslim declares simply that the self-aggrandizing of much contemporary Islamic thought represents "a new idolatry." Speakers from all three traditions admit the gap between the shared ideals of compassionate love and the failures of the past and present.

There is more than a whiff of what in Islam Unveiled I term "theological equivalence" in all this. "Shared ideals of compassionate love"? I wonder if James Carroll would be so kind as to show where the ideal of compassionate love for non-Muslims can be found in Islam.

Also, Nicolei observes: "Today, Jews and Christian do not kill their apostates or infidels. Neither do their synagogues or churches teach such doctrines. Nor are there secular laws in nations of Judeo-Christian heritage that punish apostates or laws based on a dhimmi system. Jews and Christians can separate religion from the state; Muslims tenets simply do not allow for such separation. The fact is that Muslims are free to practice Islam, proselyte and build their mosques in the West, while such liberties are restricted or non-existent for non-Muslim religions in Muslim nations -- particularly in the Arabian peninsula." Let's see a seminar deal with all that.

Rangel: Don't Call it 'Islamic Terrorism'

Ranking House Dhimmicrat Charlie Rangel repeats what by now are well-worn pieties re Islam. From NewsMax, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

Top House Democrat Charlie Rangel said Tuesday that it was an act of discrimination to label groups like Hezbollah "Islamic terrorists."

Asked about the refusal by some European governments to declare Hezbollah an Islamic terror group, Rangel told WWRL's Steve Malzberg and Karen Hunter, "To call it Islamic terror is discriminating, it's bigoted, it is not the right thing to say."

Rangel even questioned whether, in fact, a worldwide Islamic terrorist movement even existed, saying, "We just take for granted that there is an Islamic terror movement because we do have some fanatic people who come from Islamic countries."

The Harlem Democrat complained: "When we had the Ku Klux Klan we didn't call them Baptist terrorists. When Hitler was killing Jews, we didn't call it Christian terrorists."

Now pay attention, Charlie: I'm only going to say this around 10,000 times. The KKK and Hitler could not and did not invoke Christian theology to justify their actions. Islamic jihadists, in contrast, routinely invoke Islamic theology and tradition to justify what they do and recruit new members from the larger Muslim community. Until you and other pols from the President on down understand and acknowledge this, you will simply not be addressing the problem of Islamic terrorism at its roots. But unfortunately, all your denials that it exists are not going to make Islamic terrorism go away.

More schoolbook dhimmitude

I give the history of Muhammad's massacre of the Qurayzah Jews in Onward Muslim Soldiers. But American schoolchildren are learning a somewhat different version. "Module for Teaching Islamic History in Public Schools Unfairly Maligns the Qurayzah Jews," by Andre Rublev at the 6th Column Against Jihad blog:

Due to the exponential growth in demand for information about Islamic history, we cannot ignore the intense competition over what version of events our children will learn. After all, the impact of first impressions on impressionable young minds cannot be underestimated. Well ahead of the game, the Council on Islamic Education has prepared a teaching module for use in public high and middle schools whose sole purpose is to pre-empt all negative impressions relating to Muhammad’s harsh treatment of the Bani Qurayzah following the Battle of the Trench.

The CIE is not a stranger to controversy. William Bennetta of the California-based Textbook League first pointed out the CIE’s pernicious influence over history textbooks used in American schools in both the March-April and July-August 2000 issues of The Textbook Letter [1, 2]. More recently, Gilbert T. Sewall of the American Textbook Council in New York City made similar observations. In his 2003 publication “Islam and the Textbooks” Sewall described the CIE as “a content gatekeeper with virtually unchecked power over publishers” [3]. The CIE is also involved with teacher training and the preparation of supplemental teaching modules. The module in question incorporates the controversial Public Television special “Legacy of a Prophet” and adds insult to injury by going so far as to vilify the hapless Qurayzah.

No account of Muhammad’s time in Medina can inconspicuously gloss over this incident because it is linked to Muhammad’s most important victory over Mecca. The historical setting is referred to as the “Hiraj.” This began when Muhammad and his followers relocated from Mecca to Yathrib in 622 after two rival tribes had asked him to mediate an exhausting civil war. During the following six years, Muhammad sealed important alliances by way of diplomacy and marriage. He also built up the wealth and military prestige of the Muslim community by raiding caravans organized by the Quraysh and by appropriating the property of banished tribes. Yathrib was later re-named “Medina” in Muhammad’s honor.

Consequently, the Quraysh sent forces from Mecca to put an end to Muhammad’s disruption of their trade, culminating in the “Battle of the Trench” in 627. Muhammad’s success in outlasting the siege was a turning point in his rivalry with the leadership of Mecca. By the time of his death in 632 most of the Arab peninsula was consolidated under Islam.

In 622, Medina was also inhabited by three large tribes of Jews; the Bani Nadir, the Bani Qaynuqah, and the Bani Qurayzah. By 627, both the Bani Nadir and the Banu Qaynuqa had been expelled to Khaybar, a region north of Medina. During their final attempt to subdue Medina, the Meccans sent envoys to the Bani Qurayzah hoping to win their support. The Meccans had already obtained the support of the two exiled Jewish tribes now living in Khaybar. Although hesitant at first, the Qurayzah finally sided with the Meccans as the siege dragged on. However, before the Qurayzah could effectively act on their decision the Meccans broke the siege due to foul weather. Well aware of the Qurayzah’s dealings with the Meccans, the Muslims now laid siege to the Qurayzah fortress until they surrendered. Mortally wounded Arab chief Sa'd ibn Muadh was chosen by Muhammad to decide their fate. He ruled that all the men should be killed, and all the women and children be sold into slavery. The next day, between 700 and 900 men of the Bani Qurayzah were beheaded [4, 5].

To present this massacre to American high school students in a more positive light, the CIE module emphasizes the alleged “treachery” of the Qurayzah [6]. Below are no less than seven sentences or phrases from the lesson plan that use the t-word:

1) Title: The Concept of Treason in Comparative Law
2) Overview: This lesson explores the theme of treason.
3) Students should be able to…analyze the issue of treason in the United States Constitution and during the Battle of the Trench.
4) Have students organize into groups and read Student Handout: The Battle of the Trench, which contains background information on the Battle of the Trench, the comments of Professor Firestone on the Bani Qurayzah, and the clause on treason in the third article of the United States Constitution.
5) Why would the siding of the Bani Qurayzah with the Quraysh be seen as treason?
6) Could the definition of treason given in Section 3, Article 3 of the Constitution apply to the actions of the Bani Qurayzah? If so, why?
7) Why do you think treason is punished so severely in U.S. law? Give several reasons.

The authors of this module, Susan Douglass and Aiyub Palmer, are not alone in being so heavy-handed with the unfortunate Qurayzah. In her bestseller “Muhammad” Karen Armstrong points out that, “In the early seventh century, an Arab chief would not be expected to show any mercy to traitors like the Qurayzah” [7]. Armstrong is one of the featured narrators on “Legacy of a Prophet” and a frequent guest on Public Television and National Public Radio.

These charges against the Qurayzah are based on their failure to uphold the principles laid out in Muhammad’s Constitution of Medina, which presumably provided equal rights to both Muslims and Jews. Furthermore, Muhammad had tried to ingratiate himself with the Jews by initially instructing his followers pray facing Jerusalem, but his relations with these tribes were reportedly tense from the start. The Public Television website based on “Legacy of a Prophet” suggests “This was probably a matter of local politics” [4]. But it is difficult to imagine how any group of non-Muslims could feel at ease with a document that acknowledges Muhammad as “God’s apostle.” Since no Jewish account has been recovered, we may never really know their side of the story. The best we can do for now is to follow Muslim accounts leading up to this terrible event to put the Qurayzah’s actions in perspective.

In 624 two Arab poets, an old man and a young mother of five were assassinated in their sleep for insulting the prophet. Most sources agree that the murders of Abu Afak and Asma bint Marwan were carried out with Muhammad’s blessings, even though their poetry only ridicule and satire. In the same year, the Qaynuqah were expelled and Muhammad ordered the assassination of Ka’b Ibn Ashraf, a poet and Nadir chief who was trying to garner up support among the Meccans for deposing Muhammad.

The expulsion of the Qaynuqah started with a picaresque incident at an outdoor market whereby some Qaynuqah youths played a trick on a Muslim girl that exposed her private parts. In the resulting melee, one Muslim and one Jew were killed. Unable or unwilling to resolve this incident peacefully, Muhammad’s forces laid siege to the Qaynuqah until they agreed to leave with little more than their lives.

The expulsion of the Bani Nadir during the next year is even more peculiar. In a case of mistaken identity, Muslims killed two members of the Bani Amir, a Bedouin tribe that had recently formed an alliance with Muhammad. Consequently, Muhammad’s community was obligated to pay blood money to the Amir chief, and Muhammad asked the Nadir to share the costs. The Nadir leadership apparently agreed to this request, but with no explanation, Muhammad cut short his visit to their tribal elders. He later told his companions that the angel Gabriel had revealed to him a plot for his assassination organized by members of the Nadir. Based on this “evidence,” the Nadir were banished under the same conditions of the Qaynuqah that had preceded them [5].

The murder of two poets guilty of “intellectual attack,” the murder of one of their chiefs, and the poor handling of the vulgar incident involving the Qaynuqah gave the Nadir strong motives for eliminating Muhammad. However, motive alone does not make you guilty, and no decent tribunal can accept evidence provided by one man’s “divine revelation.” No doubt the Qurayzah saw the writing on the wall.

It could be argued that Muhammad’s annihilation of this tribe was a matter of self-preservation. After all, had the Qurayzah been merely expelled, they could have later re-grouped with the Qaynuqah and Nadir, who Muhammad’s forces were to confront the next year in Khaybar. In effect, the Qurayzah’s co-existence with the Muslims had become a zero-sum game, but in view of their de-facto second-class status, the Qurayzah’s collaboration with the Meccans could hardly qualify as “treason.” In fact, even the Constitution of Medina’s guarantee of “equal protection” is ambiguous at best. For example, point 15 of this document states that “Believers are friends one to the other to the exclusion of outsiders” [8]. Incredibly, the CIE still finds it appropriate to encourage students to draw an analogy between the Constitution of Medina and the Mayflower Compact [9]!

How do we counter the CIE’s flagrant distortions when most Americans know so little about the early history of Islam? No doubt senators, representatives, and even educators will be reluctant to do their homework on the Qurayzah’s circumstances leading up to the Battle of the Trench. This is not the kind of information that can be reduced to a sound-byte, and the narratives that are easiest to read are usually written by mealy-mouthed Islam apologists. In fact, Karen Armstrong’s “Islam: A Short History” now forms a part of the reading list that General John R. Vines has assigned to his top staff members now serving in Iraq [10]. It is troubling enough that officials who are on the frontline in the War on Terror are relying on the questionable scholarship of this self-described “free-lance monotheist,” whose spiritual disorientation is thoroughly demonstrated in her book’s total surrender to moral relativism [11]. But since American-based Islamist organizations like the CIE are too young to have influenced the general’s secondary education, things could be worse: Try to imagine the reading preferences of a CIE-indoctrinated generation of American leaders. Isn’t it time we gave our representatives some real history lessons?

Notes:

1. http://www.textbookleague.org/111muha.htm
2. http://www.textbookleague.org/113centu.htm
3. http://www.historytextbooks.org/islam.htm
4. http://www.pbs.org/muhammad/ma_jews.shtml
5. Maxime Rodinson “Mohammed” (1971) Pantheon Books, pp 171, 172, 176, 191, 193, 211-213
6. http://www.cie.org/teachers/LessonPlans/Legacy/default1.asp?section=11
7. Karen Armstrong “Muhammad” (1992) Harper’s, p 208
8. http://www.constitution.org/cons/medina/con_medina.htm
9. http://www.cie.org/teachers/LessonPlans/Legacy/default1.asp?section=9
10. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/01/16/international/middleeast/16command.gif
11. http://www.meforum.org/article/115

So if the two-year-old consents...

Yes, Aisha was betrothed to Muhammad when she was six years old, but two years old? Isn't that a bit much even for Pakistani law? Well, no. Note what Rashid Rahman says below. It's not that she's a minor, it's that it's against her will. So if someone slips a piece of candy to the little one and thereby obtains her consent to the marriage, I guess it's ok, once the fine is paid. "Pakistanis Order Betrothal of 2-Year-Old," from AP, with thanks to all who sent this in:

MULTAN, Pakistan - A tribal council in Pakistan has ordered the betrothal of a 2-year-old girl to a man 40 years older to punish her uncle for an alleged affair with the man's wife, police said Monday.

The council decreed the girl must marry 42-year-old Mohammed Altaf, her uncle's cousin, when she turns 18, police said.

Altaf, a farmer, divorced his 32-year-old wife over her alleged love affair with his 20-year-old cousin, Mohammed Akmal. Akmal, a bachelor and also a farmer, has no children.

Altaf asked tribal elders in the village of Kacha Chohan, about 215 miles west of the city of Multan in Punjab province, to convene a panchayat, or council, on Feb. 15 to arbitrate and propose a punishment. As punishment, the elders ordered the girl's betrothal and ruled Akmal should also pay a $3,800 fine to the husband....

Police chief Maqsoodul Hassan said an investigation has been started into the case involving the 2-year-old girl, but they have made no arrests as no one had filed a complaint....

Rashid Rahman, a lawyer and Multan-based coordinator with the independent Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, condemned the village council's decision.

"These types of panchayats are illegal and nobody has the right to take a decision about a child's life," he said. "This country has its legal system and all decisions should be taken under it."

He said that the betrothal of a minor did not itself break the law, but forcing a woman to marry against her will carried a maximum 14-year jail sentence. Underage marriage is also illegal but is only punishable by a fine.

What's that? You don't believe me about Muhammad and Aisha? Here it is straight from the hadith collection accepted by Muslims as most reliable:

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234:

Narrated Aisha:
The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64:

Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

"The Qu'ran [sic] accepts religious pluralism and sees strength in diversity"

That should be "Qur'an," and that small mistake is a reflection of the general ignorance about Islam that pervades this story from the Montgomery Advertiser, "Entertainment media's Muslims bear little resemblance to reality" (thanks to EPG). Reporter Darryn Simmons seems to have gone to the Masjid Qasim B El-Amin in Montgomery to ask about Fox's "24," and has credulously reported as fact all the half-truths and distortions the people there fed him.

It starts with a red herring:

If they just watch TV and movies, Americans may think that many of those who believe in Islam are Arab terrorists, but local Muslim Ahmad Hasan said most Muslims aren't even of Arab descent.

"That's the most ironic thing," Hasan said. "They portray Arabs as representing the religion, when, in truth, the number of Arabs that are Muslims is a minute percentage."

I guess this is supposed to illustrate the ignorance of the masses, but in this context it isn't even relevant. I myself have pointed out many times that most Muslims worldwide aren't Arabs and most Arabic speakers in the U.S. aren't Muslim, but what of it? How does it show that Fox is way off base? After all, there are Arab Muslims, and Arab Muslim jihadists. It isn't as if the producers of "24" invented the concept. It looks as if the people in the Montgomery mosque want us to regard Arab Muslim jihadists the way we would regard Pennsylvania Amish car bombers.

And from the Ironic Juxtaposition Department:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) took Fox to task about the "24" episode in the publication Broadcasting and Cable.

Rabiah Ahmed, spokeswoman for CAIR, said that the show is "taking everyday American Muslim families and making them suspects ... it's very dangerous and very disturbing."...

Abdullah said he didn't complain to the station, and he isn't surprised to know that other Muslims did not.

"When you complain, it makes you look small," he said. "It naturally bothers us of course, but we don't complain to people about it -- we complain to God."

The reporter doesn't seem to have asked Abdullah whether he thinks CAIR looks small for complaining about "24."

"It doesn't make sense," he said. "Muslims are not like this, and Islam is an excellent religion -- but if a lie is told often enough people begin to think it's the truth."

Ain't it the truth! In fact, here comes a whopper now:

Muslims do not believe in converting people to their religion by force. In fact, the Qu'ran (or Koran) accepts religious pluralism and sees strength in diversity.

Note the language: the "Qu'ran" (sic) accepts "pluralism" and "diversity." Whoever it was at the mosque who told this to Simmons has mastered the art of pushing today's most effective cultural hot buttons. Muslims believe in diversity, you see. Not like those nasty Christians.

But of course, Simmons asked nothing about the humiliations and second-class status mandated for non-Muslims by Islamic law, and rooted in the Qur'an (9:29). "Pluralism"? "Diversity"? "The subject peoples," according to a manual of Islamic law, must "pay the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)" and "are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar); are not greeted with 'as-Salamu 'alaykum' [the traditional Muslim greeting, "Peace be with you"]; must keep to the side of the street; may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims' buildings, though if they acquire a tall house, it is not razed; are forbidden to openly display wine or pork . . . recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals or feastdays; and are forbidden to build new churches." If they violate these terms, the law further stipulates that they can be killed or sold into slavery at the discretion of the Muslim leader. (‘Umdat al-Salik, o11.3, 5.)

Yeah. That's pluralism and diversity, all right. But like virtually every other reporter, he accepted what Muslims told him at face value, without probably even being aware that he might need to employ a bit of critical thinking in this regard.

Israel: The propagandizing press

The propaganda jihad is nowhere more sophisticated or virulent than in Israel. Not only does the Palestinian media fabricate Israeli atrocities; the Israeli media does too. From "Citizens should insist on a fair press" in the Jerusalem Post, with thanks to JS:

A particularly flagrant Israeli example was Ilana Dayan's report on the October 5 shooting of a 13-year-old girl in Gaza by IDF soldiers. Initially, the soldiers claimed to have no idea that Iman al-Hams was a schoolgirl; they merely saw an unidentified Palestinian carrying a backpack near their outpost, where no innocent Palestinian had reason to be, and concluded that it was a bomber coming to attack them.

Later, however, several soldiers accused their company commander of "confirming the kill" – i.e. shooting al-Hams repeatedly at close range, where he could not have avoided seeing that she was a schoolgirl. (The star prosecution witness in the commander's trial has since admitted in court that his "eyewitness" account of this "confirmed kill" was a lie.)

After the "confirmed kill" story broke, Dayan broadcast an investigative report into it on Fact, the acclaimed television news magazine she anchors. The IDF subsequently accused her of having distorted, or even fabricated, parts of the report in a libelous fashion. Most egregiously, the IDF said, she tacked footage of the soldiers celebrating onto the footage of them shooting, so that anyone watching would assume they were celebrating al-Hams' death.

In reality, the celebration footage came from a Rosh Hashana party several weeks earlier – a fact Dayan admitted when confronted.

Tacking unrelated celebration scenes onto the ostensible footage of al-Hams's killing (in reality, the shooting scenes also turned out to be from a different incident) is indeed slanderous fabrication; it implies that the soldiers rejoiced over having killed a schoolgirl.

Yet not only did Dayan pay no price; her media colleagues vigorously defended her right to indulge in such fabrications.

Her boss, program editor Doron Glazer, for instance, dismissed the incident by declaring: "The chief of staff has more important work to do than attacking Fact." And Haaretz columnist Ehud Asheri went even further, writing that Dayan was not guilty of "tendentious and intentional fabrication," because "the celebration scene was shown in the context of the general atmosphere in the company."

In other words, since Dayan believed – rightly or wrongly – that those particular soldiers were capable of celebrating a schoolgirl's death, it was legitimate for her to fabricate footage that showed them doing so when they did not.

French TV Sticks by Discredited Story That Fueled Palestinian Intifada

Despite mounting evidence that it was all a fraud, French journalists are sticking by their Mohammed al-Durra farrago. "French TV Sticks by Story That Fueled Palestinian Intifada," from CNSNews.com, with thanks to JS:

Paris (CNSNews.com) - A French journalist and an independent film producer who saw raw, unedited video of the shooting of a Palestinian boy in 2000 said it's not possible for the boy to have been shot by Israeli soldiers, as a French TV report claimed.

French state television is standing by its claim that the broadcast is authentic. The broadcast purportedly showed 12-year-old Mohammed al-Durra being shot by Israeli soldiers, an event that led to the current Palestinian intifada.

But Denis Jeambar, editor-in-chief of the French news weekly l'Express, and filmmaker Daniel Leconte, a producer and owner of the film company Doc en Stock, say the videocassette is full of staged scenes of faked injuries.

Jeambar and Leconte were allowed by the France 2 network to view an unedited master video cassette of the incident, which took place in September 2000 at Netzarim Junction in the Gaza Strip. Leconte said he is satisfied that the shooting really happened, but he does not believe the bullets that struck the child could have been fired by Israeli troops.

"The only ones who could hit the child were the Palestinians from their position," Leconte told Cybercast News Service. "If they had been Israeli bullets, they would be very strange bullets because they would have needed to go around the corner."

California: Mosque makeover reflects growing pride

"Towering symbol," from the Pasadena Star News, with thanks to EPG:

Sunday, February 20, 2005 - SAN GABRIEL -- Masjid Gabriel is undergoing a transformation that will add a minaret and domed roof traditional elements of Islamic architecture to the mosque.

But the changes are more than cosmetic.

The renovation also illustrates the changing nature of the American-Muslim identity, mosque leaders say. It reflects the pride Muslims share in their religion, a commitment to rediscover their historic roots and teachings and a desire to ensure Islam is passed to the next generation.

"We are doing this for the children who come here so they can identify themselves with their faith and their symbols,' said Imam Nissar Hai. "We may be immigrants, but they were born here and they have to feel that they belong here and to their faith and this is a symbol of our faith.'...

Even before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks or the war in Iraq, local Muslims said they felt occasional unease during difficult times such as the Islamic Revolution in Iran or the Gulf War.

But Hai said Americans have deepened their understanding of Islam in recent years and understand that most Muslims are not radicals, he said.

Great. Now why didn't the reporter, Marshall Allen, ask a few questions about this mosque's funding, and pick up some of its literature? There's no indication from this article that he looked at what was being taught there -- and plenty of indication that he should have, based on what is being taught in other American mosques.

The demand for new space is driven in part by the mosque's burgeoning children's after- school program. Children study Arabic and the Quran for several hours every Monday through Thursday. The number of students, toddlers to teens, has more than doubled to about 50 in the past two years, Hai said. The increased demand for children's education is partly a result of the Sept. 11 attacks, Hai said. Initially, the mosque's membership declined after the attacks, but then the Muslim community seemed to take them as a wake-up call, he said. The American-Muslim community was feeling comfortable before Sept. 11, and then faced criticism of Islam, Hai said.

"So when you feel under attack you want to go back to your roots,' he said. "It made us stronger.'

"You want to go back to your roots." They study Qur'an for several hours for four days a week. Why don't reporters ask them at such points what they think about the roots of Islam that involve working to impose Sharia rule? Why don't they ask them what they do about the Qur'an's harshness toward non-Muslims and commands to make war against them?

The time is long past for more intelligent reporting on Islamic issues, but we aren't even close to getting it.

Baton Rouge: learning about Islam?

"Learning About Islam," from the Bogalusa Daily News, with thanks to EPG:

FRANKLINTON - "Many of us fear what we don't know," Imam Jehad Mahmoud said yesterday to members and guests of the Franklinton Rotary Club.

Mahmoud, who serves as president of the Islamic Center of Baton Rouge, spoke to the Rotarians yesterday to provide a brief lesson on the foundations of the Islamic faith n and in hopes of putting common myths and misconceptions of the faith to rest.

"If I talk about Islam, I'll be talking about Christianity, I'll be talking about Judaism…" Mahmoud said. "We are all the same."

"The Religion before Allah is Islam: Nor did the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] dissent therefrom except through envy of each other, after knowledge had come to them. But if any deny the Signs of Allah, Allah is swift in calling to account." (Qur'an 3:19)

Mahmoud also addressed a misconception sparked from radical Muslims that eternal salvation is guaranteed by killing an infidel. "No one can be assured he is going to Heaven," and it is considered a blasphemy to state that belief. "The only way for any person to get to Heaven is through God himself."

In addition, Muslims are taught that anyone who commits suicide "will stay in Hellfire for eternity, committing suicide."

"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth..." (Qur'an 9:111)

"We pray in congregation, with the men in front, and the women in back," Mahmoud explained.

However, it is not because women are seen as inferior to men, he said, but instead it is "out of respect and protection." Because Muslims kneel to the ground during prayer, and "men have weak hearts," the men must always pray in front of the women.

In addition, men cannot "expose anything between the belly button and knees, and women can only expose their hands and face. However, the Muslim dress code is a choice, he said, adding that he's even heard of Muslims who have attended nudist camps.

I believe nudist camps might be out of the question for believing Muslims as well: "And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss." (Qur'an 24:31)

CAIR condemns '24'—but it won’t condemn Islamic terrorists

Joel Mowbray at TownHall (thanks to Nicolei) on Fox's dhimmitude and CAIR's inconsistency:

What has Fox’s hit TV show “24” done to prompt TV Guide to report “24 in Hot Water” and Entertainment Weekly to ask, “Has ‘24’ Gone Too Far?”?

Its bad guys are terrorists who are… Muslims. That’s it.

Few of us need reminding that we are not simply waging a war against terror, but against the radical Islam that animates the enemy. The enemy is not coincidentally Muslim, but they are the enemy because their radicalized version of Islam tells them to be. “24,” so far at least, understands that.

An aside: Neither Mowbray nor anyone else has yet produced a non-radicalized version of Islam that is convincing enough on Islamic grounds to neutralize the growth of terrorist movements.

Instead of kudos, though, “24” has courted considerable controversy. Making the most hay has been CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which bills itself as “America's largest Muslim civil liberties group.” A CAIR spokesman complained to Entertainment Weekly, “They are creating a new stereotype.”

What “new” stereotype? Muslims as terrorists? Blame the news for that one. Wait, no, blame the Jihadists the world over who still wish “death to America.” No one, including “24,” is claiming that all Muslims are terrorists, but as “24” Executive Producer Joel Surnow told Entertainment Weekly, “Muslims are the terrorists right now.”

Facts be damned, Fox bowed to CAIR’s scare tactics and agreed to air a public service announcement, with “24” star Kiefer Sutherland directly addressing the camera. Unfortunately, the spot included a line that may not be entirely true: “the American Muslim community stands firmly beside their fellow Americans in denouncing and resisting all forms of terrorism.”

It’s not considered polite to suggest that some American Muslims might not be with us, but there is too much evidence to ignore in the name of political correctness. The radical Islam we are fighting is not found only in places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, but right here inside our borders.

Virtually ignored by the entire mainstream media last week was a groundbreaking 67-page report issued by human rights group Freedom House, which detailed the poisonous contents of Saudi-funded and sponsored materials found in prominent American mosques.

On mosque library shelves were vitriolic Saudi screeds urging Muslims to, among other things, completely dissociate themselves from the “infidel” society, including refusing military service and citizenship. Other materials encourage Muslims to “curse” Jews and Christians, and still others encourage outright violence.

Many, or even most, mosque-goers may not be brainwashed by such bloodthirsty teachings, but is it even possible that such materials could be found in prominent American mosques if the entire Muslim community truly “stood firmly beside their fellow Americans”?

One group of Muslims that has not denounced “all forms of terrorism” is the one that pushed Fox to air the tolerance-touting ad: CAIR.

When four Americans were murdered (and burned, hanged, and mutilated) in Fallujah last year, CAIR pointedly refused to condemn the murders, only saying that mutilations were contrary to Islam—a position almost identical to infamous Fallujah cleric Sheikh Khalid Ahmed.

The Washington Post in November 2001 asked a CAIR spokesman to condemn Hamas or Islamic Jihad. He refused, explaining, “It’s not our job to go around denouncing.” Asked a similar question about Hamas and Hezbollah by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in February 2002, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper called such queries a “game” and added, “We’re not in the business of condemning.”

Worse still, for several months after 9/11, CAIR even refused to condemn Osama bin Laden for the murder of 3,000 Americans.

Veteran fans of “24” know from the three previous seasons that the ultimate enemy might still be off-camera. But all of us know that an organization that refuses to condemn the enemy is the enemy.

The Electronic Gutenberg

A new piece by Wolfgang Bruno:

Works such as ”The Coming of the Book” or "The Printing Press as an Agent of Change" have documented the monumental changes to Europe and Western civilization triggered by the introduction of printed books. Printing, already used in China for centuries, was reinvented in Europe by people like Johann Gutenberg. Its effects were immediate and profound. Perhaps 15 to 20 million copies of different books were printed even before the year 1500. Conservative estimates indicate that at least 150 to­ 200 million books were made in Europe during the 16th century. When Martin Luther put up his Theses in Wittenberg in Germany on 31st October, 1517, within 15 days they had been translated into German and summarised, printed as flysheets and distributed throughout every part of the country. Orders by Rome to burn books made by Luther and other Protestant heretics only served to trigger the curiosity of the masses. Attempts to silence the critics and re-impose strict censorship were futile. Banned books circulated in France in ever greater numbers despite all the regulations forbidding them. The tide of the first mass media revolution could not be held back.

To claim that the invention of the printing press alone created the Christian Reformation would be too simplistic. The Renaissance and a slowly expanding educated audience had created new forces and needs. Political backers such as Frederick the Wise of Saxony saved Luther’s life long enough for him to finish his work. Still, it is hard to see how the Reformation could have taken place in this manner without the printing press. The fates of other critics such as Jan Hus or Giordano Bruno might have been very different had they had Gutenberg’s invention at their disposal. At the very least, the printing press served as an important catalyst for and facilitated changes already underway.

Many have made comparisons between the Islamic world today and Christian Europe in the 16th century. As some like Robert Spencer have suggested, there may be closer analogies to the Wahhabi movement. However, it is possible that in hindsight, modern communication technology such as the Internet may prove a turning point no less crucial to Islam today than the printing press was to Christianity. The global number of Internet users is approaching one billion and growing fast. Now, the Internet may not be the magic vessel for unrestricted freedom of speech as was once hoped for, but it can still retain just enough flexibility to represent a potent challenge to authoritarian regimes and ideologies.

Mass communication and education will lead to contradictory results, and could even be imagined to strengthen Islam. The Islamic Umma, or community, can be viewed as an old-fashioned Arab tribe in its aggressive dealings with outsiders, and the demand of absolute loyalty within the community. With the introduction of Islam, a new “super-tribe” was born, directing Arab tribal aggression outwards instead of inwards, and what ex-Muslim Anwar Shaikh has called the Arab National Movement was created. Later, the Umma was taken to include all Muslims. Although this concept of a global community of Muslims supporting each other against the infidels has always been a central part of the Muslim world view, it has for the most part remained a theoretical construct. With globalization and even the spread of the infidel English language as the world’s lingua franca, Islamic communities across the planet can keep in closer contact than they have ever done before. Islamists immigrants in the West can take advantage of Western freedoms to mount an effective propaganda machine. Individual PC users now have more capacity at their fingertips than NASA had during its first moon launches, and setting up your own website is cheap and easy.

The new technology will give Islam a chance to realize its original aim of global universalism, and thus increase the clashes with the non-Muslim world. The revival of Muslim identity is spreading outside the Middle East, including Southeast Asia, Central Asia and Europe, where religious identity has traditionally not been as strong. This revival has been accompanied by a deepening solidarity among Muslims caught up in separatist struggles in Chechnya, Iraq, Kashmir and southern Thailand. Jihadist groups on the Internet are multiplying, as can be testified by the Internet Haganah. One can argue effectively that the current Islamic tensions have much more to do with long-term communications changes, combined with high birth rates and Saudi petrodollars, than with the policies of any specific countries like the USA or Israel.

Even if new media may in the short run actually assist Islamic extremism, it is conceivable that in the longer run, new media will challenge the very existence of Islam as we know it. The Internet and Muslim exposure to Western society has also created the first organized networks of ex-Muslims in history, the counterpart to the Jihadist websites. These ex-Muslim sites may still be of marginal importance, but it is hard to overestimate the monumental threat they pose to Islamic orthodoxy. Infidels should make use of this combination of ex-Muslims, the Internet and greater Western freedom of speech in a deliberate effort to copy the example of 16th century Europe. We should make a selection of, say, 20 or 30 of the best critical books written about Islam by ex-Muslims and non-Muslims. Pay the authors a substantial amount of money for the manuscripts, or buy the copyrights from whomever owns it. Make sure they understand that they receive a one-time sum in return for sharing their work with humanity. After this, the books in their full length should be made available in English on the Internet, perhaps later in translations into other major languages. From then on, anybody who wants to can freely download, copy, republish and reprint the books. This would trigger a chain reaction, as the printing press did with Luther’s pamphlets. The information would spread around the planet faster than CAIR can say “Islamophobia”. The genie would be out of the bottle, and no amount of intimidation, hacker attacks or “hate speech” lawsuits could return it to the bottle. In combination with funding and support to websites by ex-Muslims and some others like Jihad Watch, we would basically present Islam with a “sink or swim”-ultimatum: Islam will have to reform if it can, or Islam will die. The entire operation would cost some hundreds of millions of dollars, not more than what can be done quietly and unofficially. We can spend this small amount of money on a “Gutenberg Fund”, or we can use hundreds of billions of dollars on defensive measures that will do little to change Islam.

Since Islamists with the murder of Theo van Gogh demonstrated their fear of Western free speech and their desire to curb it, giving them such a hefty dose of it seems like a sweet and fitting reply. This initiative would not mark the end of the struggle, of course, but we would already have won a crucial, if not decisive victory. Christianity was up to the challenge presented by modern education and mass media. It’s time to find out whether Islam is similarly up to the challenge.

Wolfgang Bruno is a European author. He is writing a book about the Internet movement of ex-Muslims. All of Bruno's essays can be republished and reproduced for free by anybody who wants to.

SUNY Oswego tries and fails to ban Muslim speaker with alleged ties to British jihadist group

"SUNY Oswego tries to ban Muslim speaker for" (yes, that's really the headline), from SUNY's Daily Orange, with thanks to Ali Dashti:

Controversy surrounding a Muslim man's suspected connection to terrorists almost prevented funding for the keynote speaker's upcoming lecture on racism.

Abu Yousuf will speak Saturday at the State University of New York at Oswego, but the university's Muslim Student Association, which is sponsoring the event, did not obtain the funding easily.

Some members of SUNY Oswego's Student Association were concerned about claims in an Internet article claiming Yousuf has ties to Al-Muhajiroun, an extremist Islam group that has been linked to terrorist activity in other countries.

Fahad Samad, president of SUNY Oswego's Muslim Student Association, said the claims are false.

"Those are straight-forward lies," Samad said. "Those are accusations."

The Muslim Student Association defended Yousuf at the SUNY Oswego Student Association meeting Tuesday, and after some debate, the SA eventually gave the organization $800 to bring Yousuf to campus, said Alan Hershkowitz, a SUNY Oswego junior and SA senator.

Hershkowitz acknowledged there was initial confusion surrounding the speaker's identity.

"There was some stuff on the Internet about him, but we weren't sure if it was the same person. Abu Yousuf is a common name," he said.

SA passed the funding request because the allegation could not be verified, Hershkowitz said.

OK, which is it? Is the allegation that Abu Yousuf is connected to Al-Muhajiroun a "lie," as Samad says, or is this a case of possible mistaken identity, as Hershkowitz says? It is worth nothing that the original WND article that linked Abu Yousuf with Al-Muhajiroun portrays him as volunteering information about the connection, and also saying that he spoke regularly for the MSA: "Yousuf explained that he speaks at many colleges throughout the New York area, and that most of his speeches are arranged by the MSA." What steps did SUNY really take, if any, to find out whether or not they were dealing with the same person?

Swiss Think-tank Recommends Teaching Islam in Schools

How will helping Muslims adhere to their identity help them integrate into society? Does the Swiss Academy for Development have the first foggiest idea what Islam actually teaches about Muslim interaction with infidel societies? From IslamOnline, with thanks to Ali Dashti:

GENEVA, February 19, 2005 (IslamOnline.net) – A Swiss think-tank has recommended teaching Islam in schools as it helps the second and third generation of the Muslim community integrate into society.

The Swiss Academy for Development (SAD) cited in a recent study the success story of teaching Islam in schools in the two cities of Kriens and Ebikon, central Switzerland, in the 2002/03 school year.

“The results of the experience exceeded all expectations and showed a positive feedback,” said the study, released on February 15.

“It can serve as a model for all cities across the country. Such schools encourage Muslim students adhere to their identity as they learn their religion in the languages used in the country,” it added, referring to the four official languages German, French, Italian and Romansch.

Egypt: Christian Fights "Contrived" Criminal Charges

I don't know Shafik Saleh Shafik, but I do know that there are many instances of Coptic Christian girls being kidnapped and forced to convert to Islam -- so many that even Pope Shenouda spoke out against this, despite his keen awareness of the risks involved in doing so. From Compass Direct, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

February 16 (Compass) -- The criminal trial of Egyptian Christian Shafik Saleh Shafik, begun in mid January, has been ordered postponed until February 20 by the presiding judge, who accepted defense petitions to summon key witnesses and police reports related to the case.

As the director of a home for troubled Coptic girls, Shafik faces criminal charges of holding Magda Refaat Gayed, 16, against her will and without her parents’ permission, beating her and attempting to rape her.

The defendant dismisses all the charges as “contrived” attempts to halt his recovery ministry among young Coptic girls, who he says are being enticed to leave their families and convert to Islam.

Magda had escaped from Shafik’s “safe-house” residence for girls in Cairo last September 6, the day after she arrived. Her parents had placed her there under Shafik’s guardianship when the girl was returned home by police, who located her living with an Islamist group two weeks after she had disappeared from home....

Shafik told Compass that he got an anonymous call from someone two weeks ago, asking him to accept into his care a Muslim girl who wanted to convert to Christianity. “This was clearly a set-up,” he said. “The fanatic groups have my phone number, and I sense they are trying to find out where my new safe-house is located.”

Read it all.

Qaradawi endorses death penalty for apostasy

A prominent Muslim writer has criticized non-Muslim critics of Sharia and dhimmitude for claiming that "apostasy from Islam was universally punished by death." And of course, he's right. No law in the history of the world has ever been universally enforced. But what's really disturbing about Islamic apostasy law is that some would like to see it enforced today: including the famous Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, who has been hailed as a "reformist" by no less a luminosity than John Esposito.

From "Accusing Muslim Intellectuals of Apostasy," in MEMRI, with thanks to Ali Dashti:

Sheikh Al-Qaradhawi Advocates Implementing the Ridda Death Penalty

In an interview with the Egyptian weekly Al-Ahram Al-Arabi, Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, one of the most prominent clerics in Sunni Islam and among Islamist circles and a spiritual leader for the Muslim Brotherhood movement, discussed the view of modern religious law on carrying out the punishment for ridda, and permitted the murder of free Muslim intellectuals whose views differ from those of Islamist clerics.

Asked, "In Muslim society, has an individual the right to change his religion as he wishes?" Al-Qaradhawi drew a distinction between two types of ridda: "One of the freedoms that Islam does not accept is the freedom of ridda that expands [from the realm of the individual to that of the group] and threatens the social fabric and its foundations. [On the one hand,] there is limited ridda, and [on the other,] there is ridda that expands [from the individual to the group].

"Limited ridda is the ridda of the individual who switches religion and is not interested in others. According to Islam, the punishment for this individual is [Hell] in the world to come…

"But [the other] ridda, which expands [from the individual to the group], is a ridda in which the individual who abandons Islam calls [upon others] to do likewise, [thus creating] a group whose path is not the path of society and whose goal is not the goal of the [Muslim] nation, and whose allegiance is not to the Islamic nation. Such [individuals] endanger the social fabric, and they are like the murtaddoon [apostates], who were fought by [the first Caliph] Abu Bakr together with the Companions of the Prophet [the Sahaba]. Those murtaddoon falsely claimed that they were prophets with the same inspiration as was given to the Prophet Muhammad…"

Asked what the view of the modern Muslim sage should be about the danger of ridda, Al-Qaradhawi replied: "The gravest danger facing the Muslim is the one that threatens his spiritual existence – i.e., that threatens his belief. Therefore, apostasy, or unbelief after having been Muslim, is the gravest danger to society…

"In our generation, Muslim society has been subject to violent invasions and severe attacks aimed at uprooting it, and these were manifested by the invasion of Christian missionaries that began with Western colonialism and is continuing in the Islamic world and among the Islamic communities and minorities [outside the Muslim world] … [and by] the Communist invasion that destroyed entire Muslim countries in Asia and Europe and made every effort to eliminate Islam and remove it ultimately from people's lives … and by the third and worst invasion, the secular invasion that is continuing to this day in the heart of the Islamic world, sometimes openly and sometimes covertly, and which persecutes the true Islam…

"For Muslim society to preserve its existence, it must struggle against ridda from every source and in all forms, and it must not let it spread like wildfire in a field of thorns. This is what Abu Bakr and the companions did when they fought the people of ridda who followed the false prophets… There is no escape from struggling against and restricting the individual ridda so that it will not worsen and its sparks scatter, becoming group ridda… Thus, the Muslim sages agreed that the punishment for the murtadd [who commits ridda ] … is execution…"(3)

In his book 'Islam and Secularism,' Al-Qaradhawi explains: "The Muslim sages agreed unanimously that anyone who denies something that is known in the religion … is an apostate who abandons his religion. The Imam must demand of him to repent, and recant his deviation from the righteous path, or the laws regarding the murtadd will apply to him."

Christian convert killed in Iraq

Among the clearest evidence of the incompatibility of the Sharia with norms of human rights is its denial of freedom of conscience, and death penalty for those who leave Islam. Here is another story showing that that penalty is by no means a thing of the past. It will be interesting to see what happens to Abd al-Salam in a country where there are many who want to see Sharia rule implemented. From AsiaNews, with thanks to Emergency Room:

Zakho (AsiaNews/MEC) – A Christian convert from Islam was killed for his faith. Ziwar Muhammad Isma’il, who worked as a taxi driver in Zakho in the autonomous Kurdish region of northern Iraq, was shot dead by Abd al-Karim Abd al-Salam at a taxi station early on the morning of February 17.

Abd al-Salam approached Ziwar and told him to return to Islam. When Ziwar refused he opened fire with an automatic rifle.

Abd al-Salam fled but was chased by other taxi drivers who, after apprehending him, turned him over to the police.

Abd al-Salam claims that the prophet Muhammad appeared to him in a dream and told him to kill the Christian.

Ziwar, who converted to Christianity seven years ago, leaves a widow and five children. He had been quite open about his faith even though he had been threatened by his relatives and other Muslims. He had been arrested twice but never charged.

Taslima Nasreen seeks Indian citizenship

How Sharia intransigence causes a brain drain. "Govt looking into Taslima Nasreen's plea," from Rediff.com, with thanks to Fanabba:

Nasreen, who is facing death threat from radical Islamic groups in Bangladesh, has sought Indian citizenship saying her country of origin has 'slammed the doors' on her. Fundamentalist outfits in Bangladesh issued death threat against her in 1994 for her 'blasphemous' writings.

Iran: Government jails Christian Pastor

Why? Because he was in the army, and he didn't tell them he had converted to Christianity. Dhimmis can't serve in the army. But of course, he had told them, years ago. "Iran: Government Jails Christian Pastor for Three Years," from Compass Direct, with thanks to LA Hutton:

February 17 (Compass) -- Yesterday a Tehran military court sentenced Iranian Christian pastor Hamid Pourmand to jail for three years, ordering his immediate transfer to a group prison cell in Tehran’s notorious Evin Prison.

The former army colonel was found guilty of deceiving the Iranian armed forces by not declaring when he acquired officer rank that he was a convert from Islam to Christianity. Under the laws of the Islamic Republic of Iran, it is illegal for a non-Muslim to serve as a military officer.

During yesterday’s hearing, Pourmand’s lawyer produced several documents in which his client’s military superiors had acknowledged years ago that the colonel was a Christian. He had even been excused by his commander from observing the Muslim month of fasting, an exemption granted only to non-Muslims.

Nevertheless, the court ruled that Pourmand was guilty of giving false testimony and producing falsified documents. Yesterday’s verdict came during the second and final session of his military trial begun in late January.

UPDATE: A commenter was puzzled as to why apostasy doesn't seem to enter into this story. But LA Hutton just sent this story, which makes clear that Pourmand will also face trial for apostasy:

During last week’s trial, the Christian prisoner was informed that he would be transferred back to Bandar-i Bushehr, where he will face trial on two separate charges of apostasy and proselytizing.

During the hearing, court officials declared that for many years Pourmand had belonged to an “underground” church through which “many Muslims” had deserted Islam and become Christians.

“Either he will be forced to return to Islam,” one Iranian Christian source noted, “or he will face a very big problem now.”...

Since 1990, several ex-Muslims who converted to Christianity have been either assassinated or executed by court order, under the guise of accusations of spying for foreign countries.

Under Iranian law, apostasy is listed along with murder, armed robbery, rape and serious drug trafficking as a capital offense.

Diana West: The emerging 'Eurabia'

From the superb Diana West in the Washington Times:

It was just a coincidence that "Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis" appeared in the mail the same day a New York Times article on the subject of Eurabia landed on the doorstep. "Eurabia," the long-awaited book by Bat Ye'or, is a comprehensive, even overwhelming and absolutely shocking explication of how and why it is that Europe is transforming itself into what the Egyptian-born historian calls "a new geopolitical entity " Eurabia." The New York Times article, on the other hand, a muddled analysis by Craig S. Smith about the "fear of Islamists" and the "far right" in Belgium, is one more illustration of how desperately Bat Ye'or's trail-blazing work is needed.

Few of us have the long-view vision to make sense of the sweep of history as it smokes past our eyes; Bat Ye'or, as a historian of Islam, and, in particular, the dhimmi (the non-Muslim peoples who live as second-class citizens under Islamic rule), has precisely the laser-lens required. She also has the fortitude of the historian/gumshoe to wade through the stacks of articles, memoranda and conference declarations generated by something called the Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD).

Created 30-odd years ago at the instigation of France and the Arab League, the practically unknown EAD has provided structural and theoretical underpinnings to a Euro-Arab axis " Eurabia. These have fostered the political, economic and cultural bonds between Europe and the Arab world that Bat Ye'or maintains were designed to create "a global alternative to American power."

How? Read it all.

Palestinian Suicide Bombers celebrated at the Berlin Film Festival

From Die Jüdische, with thanks to Teri:

Hany Abu - Assad`s movie „Paradise Now” is portraying two Palestinian suicide bombers.

At the end the screen goes blank. You do not see rubble nor dead people. The last thing you see is a pair of determined staring eyes. The camera moves closer to the face of the young Palestinian and separates him from the world surrounding him: his victims.

The eyes in the face belong to a man called Said. For 90 minutes the audience accompanied him through the movie “Paradise Now”. Said is a suicide bomber and his victims are Israeli Jews.

“Paradise Now” is not one of those movies, shot by well educated moviemakers, producers and technicians in the Palestinian territories, that celebrates “martyrs”: those men and women who are sacrificing themselves in order to kill as many Jews as they can.

“Paradise Now “ is in competition at the 55th International Film festival Berlinale which opened last Thursday in Berlin. The director Hany Abu-Assad is asked in the press conference for “Paradise Now”: “why are there almost only Israeli soldiers sitting in the bus, which Said is going to blow up? Assad answers evasively; he wanted to let the character decide for himself.

Kais Nashef, who plays Said in the movie, continues to answer: “ the soldiers in the bus made the decision, to blow himself up, easier [if]Israelis stay invisible throughout the movie; you can only see them from afar, only as figures and not as human beings. You are not allowed to get to know any of the other characters, neither the people at the bus station nor the little girl standing by the bus driver, otherwise the audience could emphasize with them."

A Swedish Dilemma

Christopher Caldwell in The Weekly Standard (thanks to Nicolei) continues his useful explorations of the Islamization of Europe with a piece about the dilemmas posed for the Swedish welfare state by Muslim immigration and reluctance to assimilate.

Prof who equated 9-11 with founders awarded

Shahid Alam compared the 9/11 hijackers to the Founding Fathers, sent a fiendishly anti-Semitic reply to an emailer who complained, and for good measure, falsely accused Jihad Watch and LGF of subjecting him to "orchestrated attacks--many of them death threats." Then he had the temerity to complain about his academic freedom being threatened, even though MESA Nostra has made sure that people with his views dominate Middle East Studies departments all over the country.

What does he get for all this? An award. From WND, with thanks to all who sent in reports of this:

A university professor who wrote an article equating the 9-11 suicide-hijackers with American colonists who fought the British has been given an award for speaking out on controversial issues.

M. Shahid Alam, professor of economics at Northeastern University, was honored by the National Lawyers Guild with their Free Speech Award on Thursday.

In his article, Alam wrote: "On September 11, 2001, nineteen Arab hijackers too demonstrated their willingness to die - and to kill - for their dream. They died so that their people might live, free and in dignity."...

Announcing the award, the leftist National Lawyers Guild noted Alam has been heavily criticized by commentors such as Bill O'Reilly of Fox News and scholar Daniel Pipes, director of the think tank Middle East Forum and a presidential appointee to the board of the United States Institute of Peace.

Guild member Bin Ahmad, a third-year law student at Northeastern, said Pipes "goes on national television and calls Dr. Alam a 'radical Muslim' and a 'bomb thrower' with 'venom towards America."

"These are outrageous allegations based on a selective and distorted reading of Dr. Alam's writings," she said. "Additionally, Dr. Alam has been the target of physical threats and harassment after excerpts from one of his recent essays were posted on websites of known, extreme right-wing organizations."...

Jonathon Foglia, another Northeastern student-member of the Guild said Alam deserves the Free Speech Award because his work epitomizes the type of thought and expression the First Amendment protects.

"Dr. Alam is a man of profound scholarship and enviable bravery," Foglia said. "His work is clearly core political speech. Anytime self-professed 'patriots' threaten and intimidate individuals on the basis of published words, we must all rally to the defense of the First Amendment and people such as Dr. Alam."

The National Lawyers Guild recently defended New York lawyer Lynne Stewart, a member, on charges she helped a radical Egyptian sheik Omar Abdel Rahman pass secret messages to his followers urging terrorist attacks.

Stewart, 65, was convicted Feb. 10.

Turks Irked By EU Recommendations

I will not shirk to do this work, for those who post and those who lurk: the Turks are irked. The Turks are irked. What kind of jerk would irk the Turks? One who smirks, "No Muslim perks."

"The Europeans want to strip off our Islamic identity. We don't want to join the EU if the price will be deserting Islam."

But Islam, as I have noted many times, is not just a system of individual piety; it is a political and social system. This political and social system is not in power in Turkey; but the Turkish government is under constant pressure from its adherents, many of whom, indeed, hold positions of power in that government. How then can they join the EU if they don't desert Islam, or at least parts of it? How can they enter into an alliance of equals with non-Muslim countries? What will be their future intentions toward Europe -- particularly if political Islam returns to power in Turkey?

The Turks are irked, eh? So am I. Why would they balk about ID cards and religious courses, unless it were because they balk at granting full equality to their non-Muslim citizens?

From IslamOnline, with thanks to Nicolei:

ANKARA, February 18, 2005 (IslamOnline.net) – European recommendations for Turkey to free citizens' ID cards from religious reference and to stop compulsory religious courses at schools, raised suspicions and drew criticism in the dominantly Muslim country, with some saying the EU recommendations aim at "neutralizing, then swallowing" the Turkish people, and others believing they hurt the country's unity.

"The recommendations of the European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) demonstrate an interference in Turkish affairs and aim at harming the unity of the Turkish people," Ali Ozdmer, a retired officer, told IslamOnline.net.

"We are proud that our ID cards highlight our Islamic identity," he said.

The ECRI has urged the Turkish government to drop any reference to religion on the ID cards and to stop the compulsory religious courses in the Turkish schools, alleging such measures would "bring the country's standards into line with the European standards"....

"Rights of minorities in Turkey are protected. The non-Muslim minorities live with complete freedom in Turkey .

Is that so?

Ordinary citizens also reacted in anger to the European recommendations.

"I don't know what the European Union has to do the religion of the Turkish citizens. What is Europe 's problem with Islam in order to try to impose such demands," said Mohamed Dogan, an employee.

He further stressed that such demands were put forward for political reasons and aimed at blocking Turkey 's membership in the European Union.

Mostafa Gul Safan, a driver, agreed.

"The Europeans want to strip off our Islamic identity. We don't want to join the EU if the price will be deserting Islam."

Funny thing: Muslims in Europe don't seem to have any problem demanding that Europeans strip off their own cultural identity.

Presbyterian Church joins Coalition with Terror-Supporters

A press release from the Boston Israel Action Committee:

The Presbyterian Church, USA, has joined End the Occupation, a coalition that includes several organizations that endorse terrorism.

Within the last twelve months, PCUSA delegations have twice met with Hezbollah, a listed terrorist organization.

Although leaders of the PCUSA have issued formal statements repudiating terrorism, they have sometimes admitted to having difficult recognizing it. In his 2004 Christmas message, PCUSA Moderator Rev. Rick Ufford-Chase wrote: "It's increasingly difficult to distinguish between… the victims of terrorist attacks or well-executed military campaigns… the United States or Osama Bin Laden...."

By joining End the Occupation, the Presbyterian Church places itself in close alliance with several organizations that endorse terrorism. Among these are the International Solidarity Movement, which views the murder of Israelis by suicide bombers as a "form of 'jihad'"; Al Awda – The Palestine Right to Return Coalition, a group dedicated to the destruction of the Jewish State "by any means necessary"; and the Palestine Solidarity Movement, which, at its National Convention at Duke University in October, 2004, voted to defeat a floor motion to condemn terrorism -- a vote greeted with thunderous applause. Rev. Mark Davidson, pastor of the PCUSA Church of Reconciliation in Chapel Hill, NC, was a featured speaker at the PSM conference. This marks the third year in a row that the PSM National Conference has voted overwhelmingly in favor of maintaining its endorsement of terrorism as one of the "strategies and tactics," appropriate in the elimination of the State of Israel.

End the Occupation is a large coalition. Some member organizations are legitimate religious groups, such as the American Friends Service Committee. Some are political associations with questionable attitudes toward terrorism, such as the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. Many member organizations are radical left groups such as the International Socialist Organization and the National Lawyers Guild. This week the National Lawyers Guild held a dinner to honor Northeastern University Professor Shahid Alam, notorious for comparing the 9/11 hijackers to the Founding Fathers – favorably. Most groups on the list are single-city committees, often affiliated with one of the national anti-Israel groups: the ISM, PSM, and Al Awda.

Oregon: Jordan offers no details on jihadists

It appears that this attempt to cow and intimidate Jordan has failed: he gave no details, and he doesn't seem to have retracted his statement either. (Or if he did, this article certainly isn't clear about it.) Now why the ACLU -- and Muslim groups, for that matter -- would consider it offensive for a law enforcement official to say that Al-Qaeda is present in a particular place is beyond me. If they succeed in gaining Jordan's scalp, anti-terror efforts will suffer an immense setback: it will become a punishable offense merely to suggest that jihadist activity is going on, let alone to do anything about it. Be assured: the Muslim groups and ACLU will keep trying.

From AP, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — In a meeting with local Muslims, Robert Jordan, the top FBI agent in Oregon, refused to elaborate on his recent comments that jihad-trained fighters are living in the state, according to an ACLU representative who attended the gathering. Jordan, the special agent in charge of the FBI in Oregon, addressed the ACLU representative, several dozen Muslims and other religious leaders on Tuesday at the Bilal Mosque Association in Beaverton....

In an interview with The Associated Press last month, Jordan said: "We have people here in Oregon that have trained in jihadist camps in bad areas. In the bad neighborhoods of the world." He added that the FBI knows "they've trained overseas, taken oaths to kill Americans and engage in jihad," but the challenge is "to prove those things."

Ahmed said those comments stunned him, and he wanted Jordan to speak about the remarks to a gathering at the mosque.

Peg Pfab, pastor of Southminster Presbyterian Church in Beaverton, said the meeting was helpful.

"I think Mr. Jordan and the Bilal community are all trying very hard to move ahead and to use this experience as a learning experience, so that they can be better supportive of each other," Pfab said.

Andrea Meyer, legislative director for the ACLU of Oregon, told The Oregonian that the meeting featured a presentation by the secretary of the mosque who talked about how Jordan's "jihad" comments have appeared in inflammatory Internet chats targeting Muslims and Arab Americans.

Jews and Christians forbidden to pray at the Temple Mount

Dhimmitude enforced in Jerusalem. From WND, with thanks to EPG:

Judaism considers it the holiest place on earth. Muslims say it's the third holiest. Christianity reveres the spot as being of great historic importance. But if someone prays there, if he or she is not Muslim, the worshiper will be immediately arrested. Welcome to the Temple Mount.

The Temple Mount is the large area directly behind the Western Wall in Jerusalem. It is the site of Judaism's first and second Temples, the primary area of worship for the Jewish faith and the location in which God's "shekhina," or presence, is thought by Jews to reside. The area is about the size of 15 football stadiums....

Although is not mentioned by name in the Quran, the Temple Mount is also commonly identified by Muslims as the "furthermost sanctuary," the site from which the Prophet Muhammad, accompanied by the Angel Gabriel, made the Night Journey to the Throne of God.

In addition, Christianity considers the area historically important. The book of Luke records that Jesus, raised a devout Jew, was dedicated in the Second Temple in accordance with the Laws of Moses, and describes Jesus' boyhood visit to the Temple, which, it is written in John, he cleansed at Passover and during the last week of his life. Jesus once referred to the Temple as His "Father's house."

The Temple Mount was opened to the general public until September 2000, when the Palestinians started their intifada by throwing stones at Jewish worshipers after then-candidate for prime minister Ariel Sharon visited the area.

Following the onset of violence, the new Sharon government closed the Mount to non-Muslims, using checkpoints to control all pedestrian traffic for fear of further clashes with the Palestinians.

The Temple Mount was reopened to non-Muslims in August 2003. It is still open but only Sundays through Thursdays, 7:30 a.m. to 10 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m., and not on any Christian Jewish or Muslim holidays or other days considered "sensitive" by the Wafq, the Muslim custodians of the Temple Mount.

During "open" days, Jews and Christian are allowed to ascend the Temple Mount, usually through organized tours and only if they conform first to a strict set of guidelines, which includes demands that they not pray or bring any "holy objects" to the site. Visitors are banned from entering any of the mosques without direct Wafq permission.

Rules are enforced by Wafq agents, who watch tours closely and alert nearby Israeli police to any breaking of their guidelines.

U.S. presses Europe to shun Hizballah

U.S. vs. Eurabia. "U.S. presses Europe to shun Hezbollah," from the New York Times via the International Herald Tribune, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

WASHINGTON Opening up a new divide in trans-Atlantic relations, the Bush administration is increasing the pressure on Europe to list Hezbollah as a terrorist organization and impose economic sanctions.

But it has been rebuffed by France and other countries concerned that such an action will anger Iran and backfire.

A European diplomat said that Israel, with U.S. backing, made the case for listing Hezbollah at a meeting Wednesday in Brussels of the so-called Clearing House, a unit of the European Union.

The Clearing House decided against acting because of a lack of consensus on the issue, the diplomat said.

The United States got the European Union to list Hamas as a terrorist organization in the autumn of 2003, but in a measure of continuing disagreement about how to handle the Middle East, some European countries are questioning whether Hamas should remain listed now that some of its members have won elections in Gaza.

Oh, they've won elections? Well, then that makes all those murders of civilians on buses and in restaurants all right.

UK: Lloyds TSB targets Muslim market

"The Muslim community is one of the fastest growing in the UK and is very much part of the fabric of British life." OK, but how far will British authorities and businesses go to accomodate Sharia for this growing community?

For similar US developments, see here.

From The Guardian, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

Lloyds TSB today announced the launch of a current account that adheres to Islamic rules on finance. The account has been designed to comply fully with Islamic law, or sharia, which forbids the payment and receipt of interest, or riba. As such, the account will not pay interest on credit balances or have an overdraft facility.

The funds held by the bank on all shariah-compliant accounts will also be held according to Islamic law. Under shariah, Muslims are not allowed to invest in companies related to certain types of industry, such as alcohol, tobacco, pornography, armaments and gambling....

Gordon Rankin, current accounts director at Lloyds TSB, said: "The Muslim community is one of the fastest growing in the UK and is very much part of the fabric of British life. However, until now their banking needs have been largely uncatered for and many British Muslims have often had to bank in a way that is against their principles."

Anti-dhimmitude: Germany Deports Accused Egyptian Imam

"There is no place in our country for people like this, and they must leave Germany as quickly as possible." Now that's a positive development. From AP, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

STUTTGART, Germany -- An Egyptian imam accused of preaching violent Islamic extremism has been deported to his homeland, authorities said Tuesday.

The 37-year-old imam, identified only as El Beih, had preached sermons in which he called the United States the "true terrorists" and a "Satan" that threatened the Islamic world, state Interior Minister Heribert Rech said.

The imam also called for people to be willing to fight and die for Islam, Rech said.

"There is no place in our country for people like this, and they must leave Germany as quickly as possible," Rech said.

Bath, New York: Class dispels Islamic myths

Here we go again. Once again, key elements of the Qur'an and Islamic teaching are not addressed, leaving the impression that Mr. Irfan Mehr is practicing taqiyya. From the Corning Leader, with thanks to Ali Dashti:

Mehr, a native of Pakistan, met with more than 160 county workers during two sessions, to broaden their understanding of a faith held by 1.7 billion people worldwide.

The workshop was set up by Legislator Kenneth Isaman, R-Hornellsville, as a way to raise awareness and respect for Muslims in the area.

Isaman said he plans on arranging more workshops for county employees in the future, and wants to develop similar presentations for municipal boards and local schools....

Mehr said the Koran calls Christians and Jews "Children of the Book" and tells Muslims to treat them as cousins in faith.

"It tells us you are all children of Abraham, leave your differences up to the Almighty," Mehr said.

The Qur'an also says that Muslims should make war on these "Children of the Book" -- actually "People of the Book" -- and that they are under the curse of Allah:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. The Jews call 'Uzair [Ezra] a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! (9:29-30)

The Koran also dedicates separate chapters to Mary, and Jesus. Muslims believe all the New Testament accounts of Jesus, but believe he was a prophet and not the Messiah, Mehr said.

This is simply false. In the first place, there is a chapter of the Qur'an entitled "Mary" (Sura 19), but there is no chapter "dedicated" to Jesus. Nor do Muslims believe all the New Testament accounts of Jesus: Mehr contradicts himself by saying that and following it up by saying Jesus was not the Messiah, since the New Testament of course proclaims him to be the Messiah. Now in this instance I suspect the reporter has gotten mixed up, for the Qur'an does refer to Jesus as the Messiah, but strenuously and repeatedly denies that he is the Son of God. I suspect that that is what Mehr said, unless he himself is ignorant of the Qur'an. But in any case, in no sense do Muslims accept what the New Testament teaches about Jesus, for the latter affirms him to be the Son of God. The Qur'an also denies the crucifixion, as well as other elements of the New Testament account of Jesus.

That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah"; but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not... (Qur'an 4:157)

The story about Mehr continues:

The Islamic notion of justice is strict, with the Koran demanding someone who has done wrong to testify against himself, Mehr said. If a soldier believes his side is wrong he must immediately join the other side and fight his comrades and family.

Is Mehr thereby endorsing the actions of Hasan Akbar?

While individual Muslims may judge an act as wrong or evil, they are forbidden to react until their leaders unanimously agree on a course of action, Mehr said. In extreme cases, after efforts at reconciliation have failed, the leadership may call a holy war, or jihad.

Likewise, only religious leaders may judge wrongdoing.

"It has been said that (Sept. 11 mastermind Osama) bin Laden will never even catch whiff of the fragrance of heaven," Mehr said. "That is strong condemnation."

Mehr said reports of Muslims hating the West, and specifically Americans, are exaggerated.

"There is no hate," Mehr said. "Yes, there are certain things in the American culture they don't want any part of, we don't want in our houses. There are certain things in our cultures you don't want in your houses. Things that are despicable, like wife beating."

Which also comes, of course, from the Qur'an (Sura 4:34). But "there is no hate"? Really? Sure. Just a few wall posters proclaiming, "Killing of Christians and Jews is required as soon as possible." But no hate.

And Mehr is trying to take this kind of thing into schools. But of course, it is already there.

Anti-dhimmitude in Maryland: Celebration of Iranian Revolution Canceled

"Iranian Celebration Canceled," from the Washington Post, with thanks to EPG:

A celebration scheduled for this weekend at Montgomery County's new hotel and conference center, marking the 26th anniversary of the Islamic revolution in Iran, was canceled after the hotel's operator learned that it would violate federal law.

The Bethesda North Marriott Hotel and Conference Center, which opened in December, was to play host to 1,000 guests at a reception thrown by Ali Jazini, director of the Interests Section of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

John Wolf, a Marriott spokesman, said yesterday that the hotel canceled the event after realizing it is illegal to do business with Iran. He said Marriott officials will "be taking steps" to prevent similar bookings in the future.

Announcement of the event raised an outcry from Iranian opponents of the country's regime who live in the United States. They organized a campaign calling on Marriott to cancel.

"For them to come celebrate the anniversary of their glorious revolution in the United States is just wrong," said Iman Foroutan, director of the Iran of Tomorrow Movement, an American-based organization working to oust Iran's fundamentalist regime. "If they allowed this, I would not be surprised if al Qaeda celebrated their next anniversary in the heart of New York."

UK: "PBUH" not required

Re the post here yesterday, David Holford clarifies (thanks to LGF):

"OCR will always put 'peace be upon him' after Muhammad in the form of an Arabic colophon as a mark of respect. However we do not expect candidates to do this.

A reference to this can be found on page 13 of the OCR GCSE Religious Studies Notes for Guidance."

Holland: Hindu temple under attack by Muslims

Cid Martel of Dutchdisease.com has kindly sent over this translation of a Dutch-language article. Why is it permissible in the Dutch press to say "Hindu" but not "Muslim," so that we get a story about a "Hindu" temple attacked by "Moroccan" youth? Are we supposed to believe that Moroccans as such have some animus toward Hindus? Are we to assume that this is fallout from some border dispute between Morocco and India? (You didn't know they shared a border? Of course they do. It runs just southwest of Poland China, the famous hog-breeding nation.)

A Hindu temple in The Hague, the Ram Mandir, is frequently being attacked by a group of Moroccan youth. Young Hindus are so fed up with the situation they want to take matters into their own hands.

Morrocans shove dog faeces through the mailbox and have broken into the temple twice, stolen a statue, urinated inside and stolen money from the moneybox. Mister S. Ramdhani, a Hindu priest, says: “They spit, don’t let visitors pass through, robbed two elderly ladies and then threatened them not to press charges. Our secretary was attacked with a stick.”

Ramdhani doesn’t want young Hindus and Moroccans to clash. “If groups start fighting each other we get a very bad situation. We can’t have that here in Holland.” Ramdhani is very embittered about the case. Last year he was given a ribbon by the queen for his contribution to the integration of foreigners in the neighbourhood. Every year thousands of students from The Hague come to the temple to learn more about the Hindu faith; it’s also a haven for troubled teens. Since 9/11 Ramdhani has been trying to reach out to Christians and Muslims.

The trouble caused by Moroccan youth has made a dent in Ramdhani’s idealism. He’s thinking about no longer attending the 9/11 meetings. “I feel discriminated against. Why they have to choose our temple? There is a mosque nearby. Why don’t they go over there to cause trouble? They must hate the Hindu faith. Otherwise I don’t know.”

Rabin Baldewsingh, a member of the city council for the social-democrats, asked mayor Deetman for help. The police says it’s ‘on the agenda’.

Sure it is.

Why do federal officials continue to meet with CAIR?

From "Profile of Terror" by Evan D. McCormick in FrontPage, with thanks to EPG:

It seems that being formally exposed as a terrorist support group by U.S. senators hasn’t fazed the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). In the first weeks of 2005, the same organization excoriated by Senator Charles Schumer for having “intimate links with Hamas” was once again rallying support in the press for American Muslims whose civil rights allegedly were violated by U.S. counterterrorism officials.

The victims: a group of 40 Muslims – some of them American citizens – crossing the Canadian border on their way back from a weekend in Toronto, where they attended a conference titled “Reviving the Islamic Spirit” (RIS). Their grievance: being held at the border for six hours and singled out for questioning and fingerprinting by U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents solely (they allege) on the basis of their religion. Homeland Security officials claim they acted on specific information regarding terrorist involvement at conferences like RIS, but CAIR shrugged off the explanation as a cover story for racial and religious profiling, and called for a “formal investigation.”...

As federal officials firmly stood their ground following the incident, articles in the press decrying the controversy and publicizing CAIR’s demands for an investigation continued throughout January. In early February, DOJ officials promised to meet, within the next two months, with members of the Western New York Chapter of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) to hear their concerns over the incident.

This sequence of events gives an all-too-familiar insight into the political strategy of radical Islamist groups. First, CAIR or another of its Islamist kin complains loudly to the media regarding an alleged violation of civil rights. Sympathetic media outlets then report the claims, with little scrutiny of who is making them and why. Federal agencies, anxious to avoid embarrassment over the contentious issue of civil liberties, then agree to meet with the leaders of these groups, who air concerns and offer policy advice that would supposedly make the War on Terror more amenable to the American Muslims they claim to represent....

Since September 11, 2001, for example, no fewer than three CAIR officials – Randall Todd Royer, Ghassan Elashi and Bassem Khafagi – have been found guilty on charges related to major counterterrorism investigations. Royer, a former communications specialist with CAIR, was charged with providing material support to al-Qaeda. Nihad Awad has stated, “I am in support of the Hamas movement.” Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper has defended Saudi financial aid given to families of suicide bombers. At a congressional hearing marking the second anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Senator Richard Durbin stated that CAIR is “unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its associations with groups that are suspect.”

MPAC, whose officials will soon be meeting with DHS agents in New York, has defended Hezbollah and lobbied against the designation of the group, along with Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, as terrorists. MPAC, which also collects reports of hate crimes via its Web site, actively discourages Muslims from cooperating with anti-terrorism investigations. It is also interesting to note that MPAC’s Western New York Chapter was until 2004 a regional affiliate of the American Muslim Council, whose leader, Abdurahman Alamoudi, is now serving a 23-year prison sentence for conducting financial dealings with Libya aimed at assassinating the Saudi crown prince.

When groups that voice support for Hamas and Hezbollah and have employed alleged associates of al-Qaeda are meeting with Homeland Security officials in charge of protecting our borders, it can no longer be considered community outreach; it is subversion.

What Must Be Done

The solution is simple. Federal agencies must cease to meet with officials from Islamist organizations known to be affiliated financially, materially or ideologically with identified terrorist groups.

One would think that this sort of point would be obvious to everyone. Unfortunately, it seems to elude almost everyone in Washington.

Mowbray: Media dhimmitude re the Saudis

"A Tale of Two Media," by Joel Mowbray in FrontPage (thanks to EPG):

To see a classic example of the divergence between “mainstream” and “alternative” media coverage, consider the portrayal of the Saudis this past week.

The “respectable” daily newspapers and news wires have reported that the Saudis, though still subject to some criticism, are finally getting serious about fighting terrorism. The blogosphere—the universe of “blogs,” short for web logs—and talk radio, however, have been buzzing over the murder of a family of Egyptian Christian immigrants in Jersey City and the report on Saudi-funded jihadist propaganda found in American mosques that might help provide some context for that horrible crime.

What most Americans will never know is that last week human rights group Freedom House put out a first-of-its-kind report documenting, in excruciating detail, the poisonous venom found in Saudi-created and funded “religious” materials available at prominent mosques across the United States.

A Lexis-Nexis uncovered just five—count ‘em, five—news stories in “mainstream” outlets on the Freedom House report. But the number is actually worse than it looks.

Four of the five are not traditionally part of the “mainstream” mafia: the Washington Times, the NY Sun (a new conservative paper), the Dallas Morning News (also right-of-center), and the Wall Street Journal (in its “B” section). Somewhat surprisingly, the fifth outlet covering the Freedom House report was the Washington Post....

The former imam at the El-Tawheed Islamic Center in Jersey City, Alaa Al-Sadawi, was convicted in 2003 of attempting to smuggle more than $650,000 to the terrorist organization Global Relief Fund in Egypt.

One of Al-Sadawi’s former spiritual followers murdered in the name of Allah. Alim Hassan, then 31, killed his pregnant wife, her mother, and her sister on July 30, 2002. He reportedly stabbed the women more than 20 times each because they refused to convert to Islam. According to reports, Hassan prayed regularly at El-Tawheed.

Radical Islamists may or may not be behind the recent murder of the Armanious family—though the mainstream media’s impulse is to favor the latter scenario—but what is clear is that it would not be surprising, both in light of what’s happened in Jersey City and nationally, as shown by Freedom House.

Just don’t expect the mainstream media to make that connection.

Khalidi Is Tapped To Teach Teachers About Middle East

Fox-Guarding-the-Henhouse Department, from the New York Sun, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

A Columbia University professor who has called Israel a "racist" state with an "apartheid system," and who has supported attacks by Palestinian-Arabs on Israelis, is scheduled to lecture a group of New York City public school teachers on how to teach Mideast politics to schoolchildren.

The professor, Rashid Khalidi, is director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia University. His professorship is named in memory of Edward Said, a divisive scholar, and is paid for in part with a donation from the United Arab Emirates.

Mr. Khalidi is one of more than a dozen Columbia professors expected to give city public-school teachers an overview of the history and culture of the Middle East, as part of a professional-development course offered by the city's Department of Education.

UPDATE: Good news! Education Dept. Drops Columbia Prof. From Teaching Program for Teachers

More UK dhimmitude: Religious Ed students must write "PBUH" after Muhammad

Unbelievable story at LGF: British teacher David Holford says that the Muslim blessing "peace be upon him" (often abbreviated "pbuh"), customarily written by believing Muslims after the name of a prophet, must now be written by all British students after they write the name of Muhammad:

The potential problem has arisen in teaching about Muhammad. The exam board requires that every time Muhammad is written, the letters "pbuh" in parentheses be placed after it. This is shorthand for "peace be upon him". The writer therefore prays a blessing upon him everytime his name is written, as is the custom of Muslims. So I have to tell my students (over and over if there is any hope of them remembering) that they must bless Muhammad every time they mention his name.

Might as well turn out the lights. It's over in Britain.

Call It Eurabia Now

From Alan Caruba in the Canada Free Press (thanks to Nicolei):

Europeans do not see what is coming and like the Jews who in the 1930’s refused to see what their fellow countrymen throughout Europe had in mind for them, they face a fate that Bat Ye’or, the author of Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis ($49.50/$23.95, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, hard/softcover), calls "a civilization of dhimmitude."

It comes from the Arab word, "dhimmi." As Bat Ye’or explains it, "It refers to subjugated, non-Muslim individuals or people that accept the restrictive and humiliating subordination to an ascendant Islamic power to avoid enslavement or death." And then she adds, "The entire Muslim world as we know it today is a product of this 1,300 year-old jihad dynamic, whereby once thriving non-Muslim majority civilizations have been reduced to a state of dysfunctional dhimmitude."

Two nations stand against the worldwide Jihad being waged by Islamists in the name of all Muslims and they are the United States of America and Great Britain. And even today there are Americans who, like the European Jews barely a lifetime ago, do not fully comprehend how utterly determined Islamists are in their desire to destroy or enslave us.

In early February, Daniel Pipes, the director of the Middle East Forum, was continuing to warn Americans about the internal threat revealed in a recently published study, "Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques." The study was undertaken by Freedom House, a New York-based organization, founded in 1941 and dedicated to the spread of democracy and freedom around the world. This is the same freedom to which President Bush devoted his inaugural speech.

What Freedom House discovered was that American mosques are filled with writings, more than two hundred books and other publications disseminated by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, that espoused "an anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, misogynist, Jihadist, and (a) supremacist outlook." Somewhere among those categories is YOU.

If you’re an American Christian, the Jihadists hate you. If you’re an American Jew, the Jihadists want you dead. If you’re an American woman, the Jihadists want you covered from head to foot in a burka. In brief, if you are not a Muslim, you have no rights except those permitted to a dhimmi, an unbeliever under the control of Islam.

Aiding them in every way is France and the European Union whose hatred for Israel is as strong as its Muslim allies. So, while the air is filled with talk of "peace" or a "truce" between the so-called Palestinians and the Israelis, do not be deceived.

The Muslims divide the world between dar al-Islam, the world of Islam, and dar al-harb, the world of war, a region that must be conquered until the entire planet bows down to Allah and declares Mohammed his prophet. There are more than a billion Muslims worldwide. They are not all Jihadists, but they are all devoted to Islam.

As for any truce with the Israelis or with any non-Muslim nation, Islam limits such treaties to a period of 10 years, after which Jihad must resume. The wall Israel built between itself and the Palestinian Arabs remains its best defense. Ceding any land to them is a mistake.

Welcome home, Madame Secretary. France will betray you. Germany will do little to support the war on terrorism. Just as they did with the millions the European Union sent them each month, the Palestinians will take the forty million U.S. dollars we have given them and buy more weapons for the day when they can drive the Jews into the sea. The Iranians will continue to build their nuclear bombs. The Saudis will conspire against us. No diplomacy on earth will diminish the Jihad. Only our will to defeat it will save us from dhimmitude.

If there's a place for Sharia, it's not Ontario

A call for that most scarce of items, sanity in Canada. From the International Herald Tribune, with thanks to Ricky Poole:

TORONTO Jurisprudence in Canada, a country that prides itself for its progressive human rights positions, took a hit in December when former Attorney General Marion Boyd released her long-awaited report on the permissibility of Sharia law under the Arbitration Act of the Province of Ontario. To the astonishment of almost everyone involved in the debate, Boyd ruled in favor of the patriarchal religious code that governs the lives of Muslims.

It's hard to fathom what Boyd was thinking when she opened this Pandora's box. In spite of evidence that Sharia law isn't working as it is supposed to in a single country around the world today, she makes 45 recommendations that further complicate the already flawed Arbitration Act she was asked to examine.

The report drew opposition from women's groups and many others across the country. The Canadian Council of Muslim Women said, "Sanctioning the use of religious laws under the Arbitration Act will provide legitimacy to practices that are abhorred by fair-minded Canadians, including Muslim women."....

Boyd's report is now in the hands of the premier of the province, Dalton McGuinty. Throw it out, Mr. Premier, throw it out.

France rebuffs Israeli calls to blacklist Hizbullah

Eurabia update. From TerraNet, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

France has rebuffed Israeli calls for the European Union to blacklist Lebanese resistance group Hizbullah, claiming it would be "impossible to enforce."

The French government, which last year banned Hizbullah related Al-Manar television station from airing in France, insisted Hizbullah's dual political and military structure "complicated" any moves to proscribe it.

Pipes: The Bureau of Prisons Explains Islam

From Daniel Pipes' weblog (thanks to EPG):

The Bureau of Prisons Explains Islam Many branches of government need to understand Islam, but probably none deal with Muslims and their religious practices in so practical and detailed a way as do the wardens of prisons. It is therefore particularly dismaying to see that the highest prison authority in the United States, the Bureau of Prisons (which oversees all federal correctional facilities), has bought the Islamist line....

The lesson plan's Introduction (p. 3) asserts: "Since September 11, events have aroused significant media and public attention on our neighbors who represent Islam in America. The concept of ‘Jihad' has been exploited causing fear, anxiety, and confusion about the tenants [sic] of a religion centered in peace and obedience to God. Many have come to understand the concept of ‘Jihad' as a Holy War, but in reality, ‘Jihad' depicts the struggle one endures to be submissive to God."

Which is just misleading, of course, since armed Muslim groups are waging what they, not these unnamed exploiters, call jihad all around the world today. Pipes adds:

Comment: Not only has some of the highest ranking staff in the BOP Central Office acquiesced to CAIR, but it proffers a la-la-land description of jihad that is unhistorical, inaccurate, and (given the prison environment) downright dangerous. (February 10, 2005)

Another jive Turki

"By following Shariah, Muslims can present the world the highest cultural values..." Stonings? Amputations? Oppression and inequality for non-Muslims and women? Forgive me if I prefer lower cultural values. "MWL Chief Urges Moderation," from Arab News, with thanks to Jay Stevens:

JEDDAH, 14 February 2005 — The secretary-general of the Muslim World League has called on Muslims to present Islamic solutions to the pressing problems of humanity.

Dr. Abdullah Al-Turki also called for intensive efforts to inculcate Islam’s moderate teachings and values in the minds of Muslim youth.

“It’s the duty of Muslims to explain to the world the Islamic solutions to human problems,” Al-Turki said in a message on the occasion of the new Hijrah year, which began on Thursday.

He said Islam, which is a universal religion, can solve the intricate problems of the modern world including drugs, poverty, insecurity and moral degradation....

Muslims of today must learn lessons from the life and teachings of the Prophet in order to confront modern challenges, he said. “They can restore their lost glory only by returning to God and following the Shariah,” he said.

“By following Shariah, Muslims can present the world the highest cultural values and save themselves from falling into false ideologies and deviant thoughts,” he explained.

“This will also help solve problems related to world peace and security, environment and poverty.

“The belief of Muslims in the universality of their religion and their application of its teachings in their life and international relations will protect them from the negative effect of globalization,” he pointed out.

An American Woman's Jihad

Does Fidelma O'Leary not know what is in the Qur'an, or does she hope her hearers don't? From the Cornell Daily Sun, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

"As adults we must each own our own beliefs," said Prof. Fidelma O'Leary, biology, St. Edward's University, to a packed auditorium in Goldwin Smith on Friday night. Her lecture, "An American Woman's Jihad," detailed her spiritual journey as an Irish-American Muslim.

"Islam [is] a development of the faith that I already had... Islam worked for me and I was completely at peace with my religion. [But it was] a long journey filled with jihad [and] a struggle to surrender my will to the will of God," said O'Leary, who was raised as a strict Catholic in Ireland before converting to Islam and moving to the United States.

"I was raised in a culture where thinking about religion was taboo. I was a teenager, so naturally I rebelled: I started thinking," she added. She started to have questions about the religious beliefs and practices she was raised on and she began to study religion.

O'Leary became a "person of faith, searching" for an answer. When she came across the Qur'an, she "fully related to it."

The transition to Islam was one filled with obstacles for O'Leary. She refers to the rift between herself and her family caused by her religious beliefs as her "first jihad and first painful struggle as a Muslim."

O'Leary was also featured in the 2003 National Geographic documentary film Inside Mecca, which followed three Muslims from three different continents on their Hajj, their pilgrimage to Mecca, Saudi Arabia. A screening of the film preceded the lecture.

When describing the thought process behind making the documentary, O'Leary said, "at first I didn't want to do it because I thought it would take from my Hajj. Then I realized that they wanted to gently demolish that stereotype of what a Muslim woman is. I was also really tired of [watching] people who weren't Muslim get on TV and tell me what it meant to be Muslim and I thought, we need to represent ourselves."

In terms of her views on other religions, O'Leary said, "there's beauty in all religions. Islam is a very inclusive path. It never claims exclusive access to God or to paradise."

All right. I don't want to spoil the lovefest, but maybe Fidelma O'Leary could explain a few verses of the Qur'an to me? Here they are:

The Religion before Allah is Islam (submission to His Will): Nor did the People of the Book dissent therefrom except through envy of each other, after knowledge had come to them. But if any deny the Signs of Allah, Allah is swift in calling to account. (3:19)

Doesn't that rule out the possibility that the People of the Book — i.e., Jews and Christians — have access to God or Paradise comparable to that of Muslims? Because they "dissent" from "the Religion before Allah." Also:

If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good). (3:85)

Doesn't sound very inclusive to me. Can you clear this up, Ms. O'Leary? These are honest questions. However, I didn't start doing this yesterday, and I have an idea what your response will be, if you happen to see this. You will either make no response at all, either by ignoring the questions totally or by saying, as other Islamic apologists have, that you don't answer questions from non-Muslims or from people whose credentials you don't like. If you do answer, you will accuse me of bigotry or "Islamophobia."

Feel free to prove me wrong, Ms. O'Leary. I am still looking for the Muslim who will engage in honest dialogue without name-calling.

"There is no such thing as Islamic terror. Islam means peace"

Taqiyya alert: Cid Martel of Dutchdisease.com has kindly sent over a translation of this Dutch-language interview with the female head of a Dutch mosque, Leyla Cakir: "Islamic terror and other misunderstandings."

The female head of the Ilhas mosque in Geleen, Leyla Cakir, will be part of a discussion about integration this Sunday. We asked her eight daring questions about Islam.

1. Integration of Muslims has taken a very bad turn, the murder of Theo van Gogh tells us that part of the Muslims in Holland do not wish to integrate.

Leyla Cakir: "The killer was integrated, wasn’t he? He was born here, he spoke the Dutch language and he studied here. What he did has nothing to do with him being a Muslim, it was just a murder. It’s a pity he did it in the name of Islam. It set us back ten steps."

Her point about the killer's being integrated is well taken, and good to bear in mind. But her deceptiveness is amazingly brazen in saying that a murder in which the killer pinned Qur'anic verses to the victim's body and threatened other "blasphemers" has "nothing to do with him being a Muslim." By that standard, no killing could ever possibly have anything to do with one's being a Muslim -- but those who hold such a view are either lying or willfully blinding themselves to the facts.

2. Muslims have a different kind of humour and don’t accept jokes about Mohammed, Islam or their spiritual leaders. They don’t take criticism very well. This is not compatible with democracy.

Leyla Cakir: "I have a good sense of humour. If a stand-up comic or columnist makes jokes about Islam I can understand that, it has a function. But it’s different when politicians say things about religion. They have to stay out of it. We have separation of church and state, don’t we?"

Sure. I guess that means you are renouncing any intention, now or in the future, to bring a Sharia government to Holland?

3. Remarks made by outspoken politicians like Hirsi Ali and Geert Wilders lead to an honest debate about Islam and integration.

Leyla Cakir: "I don’t know a lot about Islam, neither does Hirsi Ali. But she’s portrayed like she studied the Quran. With her remarks she paints a picture of Muslim women as being suppressed and abused. I agree with her struggle but only if it’s against the oppression of all women. It has nothing to do with religion, on the contrary. I know a lot of women that grew stronger because of their religion, Islam helped emancipate them. What Hirsi Ali and Wilders talk about has nothing to do with politics but with provocation."

Does Qur'an 4:34 have nothing to do with Islam either?

4. Islam is antagonistic and a hotbed for terrorists.

"There is no such thing as Islamic terror. Islam means peace. Young Muslims become radical out of desperation. For instance, because they are not accepted, can’t find a job and constantly have to defend their faith and people address them for what terrorists do. Plus they’re often still searching, they don’t know exactly what the meaning of Islam is and through the internet they can come into contact with the wrong ideas. The mosque can help them with this, but the government also has to cooperate."

Even some Saudis have acknowledged that poverty doesn't breed terrorism. And to dismiss the Islamic arguments used by jihadists, samples of which I have posted on this site innumerable times, as if they don't exist is simply to play on non-Muslim ignorance.

5. In the war against terror some liberties will have to buckle.

“I think a lot is possible with existing rules. It looks like politicians don’t know what rules are already in place. They don’t know how to fight terrorism and want to make it look like they’re doing something about it. We put all freedoms aside to fight Muslims. But you have to address the root causes by making foreigners feel accepted and welcome.”

Self-contradiction alert for Leyla Cakir: "The killer [of van Gogh] was integrated, wasn’t he? He was born here, he spoke the Dutch language and he studied here." But now integration -- a word which Cakir repudiates later but which clearly will make "foreigners feel welcome" -- will fight terrorism?

6. Extremist sites on the internet should be closed down as soon as possible. Foreigners that preach hatred should be sent out of the country.

“If it helps you have to close down those sites. I wonder if it will help. Besides, there are also nazi websites. You have to take care of them also. It’s true that young foreigners are searching for information on Islam and come into contact with the wrong ideas on the internet. If you can prevent that by closing sites you have to do that. And throwing people out of the country? Then you have to throw everyone out who preaches hatred, not just Muslims." [It’s impossible to throw out people who have only one passport, the point is that we can kick out people with two passports like most Moroccans and Turks –Cid Martel.]

7. People who don’t speak the language and don’t celebrate carnival aren’t naturalised.

This is the level on which the debate is being conducted, even though Europe's very life depends on it.

“I used to celebrate carnival in school but not exuberantly. Not anymore, I don’t like it. That’s not a criterion. Speaking the language is a criterion. But my mother doesn’t speak Dutch very well. She came here thirty years ago, the Dutch deliberately brought in uneducated people. You can’t expect them to learn Dutch, in that time they were never asked. Besides, communication is for the most part body language. When my mother goes to the butcher or the baker she talks to everyone.

8. Integration can prevent terrorism and extremism but the concept of integration is too vague and requires rules that are clear.

“Maybe we should stop talking about integration altogether, and talk about living together. Because integration is definitely too vague a term, nobody knows exactly what it means. But we all know what it means to live together. It’s mutual, you have to accept each other.”

Indeed. As van Gogh's murder indicates, it's the acceptance from the adherents of Sharia that has not been forthcoming.

Saudi Morality Police See Red Over Valentine Roses

Because Valentine's Day is not an Islamic observance. From Reuters, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia's morality police are on the scent of illicit red roses as part of a clampdown on would-be St Valentine's lovers in the strict Muslim kingdom.

The Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, Saudi Arabia's powerful religious vigilantes, have banned shops from selling any red flowers in the run-up to February 14.

Human rights in Pakistan: violence and misery for children and women

Note why they can't stop discrimination against women. From AsiaNews, with thanks to Nicolei:

Islamabad (AsiaNews) – In its ‘State of Human Rights Report’ for 2004, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) said that the situation of human rights in the country is abysmal.

The Report’s six chapters trace an upward trend in violence against religious minorities as well as women, noting the lack of appropriate laws to protect such groups.

The data shows that overall human rights violations rose in 2004 compared to previous years; especially troubling were crimes against women and children.

Not only is economic hardship the main threat to the wellbeing of children but so are physical and sexual abuse.

Given the absence of any government strategy to address the problem, the situation is deteriorating. Many children who suffer from malnutrition are also denied an adequate education and have little or no access to drinking water and medical care. In Karachi alone 10,000 children survive in the streets.

According to the Report, education standards are constantly dropping and schools are increasingly inaccessible to the poorest classes of society.

This explains why Pakistan is at the bottom of the world ranking in terms of education. Some experts noted that about 5.8 million children did not attend any school or educational programme.

The health situation is also critical with polio still a problem, a situation complicated by the fact that much of the population is still unable to adequately feed itself: more than one third lives below the poverty line.

With poverty and unemployment at high levels more than a thousand Pakistanis committed suicide with another 4.5 million people addicted to illicit drugs.

Of all the groups, women are especially vulnerable. The HRCP Report cites official government statistics according to which about 1,000 women were murdered last year in honour killings, another 10,000 were raped, and thousands more were victims of domestic violence, including 42 women who were attacked with acid and 19 flogged.

Even when the government has laws that are supposed to stop discrimination against women, the Commission points out, they have had little impact because the Hudood (which outlaws extra-marital sex and rape outside of a valid marriage), Qisas (which calls for equal punishment for the crime committed) and Diyat (compensation payable to a victim’s legal heirs) Ordinances have not been repealed or amended.

Watson: Dear CAIR

Longtime Jihad Watch reader DC Watson writes this letter to the Council on American Islamic Relations:

Dear Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR): Asalaamu-Alaikum. You know, for a decade now, it seems you've worked hard to gain respect for Muslims in America. Yet many unflattering articles have been published about your organization. These have provided facts about your activities and statements you've made, including your criticism not only of Americans exercising their right to free speech, but also of American governmental policies. They've also pointed out some questionable ties some people in your organization seem to have with terrorist groups. All this has brought scrutiny to your doorstep.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6473
http://frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9981
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1312388/posts

This column isn't about the Muslims in America who are decent and peaceful Muslims; it's about your approach to American society.

Although you have harshly criticized the American government, you still call meetings with its officials -- not to address strategies to improve your relations with the American people, but to express your concern that so many Americans have negative views of Islam. Instead of working to help Muslims integrate and coexist with non-Muslims in America, it appears that you've taken the back door approach with the State Department. Are you hoping to stifle the right to free speech in America, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment?

While your organization's name includes the word "relations", one would be hard pressed to identify your efforts to improve relations with the American public. Since the Cornell University poll was recently conducted and published, which announced that 44% of Americans would limit Muslim civil rights, you have done nothing to earn the trust of the American people. Instead, you've once again called on the American government to resolve the "nagging issue" of "Islamophobia."

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Dec04/Muslim.Poll.bpf.html

http://www.prnewswire.com

Why the government entertains your organization is anyone's guess. Perhaps they're simply keeping their friends close, and their enemies closer. But whatever the reason, government officials must be aware that at least part of the friction between Muslims and the American public can be blamed on your name-calling, insults, and intimidation tactics.

Sure, America has its share of easy-going, kindhearted people. That's a wonderful part of our culture. America also has its fair share of "smash mouth" heavy hitters, who are not intimidated and will not play the Dhimmi under any circumstances.

Will you also dismiss my words here as "hate speech," or "Islamophobia"?

But what about the hate speech coming from Muslim "guest speakers" on
college campuses, Imams in American mosques, and Islamic educators in
madrassas, funded from abroad, who preach hatred for Americans, Jews,
Christians and Western culture while standing on American soil?

Some of our campuses have opened their arms to Muslim speakers who have attempted to spark a revolution against the United States, assisted by radical college professors who seem to believe everything is America's fault. This is sedition, and it should be closely monitored and dealt with appropriately.

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/39658.htm

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=83762

Although members of your organization have made very clear their defense for arrested and convicted terror suspects, as well as their intention of establishing an Islamic United States in public and on the record, you call on the government and media to refrain from publishing or airing statements or programs that are negative of Islam, or call for the firing of employees that make such statements.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6473

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/888598/posts

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c172.html

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/news1/an010929-14.html

http://www.anti-cair-net.org/press_021_03

What about the ruckus your organization created over the Fox series "24," and the fact that a Muslim family in America was depicted as a terrorist cell? Why should the star of the series, Kiefer Sutherland, have to ask Fox viewers to keep in mind that the American Muslim community stands with America in its war on terrorism?

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1310486/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1328033/posts

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/004986.php

Three questions:

1) Do you at CAIR honestly think that Americans aren't intelligent enough to understand that not all Muslims are terrorists?

2) Are you at CAIR telling the American people that even with the raids on mosques and Muslim charities, and terror-related convictions inside American borders, that Islamic terror cells simply do not exist here, and never did?

3) If this is the case, should we visit you at CAIR every time another terror arrest is made in the U.S., holding you responsible? Is that what you're telling us?

Rather than focusing your energy on a television show, shouldn't the behavior of prominent Muslims be more of a concern to you, since you focus so diligently on how American Muslims are perceived?

Just days ago, a Muslim speaker named Amir-Abdel Malik-Ali, announced as "a specialist in international politics," gave a speech at the University of California at Irvine. He offered the following commentary while standing on American soil:

"And we have to sacrifice too, while we live here, in Am-ri-ka. The belly of the beast. The number one imperialist in the world. But, let's call it a state, ok? And then you go get some Uncle Tom Palestinian leaders to fall for this okey-doke. Two state solution is off the table. No. One state. And check this out! One state majority rules. Us, the Muslims."

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=14593_Amrika_the_Belly_of_the_Beast#comments

Hatem Bazian, University of California at Berkeley Lecturer in Islamic studies, delivered a call for an uprising against the United States in April 2004, again on American soil:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/2004_05.php

The CAIR website lists an abundance of articles, but no condemnation from you of the statements made by Ward Churchill, Bazian, or Malik-Ali. Perhaps you just didn't have enough information to comment on these matters, as with the genocide in Sudan?

Yet you certainly had the time to research the comments made by one of our decorated American war heroes, did you not? You even made time to speak to the press about him, correct? United States Marine Corps Lt. General James Mattis, who led troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, made statements that apparently offended those bothersome fragile feelings:

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050203/2005-02-03T200920Z_01_N03377963_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-IRAQ-MARINES-GENERAL-DC.html

Of course, this officer, who was obviously defeating Muslim terrorists near the threshold of hell, is a true American patriot. He has fought to preserve our right to free speech. Yet in textbook fashion, you condemn him, and even called on the Pentagon to discipline him. Never mind that this man has won the Bronze Star! He has offended a Muslim group, and now you seek to damage his career. Said CAIR's Nihad Awad: "We do not need generals who treat the grim business of war as a sporting event. These disturbing remarks are indicative of an apparent indifference to the value of human life."

http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=1425&theType=NR

http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=35975&theType=NB

http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=36015&theType=NB

Actually, what we don't need, Mr. Awad, is you and your organization
telling us what we need or don't need. The Taliban in Afghanistan committed atrocities for years until the U.S. removed them from power. They hanged people from light posts and cranes, slashed throats, beat and shot women, burned entire families alive, and perpetrated many other horrific acts:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/22/ret.wh.taliban.attrocities/

http://pz.rawa.org/rawa/b-herald.htm

If you have issues with the Taliban's demise and how the General spoke of them, what does this say about you? Instead of criticizing an American who has risked his life so that you can live here in freedom and make your remarks, why don't you and your friends put on the uniform and head to the Middle East to fight Muslim terrorists and terror-sponsoring states?

Intentionally or unintentionally, your comments have provided some insight as to where your allegiances lie. This is disgraceful, since you reside here. Thank God there are no plans to discipline Lt. General Mattis.

It seems that your group also has issues regarding the Guantanamo
inmates. Remember them? They were picked up on the battlefield fighting for the Taliban and al Qaeda against American forces. Why are you so concerned with their detention?

Although your group didn't write these columns, you certainly haven't
backed away from posting them on your website. One column was entitled "I entered the hellish world of Gitmo." Apparently the writer didn't realize that Camp X-ray is a prison, not a resort. Assuming the story is even true, the article mentions a "hot" interrogation room. Tell me, could that room have possibly been near the temperature that two airliners loaded with jet fuel created when they were flown into the WTC towers?

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1406987,00.html

Since you, Mr. Awad, your organization, Hatem Bazian, and Mr. "Am-ri-ka" Amir-Abdel Malik-Ali seem so comfortable with microphone in hand, please consider this invitation. Instead of criticizing America, insulting my fellow American citizens, and questioning our culture while disrespecting American troops, hasn't the time come for a face-off in a public forum, so that your tactics can be addressed properly?

Should we now agree to go head to head in a debate, once and for all, in front of the nation?

Forget about the frivolous lawsuits, or running to the State Department. The Islamophobia play selection doesn't apply here either. I have friends who are Muslim. I've dined on Halal foods, and I keep a statue that my friend Shiehab's family made by hand in Africa.

You've treaded on beloved ground, without kindness. However, I'm afraid the attack dog routine hasn't worked on everyone. I'm not a Middle East scholar, or an expert on Islam, so scoring a decisive victory should be quite easy for you, shouldn't it? The question is, are you game? Let's just settle this. Simply send an E-mail to the following website directors so that we can iron out the scheduling and availability details.

director@jihadwatch.org

faithfreedom3@yahoo.com

Texas: Students attend CAIR conference on Islam

"Religion Briefs: Students attend conference on Islam," from MySA.com, with thanks to Richard:

More than 260 students attended a conference on Islam sponsored by the Council on American-Islamic Relations at Providence High School on Wednesday.

The all-day event started with a local Islamic religious leader reciting from the Koran and a CAIR representative reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

Students attended lectures on Islam and participated in discussions on a variety of topics.

"It was a beautiful day," said Sarwat Hussain, executive director of CAIR-San Antonio. "Many teachers and interfaith leaders also participated in the event and deemed it a great success."

I wonder if Providence school officials know about CAIR's record:

CAIR is a spin-off of the Islamic Association For Palestine, a group identified by two former FBI counter-terrorism chiefs as a U.S. front group for the terrorist group Hamas.

Since 9-11, CAIR has seen three of its former employees indicted on federal terrorism charges.

Randall Todd "Ismail" Royer was sentenced to 20 years in prison on charges he trained in Virginia for holy war against the United States and sent several members to Pakistan to join Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Kashmiri terrorist group with reported ties to al-Qaida.

In a plea bargain, Royer claimed he never intended to hurt anyone but admitted he organized the holy warriors after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S.

After his arrest, Royer sought legal counsel from Hamas lawyer Stanley Cohen, who said after 9-11 he would consider serving as a defense lawyer for Osama bin Laden if the al-Qaida leader were captured.

Another CAIR figure, Bassem Khafagi, was arrested in January 2003 while serving as the group's director of community relations. The previous December, Ghassan Elashi, the founder of CAIR's Texas chapter, was indicted for financial ties to Hamas leader Musa Abu Marzook.

Current CAIR leaders also have made statements in support of Hamas and the domination of the U.S. by Islam.

As WorldNetDaily reported, CAIR's chairman of the board, Omar Ahmad, was cited by a California newspaper in 1998 declaring the Quran should be America's highest authority.

He also was reported to have said Islam is not in America to be equal to any other religion but to be dominant.

I also wonder when the priests and rabbis are scheduled to speak at the local Islamic school.

Born to be a slave in Niger

This dhimmi BBC report gives no hint of why slavery still exists in Niger, which is 80% Muslim: because the Qur'an sanctions it. (Thanks to Simon for the link.)

Slavery continues to blight the lives of many millions around the world. Although officially abolished in some countries two centuries ago, people trafficking, bonded labour and child labour still exist. There are some places on earth that few outsiders visit or know about, vast empty sections of the earth where time has stood still for centuries.

Niger is one of those places. It is a country that you can drive through for hours without seeing a soul.

A nation of vast, barren and windswept landscapes, a country of people who live almost entirely off cattle, and off the labour of human slaves.

Slavery in Niger is not an obscure thing, nor a curious relic of the past, it is an intrinsic part of society today.

A Nigerian study has found that almost 8% of the population are slaves.

You wonder how this can be in the 21st Century and why people do not know about it?

Yes, and the BBC ain't telling, even though it can't conceal that the slave interviewed in this story is named "Fatima," after Muhammad's daughter.

Also note this:

When we spoke to her masters they denied owning slaves. The practice of slavery was outlawed in Niger last year.

Last year. Imagine the outcry if a Western country hadn't outlawed slavery until 2004. Yet moralists continue to speak of slavery in the United States as if it was something sui generis and uniquely horrible in the history of mankind, while ignoring massive evidence of continuing slavery in the Islamic world -- or glossing over its Islamic character, as does this report.

Iran still wants Rushdie dead

The notorious death fatwa that began to awaken the world to the nature of Islamic Sharia — although most still slumber — is still in effect. Even less well known is the fact that all "apostates" from Islam labor under the same death sentence, and that Islamic law mandates second-class status for non-Muslims and women. "Iran adamant over Rushdie fatwa," from the BBC, with thanks to Twostellas:

Iran's hard-line Revolutionary Guards have declared the death sentence on British author Salman Rushdie is still valid - 16 years after it was issued.

The military organisation, loyal to Iran's supreme leader - said the order was "irrevocable" on the eve of the anniversary of the 1989 fatwa.

The order was issued after publication of Mr Rushdie's novel "The Satanic Verses", condemned as blasphemous.

Iran's reformist government has in the past distanced itself from the fatwa.

The Revolutionary Guards, who answer directly to Iran's current Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said: "This statement, while stressing the irrevocability of the death verdict against Salman Rushdie, says history shows that the Muslims have in no era accepted their sanctities being defiled."

"The day will come when they will punish the apostate Rushdie for his scandalous acts and insults against the Koran and the Prophet (Mohammed)," they said, two days before the anniversary of the order.

Despicable moral equivalence from the New York Times

The New York Times today carries a story entitled "Fear of Islamists Drives Growth of Far Right in Belgium," which details how the scary "far right" is using fear of the poor old Muslims to gain political power and influence. Without a trace of irony or introspection, it quotes a Belgian convert to Islam praising Osama bin Laden and 9/11, but still stoops to suggest that opposition to Islamic influence and immigration in Europe is equivalent to Nazi genocide: "Though he is the son of concentration camp survivors and his grandparents died in camps, he campaigned on behalf of Vlaams Belang, then named Vlaams Blok, in regional elections last year."

No one is advocating death camps for Muslims in Europe. Opposition to Islamic immigration to Europe is not racism or Nazism. It is a sober recognition that Islam is a political and social system as well as a set of tenets for individual behavior, and that many Muslims in Europe believe that present European societies have no legitimacy and should be replaced by Sharia.

But as long as the Times continues to write articles as full of sly insinuations as this one is, all too many people of good will will not realize that Sharia is an institutionalized denial of the rights of women and non-Muslims, and that it could come to Europe. The equality of rights of all people is at stake, and Europe is on the brink of a Dark Ages that could erase all the achievements of Western civilization in establishing a legal structure guaranteeing the dignity of all people. But the Times has appointed Walter Duranty its Guiding Inspiration for the 21st Century.

ANTWERP, Belgium - Filip Dewinter, a boyish man in a dark blue suit, bounds up two flights of steep stairs in his political party's 19th-century headquarters building where posters show a Muslim minaret rising menacingly above the Gothic steeple of the city's cathedral.

"The radical Muslims are organizing themselves in Europe," he declared. "Other political parties, they are very worried about the Muslim votes and say let's be tolerant, while we are saying - the new political forces in Europe are saying - no, we should defend our identity."

From the Freedom Party in Austria to the National Front in France to the Republicans in Germany, Europe's far right has made a comeback in recent years, largely on the strength of anti-immigration feelings sharpened to a fear of Islam. That fear is fed by threats of terrorism, rising crime rates among Muslim youth and mounting cultural clashes with the Continent's growing Islamic communities.

But nowhere has the right's revival been as swift or as strong as in Belgium's Dutch-speaking region of Flanders, where support for Mr. Dewinter's Vlaams Belang, or Flemish Interest, has surged from 10 percent of the electorate in 1999 to nearly a quarter today.

Vlaams Belang is now the strongest party in Flanders, with support from a third of the voters in Antwerp, the region's largest city. Many people worry that the appeal of antiIslamic politics will continue to spread as Europe's Muslim population grows.

"What they all have in common is that they use the issue of immigration and Islam to motivate and mobilize frustrated people," said Marco Martiniello, a political scientist at the University of Liège in the French-speaking part of Belgium. "In Flanders all attempts to counter the march of the Vlaams Belang have had no results, or limited results, and no one really knows what to do."...

"Their values are not the right values," said Henri Rosenberg, a Talmudic scholar and lawyer who is an Orthodox Jew, speaking of the Muslim community. Though he is the son of concentration camp survivors and his grandparents died in camps, he campaigned on behalf of Vlaams Belang, then named Vlaams Blok, in regional elections last year....

Behind the wooden door of a brick Brussels town house, Jean-François Bastin, 61, a Belgian convert to Islam, holds court before a steady stream of Islamic activists. His fledgling Young Muslims Party is one of the new groups aggressively pursuing pro-Muslim agendas in Europe.

He calls Osama bin Laden "a modern Robin Hood," and the World Trade Center attacks "a poetic act," "a pure abstraction." His 23-year-old son is in jail in Turkey on charges that he was involved in the bombings there that killed 61 people in November 2003....

Already about 4,000 to 5,000 Flemish residents are leaving Antwerp every year, while 5,000 to 6,000 non-European immigrants arrive annually in the city, Mr. Dewinter said. Within 10 years, he predicts, people of non-European backgrounds will account for more than a third of Antwerp's population.

"It's growing very, very fast," Mr. Dewinter said. "Maybe that will be the end of Europe."

Amsterdam police commissioner: army should guard buildings against jihadists

"Call for military anti-terror guards," from Expatica, with thanks to JS:

AMSTERDAM — Amsterdam police commissioner Bernard Welten has said the army should be called in to guard buildings in the city from terrorists.

Welten said there were 125 locations currently under extra police surveillance in Amsterdam to prevent possible terror attacks. The capital's police spent 100,000 officer-hours on guard duty last year, compared with 41,000 in 2003.

"MUSLIMS ARE EXPOSING YOU, MR ISLAMOPHOBE"

I just got an email (from a coward with a false email address) with that in the subject line. The body of the message, however, merely quotes Carl Ernst's guilt-by-association attack against me by attacking my publishers, which I disposed of a few days ago in speaking about Omid Safi, who also linked to Ernst's attack.

Ernst can point out all the connections he wants. I'll even acknowledge them: my books have been published by conservative publishers -- except for the latest, The Myth of Islamic Tolerance, which is published by Prometheus Books, an outfit that cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called conservative. (For some reason the liberals mostly don't seem interested in this issue; for details, see my book Onward Muslim Soldiers, particularly the chaper entitled "Everybody must get stoned: The strange alliance between radical Islam and the post-Sixties Left.") But for objectivity, accuracy, fairness, and academic content, I will happily stand up my books to his anytime. For him to pretend that an academic press and an academic position confers objectivity upon him in these days of Ward Churchill and Shahid Alam, not to mention my man Omid, is beyond ridiculous.

Ernst, of course, is to the best of my knowledge not a Muslim, so the subject line of this message should actually have read: "DHIMMIS ARE EXPOSING YOU..." Or trying to, anyway.

And re "Islamophobia," see here.

"Peace" Through Anti-Semitism

Here is an important article about a prominent dhimmi from Joseph D'Hippolito in FrontPage (thanks to all who sent this in):

The Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, Irineos I, and his former spokesman, Father Atallah Hanna, have used even more virulent rhetoric in their own collaborationist campaign. That rhetoric includes supporting suicide bombing, charging the Jews with deicide and advocating their expulsion from the Holy Land....

Although Irineos' English is awkward, his message is clear:

"You are aware of my opinions regarding the Holy City of Jerusalem, as well as the support that consecutively I offered in the past in the fight of your people and your nation.

"You are aware of my multiple interventions towards the late Patriarch Diodoros and the Greek Government and the international forums for the rights of the Palestinian (sic) to have their independent state with its capital Jerusalem."

But this is the letter's most damning evidence:

"You are finally aware of the sentiments of disgust and disrespect that all the Holy Sepulcher Fathers are feeling for the descendants of the crucifiers of our Lord Jesus Christ, actual crucifiers of your people, Sionists (sic) Jewish conquerors of the Holy Land of Palestine. (emphasis added)."

Should Arafat's influence prove successful, Irineos continued, "Rest assured, Mr. President, that the rights of the most beloved Palestinian people on the Holy City of Jerusalem will find their most 'hot' supporter. Our beloved Mr. Chouri (Arafat's personal secretary) will inform you accordingly regarding what we have discussed of the real estate of our Patriarchate within the boundaries of the Old City."

Read it all.

Iranian women protest new US law on headscarves

The U.S. has yet again insulted 1.5 billion Muslims. Somehow executions of children, clampdowns on dissent and death fatwas against people in distant lands don't seem to insult them. From the Indo-Asian News Service, with thanks to Nicolei:

Tehran, Feb 10 : Iranian women's groups and NGOs are upset over a new US law that requires women who apply for visas to present pictures without their Islamic headscarves, reports Xinhua....

"The US rudeness against Muslim women is an assault against their cultural identity, dignity, religion and national beliefs," the letter said. "The measure was also an insult against 1.5 billion Muslims around the world," it said.

Say Islam is a religion of peace, or we'll kill you

From the Orwellian Department: it's all because people talk bad about Islam, you see. Evidently if someone points out that Islam is unique among religions in having a doctrine of warfare against unbelievers, it will provoke Muslims into fighting that war, when they wouldn't have otherwise. Mmm-hmm. "Anti-Islamic rhetoric helps radicalisation," from Expatica, with thanks to Nicolei:

AMSTERDAM — The radicalisation of young Muslims is partly caused by the negative way Islam is being talked about in the Netherlands, the head of the security service AIVD has claimed.

Sybrand van Hulst made the suggestion during an interview with television current affairs programme Zembla on Wednesday night.

Van Hulst's organisation is leading the investigation into the activities of extremists in the Netherlands and is deeply involved in the arrest and trial of 12 young Muslims said to be part of a terrorist network called the Hofstadgroep.

But he did not specify who he was referring too as being partly responsible for driving some young Muslims towards radicalism.

MPs Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Geert Wilders have led the criticism against aspects of Islam and the Muslim community in the Netherlands in recent years. Both have received death threats.

Filmmaker Theo van Gogh, another vocal critic of Islam, was murdered in Amsterdam on 2 November last year. Mohammed B., 26, who was arrested for the murder, was said to be on the edge of the Hofstadgroep.

The Islamophobia Myth

Here's one for my man Omid. Kenan Malik in Prospect Magazine (thanks to all who sent this in) tells the truth about Islamophobia: "The charge of 'Islamophobia' is all too often used not to highlight racism but to silence critics of Islam, or even Muslims fighting for reform of their communities."

Ten years ago, no one had heard of Islamophobia. Now everyone from Muslim leaders to anti-racist activists to government ministers wants to convince us that Britain is in the grip of a major backlash against Islam.

But does Islamophobia exist? The trouble with the idea is that it confuses hatred of, and discrimination against, Muslims on the one hand with criticism of Islam on the other. The charge of "Islamophobia" is all too often used not to highlight racism but to silence critics of Islam, or even Muslims fighting for reform of their communities.

In reality, discrimination against Muslims is not as great as is often claimed. When making a film on Islamophobia for Channel 4, I discovered a huge gap between perception and reality. One issue is police harassment of Muslims. Last summer, the home office published figures that revealed a 300 per cent increase in the number of Asians being stopped and searched under Britain's anti-terror laws. Journalists, Muslim leaders and even the home office all shouted "Islamophobia." "The whole Muslim community is being targeted by the police," claimed Khalid Sofi of the Muslim Council of Britain.

The bald figure of a "300 per cent increase" suggested heavy-handed policing at the very least. But dig a little deeper and the figures show that just 3,000 Asians had been stopped and searched in the previous year under the Terrorism Act. Of these, probably half were Muslim. In other words, around 1,500 Muslims out of a population of at least 1.6m had been stopped under the terror lawshardly a case of the police targeting every Muslim.

A total of 21,577 people from all backgrounds were stopped and searched under the terror laws. The majority -- 14,429 -- were white. Yet when I interviewed Iqbal Sacranie, general secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain, he insisted that "95-98 per cent of those stopped and searched under the anti-terror laws are Muslim." The real figure is 14 per cent (for Asians). However many times I showed him the true statistics, he refused to budge. His figures appear to have been simply plucked out of the sky....

All these figures are in the public domain. Yet not one reputable journalist challenged the claim that Asians were being disproportionately stopped and searched. So pervasive is the acceptance of Islamophobia that no one even bothers to check if it is true....

Even Muslim organisations that campaign against Islamophobia find it hard to make the case that attacks on Muslims are routine. The Islamic Human Rights Commission monitored 344 attacks on Muslims in the year after 11th September. Most were relatively minor incidents such as shoving or spitting.

For Muslim leaders, inflating the threat of Islamophobia helps consolidate their power base, both within their own communities and wider society. British Muslims have long looked with envy at the political power wielded by the Jewish community, and by the status accorded to the Board of Deputies of British Jews. One of the reasons for setting up the Muslim Council of Britain was to try to emulate the political success of the board. Muslim leaders talk about using Islamophobia in the same way that they perceive Jewish leaders to have exploited fears about antisemitism.

Exaggerating anti-Muslim prejudice is also useful for mainstream politicians, and especially for a Labour government that has faced such a political battering over the war on Iraq and its anti-terror laws. Being sensitive to Islamophobia allows them to reclaim some of the moral high ground. It also allows Labour politicians to pitch for the Muslim vote. Muslims may feel "betrayed" by the war on Iraq, trade minister Mike O'Brien wrote recently in the Muslim Weekly, but "the Labour government is trying to deliver an agenda that has shown consideration and respect for Muslims." According to O'Brien: "Iqbal Sacranie, the general secretary of the Muslim Council, asked Tony Blair to declare that the government would introduce a new law banning religious discrimination. Two weeks later, in his speech to the Labour party conference, Tony Blair promised that the next Labour government would ban religious discrimination. It was a major victory for the Muslim community in Britain."

Pretending that Muslims have never had it so bad might bolster community leaders and gain votes for politicians, but it does the rest of us, Muslim or non-Muslim, no favours at all. The more that ordinary Muslims come to believe that they are under constant attack, the more resentful, inward-looking and open to extremism they are likely to become.

In the course of making my documentary, I asked dozens of ordinary Muslims across the country about their experiences of Islamophobia. Everyone believed that police harassment was common, although no one had been stopped and searched. Everyone insisted that physical attacks were rife, though few had been attacked or knew anyone who had. What is being created here is a culture of victimhood in which "Islamophobia" has become a one-stop explanation for the many problems facing Muslims....

What all this suggests is the need for a frank, open debate about Muslims and their relationship to wider British society.

That's for sure. Read it all.

Saudi spokesman: suicide bombers are hellbound (except when they aren't) -- oh, and don't kill the dhimmis

In this latest taqiyya session coming out of Saudi Arabia, the head of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, Sheikh Ibrahim ibn Abdullah Al-Ghaith, explains that suicide bombings fall under the Qur'an's prohibition of suicide. This is in "Al-Ghaith Denounces Suicide Bombings," from Arab News, with thanks to Jeff Lastname. However:

The verse adds that suicide is considered an “injustice” punishable by hell.

Sheikh Al-Ghaith did not address suicide operations by Palestinians and Iraqis. Many Islamic scholars in the Arab world see attacks on occupiers as justifiable.

So it's suicide and punishable by hell unless it's done by Palestinians or Iraqis? What if someone is half-Iraqi? Will only half of him be roasted in hell? Or will he have to serve only half of his sentence there?

Later on in the article, he refers to the dhimmis, showing once again that the concept of dhimmitude is alive and well among Muslims:

Sheikh Al-Ghaith also emphasized the importance of protecting dimmis or non-Muslims living in an Islamic country. “It’s the government’s duty to protect them and if anybody kills such dimmis he will not be able to enjoy even the fragrance of Paradise,” he said, quoting a Hadith of the Prophet (peace be upon him).

They must live as despised inferiors subject to institutionalized discrimination, but at least they shouldn't be killed. Gee, I feel so much better.

Austrians sold 800 sniper rifles to Iran; U.S. protests

Such a rush to dhimmitude in Europe! Astonishing. From AP, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

VIENNA, Austria -- Iran has contracted to buy hundreds of high-powered rifles from an Austrian firm, the company's owner said Wednesday. The sale drew an indirect rebuke from the United States, but Austrian government ministries said no laws were broken.

Wolfgang Fuerlinger, head of Steyr Mannlicher GmbH, confirmed the deal between his company and Iranian authorities and said U.S. Embassy officials had expressed concerns the arms could make their way to Iraq for use against American troops.

He said he could not confirm Austrian media reports that part of the order -- 800 long-range semiautomatic rifles that can penetrate thick metal, along with high-tech snipers' scopes -- was flown to Iran last month.

The United States has strict embargoes in place against Iran on sales of weapons or technology or materials that could be used to make weapons.

UK: Mosque will raise fears

While UK papers are largely given over to an irenic picture of British Muslims happily accepting the nature of society in which they live — while even the New York Times knows that the jihadists of Al-Muhajiroun was Britain's largest Muslim group before it went underground — at least some letter-writers are not so cowed. Here is a letter in the Express & Star about a new mosque project (thanks to Twostellas):

The prospect of a giant Islamic mosque with a 200ft minaret towering over the centre of Dudley will not be in keeping with the character of the town, and will raise many fears that it will attract Jihad elements who oppose infidels sharing their premises.

Many will see this proposal as a sprat to catch a mackerel to further the goal of an Islamic Britain. If the project goes ahead I wonder how long it will be before we hear of "Porcelain Pig" incidents, as occurred in Leicester?

This refers to a notorious incident in which police asked a family in Leicester to remove porcelain pig figurines from its window, because of complaints of passing Muslims. This story doesn't seem to be on the web, but it appeared in at least one British paper.

Will butchers be told not to display pork in their windows? No doubt glamour girl posters will be barred and so on.

There are precedents.

Pakistani actress says fatwa issued against her

Sharia alert. Killed for a kiss? That's even stricter than Indonesia. "Pak actress says fatwa issued against her," from Mid-day.com, with thanks to Twostellas:

Pakistani actress Meera has claimed that she has been getting threatening calls from a religious organisation in Pakistan for her work in a Hindi film.

Meera, who is starring in Soni Razdan’s Nazar with Ashmit Patel, refused to name the organisation, saying it might compromise her safety.

Certain film stills of Meera smooching Ashmit Patel were circulated during the Kara film festival in December last year.

“After that I began receiving calls from a man called Sher Khan who would abuse me and told me that he has issued a fatwa against me in Pakistan and that if I go back there, he will have me killed,” she says.

“They asked me how I could have kissed a Hindu?” she said. “They said why do you show your legs to Hindustan, show them in Pakistan. They don’t want me to work here,” she added.

Denmark: Non-dhimmis get reelected

Links and comments from Ali Dashti:

Non-dhimmis have been re-elected in Denmark, the first nation in the West to start taking strong measures against Muslim immigration, even before 9/11. They now seem set to continue or strengthen this course. A Coalition supporter, the Danish People’s Party, want more restrictions on the movement of people between Denmark and ultra ­ dhimmi Scandinavian neighbour Sweden, as they fear that a breakdown of the Swedish welfare state due to massive Muslim immigration could trigger a flood of migrants from Sweden in a few years. Even though the rightwing won, the election showed signs of increasing polarization, as the most “compliant” party regarding immigration also did well. The elections took place under heavier security than usual, as Denmark has been threatened before due to its active involvement in Iraq:

http://www.cphpost.dk/get/85794.html

By 10 p.m. Tuesday evening, with 75 percent of the votes counted, it was clear that Anders Fogh Rasmussen's Liberal party had won enough votes to allow him to continue as prime minister. The PM's Liberal party, together with coalition partners the Conservative and the Danish People's Party, captured enough votes to give them 95 seats in the 179 seat parliament. Fogh Rasmussen's reelection is the first ever for a Liberal prime minister.

http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/fremmedsprog/English/article.jhtml?articleID=233438

"The political change that began in 2001 has been reaffirmed. The Social Democrats and left wing have lost ground again and a stronger right-wing government can now continue its work," said Rasmussen, the first Liberal prime minister ever to be re-elected. The Social Democrats failed to provide a clear alternative after falling in line with the government both on immigration and Iraq, recording their worst election result in decades. "It pains me that Danes will now have to live with a Liberal government propped up by the Danish People's Party for another four years," said the defeated Social Democratic leader Mogens Lykketoft, referring to the ruling coalition's anti-immigrant allies. The DPP, whose proposals include expelling immigrants whose children commit crimes, took two more seats. But at the same time the opposition Social Liberal Party almost doubled its support in a big victory that Social Liberal leader Marianne Jelved ascribed to her party‘s calls for softer asylum laws.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/cc787e12-7944-11d9-89c5-00000e2511c8.html

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Danish prime minister who is seeking re-election in Tuesday's general election, reiterated on Monday his commitment to the strict immigration regime that has become a hallmark of his first three years in office. The prime minister, who faces calls from minority parties to tighten the strict regime, said Denmark's firm immigration policy was an example worth following. "It's clear to me that other countries have followed, and will follow, our lead," he said. His remarks came as Charles Clarke, the British interior minister, unveiled sweeping changes to UK immigration policy.

His government is also strongly pro-Israeli and pro-American:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1107314592308

Israel finds a defender in Denmark

Since Denmark has only a tiny Jewish community, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen can't be accused of pandering to the Jewish vote when he launched a spirited defense of Israel on the campaign stump earlier this week. Rasmussen, head of a center-right coalition in Denmark that is pro-American, faces re-election on February 8, with polls showing he is comfortably leading the race. Denmark has some 500 troops in Iraq.

Blogger's 'Crime' Against the Islamic State

Sharia alert: in the Islamic state, there can be no blogging that is perceived to be against Islam. From the LA Times, with thanks to Ali Dashti:

TEHRAN — "Excuse me, Miss, but here in my hand I have a warrant for your arrest," said a middle-aged man with a few days' growth of beard. "Please do not make any noise as you walk calmly to the Mercedes parked at the corner."...

The next day, I was taken to a room down a long corridor and told to sit down. A fat hand with an agate stone ring set an interrogation form in front of me. Then he began asking about my Web log, which has hyperlinks on it to Western feminist groups.

"Do you accept the charges?" the interrogator asked.

"What charges?"

"That you have written things in your Web log that go against the Islamic system and that encourage people to topple the system," he said. "You are inviting corrupt American liberalism to rule Iran."

"I've tried to write my ideas and opinions in my Web log and to communicate with others in Farsi all over the world," I said.

He was displeased.

"These answers will lead us nowhere, and you will stay here for years. Tell us the truth. How much have you received to write these offenses against the Islamic state? How are you and your fellow Web loggers organized?"

How should I respond? I knew my mother must be terribly worried about me. What could I say to make sure I got out?

"We are not organized against the state," I said. "I write because I want to criticize the system. There are some things in our state that should be corrected." "Why don't you write an e-mail directly to the supreme leader's office?" he asked. "The supreme leader considers all criticisms and takes corrective actions."

"I hadn't thought about that," I said. This was nonsense, of course, but I saw an opening. "From now on, I will write directly to the supreme leader and stop writing in my Web log."

"It is too late for that," he said.

Back in my cell, I sobbed. After a while, the door opened.

"You can ask for the holy Koran to chant and pass your time better here," the gray-haired matron suggested.

In the next session, four days later, I confessed to many of the accusations against me. As a reward, I was allowed to talk to my mother in the presence of my interrogator.

Over the days that followed, I confessed to many things, including having had sex with my boyfriend, who has his own Web log. The admission filled me with guilt, both for having to discuss such intimate details and for having betrayed him. He is now complicit in the crime of extramarital sex.

I remained in prison for 36 days. Now I am awaiting trial. On my release I was reminded, "Be thankful to God that we arrested you. If you had been detained by the intelligence department of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards, they would surely have beaten you. Here you were our guest."

Schlussel: Jihad on “24”: FOX, Kiefer Sutherland Repent to Radical Islam

Debbie Schlussel has a terrific piece on the consummation of Fox's capitulation to CAIR, a PSA read by Kiefer Sutherland:

It was too good to be true.

FOX’s “24” is the most exciting show on TV, this season. Action. Adventure. And it actually tells the truth about Islamic terrorists.

They are here on our shores, pretending to be loyal Americans, and they are plotting to take over our country. With the help of plenty of complicit Muslim-Americans, working for the government and government contractors.

Unfortunately, 9/11 wasn’t enough to prove that to many Americans. Way too many Americans—especially the ones deciding what we see on the big and small screens.

Take Suhail Khan, who was the Bush White House’s director of Muslim Outreach. His father, Mahboob Khan, brought Al-Qaeda chief Ayman Al-Zawahiri into the United States and into his mosque, twice in the mid-to-late ‘90s, to raise money for Al-Qaeda. Suhail Khan invited anti-American terrorists, like indicted Islamic Jihad chief Sami Al-Arian, into the White House to meet with the President.

But a “West Wing” episode written about Khan was laudatory of his loyalty to America.

(Incredibly, Khan remains in the Bush Administration as General Counsel to the Federal Highway Administration, where he’s informed of all transports of military and nuclear weapons and hazardous material on federal highways.)

I’ve written about Hollywood’s worship at the politically correct alter of radical Islam. Despite the reality that all contemporary terrorists are Muslim, Hollywood operates in another universe where all terrorists are Hispanic drug-dealers and neo-Nazis – anybody but Muslims. Because, as we all know, Hispanic drug-dealers and neo-Nazis blew up New York buildings, hijacked planes, murdered their New Jersey Coptic neighbors, and beheaded Americans in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan.

With “24,” FOX violated this taboo. Therefore, FOX must now repent for committing the heinous sin of actually portraying the truth about the most serious problem of our time.

In the middle of Monday’s episode of “24,” viewers were treated to the following mea culpa, courtesy of Kiefer Sutherland, “24”’s star:

"Hi. My name is Kiefer Sutherland. And I play counter-terrorist agent Jack Bauer on Fox's ‘24’. I would like to take a moment to talk to you about something that I think is very important. Now while terrorism is obviously one of the most critical challenges facing our nation and the world, it is important to recognize that the American Muslim community stands firmly beside their fellow Americans in denouncing and resisting all forms of terrorism. So in watching 24, please, bear that in mind."

Poor Kiefer. Until “24,” his most famous role was as one of Julia Robert’s jilted bridegrooms on his wedding day. And that wasn’t a role. It was real life. Now the only role he apparently aspires to is lover to 72 dark-eyed virgins, or at least repenter to those martyrs who aim for that role.

Any salivating Pavlov’s dog or monkey seeking a banana for lunch would read that statement, too. Apparently, Kiefer is no better. At mid-life, he doesn’t want to lose his only successful acting gig. So, he’ll do as he’s told by the FOX network execs, who can’t take the heat from whining Islamic terror apologists. He’s ignorant of the Lackawanna Six and assorted other Muslim-American terrorists caught in this country on a daily basis.

Ironically, the two groups behind this apology for the existence of “24” are the groups that demonstrate how the American Muslim community actually does NOT stand firmly beside their fellow Americans in denouncing and resisting terrorism in every form.

In fact, the groups—Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)—have ties to HAMAS and Al-Qaeda, and expressly support Al-Qaeda network terrorists.

MPAC is headed by Salam Al-Marayati. Al-Marayati, a close friend of pro-Hezbollah Congressman Darrell Issa, is himself a Hezbollah fan. He defended Hezbollah’s murder of over 300 U.S. Marines and civilians while they slept and claimed that Hezbollah, a major component of the Al-Qaeda network, is not a terrorist group. Al-Marayati equated “jihad” with the statements of Patrick Henry.

Al-Marayati’s concern for the portrayal of Muslims as terrorist is outdone by his passion for the vilification of Jews and Israelis as terrorists. Hours after the 9/11 attacks, he accused Israel of perpetrating them. In an e-mail, this “moderate” Muslim approvingly quoted Hitler: “As Hitler said, the more intelligent the Jew is, the more he lies.” No Kiefer Sutherland-esque apologies.

Al-Marayati’s wife, Dr. Laila Al-Marayati, could be the real life version of the mother in “24”’s terror cell. The charity she heads, KinderUSA, recently shut down and is under investigation for funding HAMAS. Its executive director and a board member were held in Israel for aiding terrorists. KinderUSA is tied to the Holy Land Foundation, whose employees have been indicted for funding and ties to HAMAS and Al-Qaeda. Dr. Al-Marayati told the Los Angeles Times that KinderUSA avoided charges of knowingly helping suicide bombers' families by not asking how an orphan's father died.

Then, there’s CAIR. Oliver “Buck” Revell and Steve Pomerantz, former FBI Directors of Counterterrorism, call CAIR, a HAMAS front-group. Saudi-funded CAIR got its original seed money and executive director, Nihad Awad, from another group (Islamic Association for Palestine) that was started with $490,000 from the personal bank account of indicted HAMAS political director Moussa Abu Marzook. Awad, like MPAC’s Al-Marayati, is an avowed supporter of HAMAS and Hezbollah. CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper refuses to denounce Bin Laden.

Several CAIR officials and associates have been convicted of terrorism, money-laundering, and fraud charges, including CAIR “communications specialist and civil rights coordinator” Ismail Royer, who pled guilty to helping Al-Qaeda’s terror network. CAIR disseminated assassination fatwas against moderate Muslim Americans. A recent CAIR Michigan confab featured more of the same.

Shohreh Aghdashloo, who plays the mother in “24”’s terror cell, and Jonathan Ahdout, who plays her son, also played Islamic mother and son in the Oprah-promoted 2003 movie, “House of Sand and Fog." There was no Keifer-esque disclaimer in that movie, in which the Muslims were hard-working, sympathetic, fatal victims of Americans, and the Americans were a loser, alcoholic, psycho maid, and an evil, philandering, murderous cop.

But in the case of “24,” even Aghdashloo, an Iranian Muslim, dismisses CAIR and MPAC. "They think after what happened on 9/11 that we're going to forget it?" she told USA Today.

Apparently, we’ve already forgotten. That’s what they’re banking on.

A bit more about Omid Safi

A couple of final reflections (for now, at least) on my man Omid Safi, the Colgate University professor who in his course, Namecalling 101, is busy indoctrinating his hapless students into the names they should use for those who discuss Islamic jihad honestly ("Zionist," "Christian triumphalist," etc.) and introducing them to the perils of "Islamophobia," i.e., books like mine and those of scholars whose stature Safi can never hope to attain, i.e. Bat Ye'or, Samuel Huntington, etc.

1. He told me that he would not accept my challenge to debate or dialogue until such time as I would "publish a book by a credible university press." But it has been pointed out to me that the lone book that Safi has yet published, Progressive Muslims: On Justice, Gender, and Pluralism, edited by my man Omid, was published by Oneworld Publications. Although based in Oxford, Oneworld is not a university press; it describes itself as "an independent publishing house based in Oxford, England." Oneworld also publishes such luminaries as Mark LeVine.

Now, in fairness I must also point out that Omid has a book coming out from the University of North Carolina Press. UNC is my alma mater, and I will always have a few fond memories of the place, but I must also acknowledge that it was the site of the notorious post-9/11 controversy over the assignment of Michael Sells' Qur'an translation to incoming freshmen. (Safi lists Sells as a reference.) Sells' book only contains the early suras of the Qur'an, thereby omitting most of the book's violent and intolerant passages. I have also heard that other, more balanced perspectives were rejected by the planners of this freshman indoctrination session: they were consciously pursuing an agenda that casts doubt upon their academic objectivity. Thus pardon me if I am unimpressed that Safi, marching in the same lockstep, is published by UNC.

2. I do not have the Ph.D. Safi demands, but many others on his enemies list do. Why doesn't he invite Daniel Pipes to Colgate for a debate? Assuming Dr. Pipes was willing to go, I could go along too and make a full report. I could even ask Dr. Pipes to bring his diploma. How about it, Omid?

Anti-dhimmitude in Germany: Armenian genocide back on school curriculum

My heart skipped a beat when I saw that genocide was back on the German curriculum, but don't worry: they're just teaching about it, and reversing an earlier decision, under Turkish pressure, to drop this teaching. From DPA, with thanks to Cathy J. Palmer:

BERLIN - Defusing a row after alleged Turkish pressure forced removal of the Armenian genocide from German public school curriculums, a state premier said on Tuesday the 1915 killings of up to 1.5 million Armenians would be again be taught in history classes.

Brandenburg's Prime Minister Matthias Platzeck admitted it had been a mistake to remove all mention of the genocide from his state's education ministry website curriculum planner.

The Armenian genocide - which had been used as the only example in history classes other than the Holocaust - will now be returned to high schools along with other cases of 20th century genocide, he said.

Omid Safi speaks!

I just got this message from Omid Safi:

Put this on your webpage:

You and I are not friends, and we are not friendly. I oppose, challenge, and stand up to the thinly veiled bigotry that you foster. For my part, I will spend my life standing up for women's rights, for rights of the oppressed and marginalized, opposing both Islamic extremists and western triumphalists. If you had taken a moment to read my essay in the Progressive Muslims book, you would have a sense of what I stand for.

That being said, sir, in polite society (which I assume we are in) we do not call people by their first name until we are given permission to do so. I have not given you permission to call me by "Hi Omid!", nor by "my man."

And lastly, I can't tell you what a great pedagogical tool it is for me to be able to show my students the level of hate that shows up on websites like yours. You can hide behind, "it is an un-moderated list" all you want like a coward. I will use direct quotes like: "Believe it or not, I don't "hate" muslims, I hate Islam" to make the point about Islamophobia to my students. At the end of the day, I am unconcerned with whether or not you recognize Islamophobia as a real social issue, sir. As a scholar I do care about whether the United Nations does. (it does.)

Substitute Judaism or Christianity in the above quote, and see how most decent human beings would be outraged. I will take my work to those folks, and keep struggling for justice. You do what you think is best.

Oh, and lastly, I only invite credible scholars of Islamic studies to Colgate to speak about Islam. Get a PhD in Islamic studies (which you don't have), publish a book by a credible university press (which you have not), and then we'll talk. Academic credentials do mean something, you know.

All the best,
Omid Safi

Have you ever noticed how self-important and humorless these pseudo-academic ideologues can be? My man Safi seems to be the Emily Post of academia -- who knew?

He objects to statements not made by me, but by posters here, choosing the statement "Believe it or not, I don't 'hate' muslims, I hate Islam" as an example, and tells me it's cowardly to tell him it's an unmoderated board. All right, Omid. You straighten this out for me -- you having a Ph.D. and all, it will be easy for you. Tell me exactly how it is that I am responsible for someone who posts that he hates Islam, but presumably not responsible for someone who posts (as someone did here) on the same thread that "blanket-hating Islam is not going to make it any better"? Or am I responsible for both opposing views? By dismissing the idea of unmoderated comments as meaningless, you indicate once again, Omid, that your grasp of the concept of free speech as tenuous at best.

But of course, Safi is reduced to quoting a poster whose identity isn't even known to me as if his words were mine because he probably knows that if he actually opened one of my books, he wouldn't find the "bigotry" and "Islamophobia" that he wants to find. And that, of course, would belie his biased and propagandistic characterizations of those writings.

Moreover, about that poster's statement: Omid seems to think that it is somehow "bigoted" to have an opinion about a belief system. All right, Omid, I'll play your mutatis mutandis game: I guess it would be wrong to say "I don't hate Christians; I hate Christianity." So I guess Nietzsche and Bertrand Russell are taught at Colgate as examples of deplorable and hate-filled Christianophobic bigotry, eh, Omid? And what about this little matter of Omid "opposing both Islamic extremists and western triumphalists"? Omid, my friend, you don't, uh, hate Western triumphalism, do you? Don't you stay awake nights wondering if you're provoking anti-American bigotry? You don't? Well then, I'm sure you understand how I can oppose the Islamic jihad ideology, Sharia, and dhimmitude, in the name of "standing up for women's rights, for rights of the oppressed and marginalized," as a great man once put it, without hating anyone, or engaging in "bigotry" or "racism" -- can't you Omid?

Safi also ignores the increasingly massive evidence of corruption at the UN, and subscribes to its politicized and propagandistic endorsement of "Islamophobia." I'm sorry, Omid: am I supposed to be impressed that Kofi Annan is wringing his hands about "Islamophobia"? Your faith in the UN is touching, but do you really think it is incorruptible? Have you heard of a little matter -- something about oil-for-food? Sex abuse among UN aid workers? Oh, and you might want to request a review copy of my new essay collection, The Myth of Islamic Tolerance. You'll be interested in a section there entitled "Human Rights and Human Wrongs at the UN," containing many never-before-published and seldom-seen documents detailing the sorry record of Islamic states on human rights issues at the UN -- often acting in the name of Islam. I suppose "Islamophobes" like me made all that data up, eh, Omid?

Finally, I will not book a flight to Colgate, as I have no intention of getting the Ph.D. in Islamic studies that you evidently require of speakers. As I explained before, and as you have not addressed in any way, shape, or form, the field is so politicized these days as to make honest scholarship virtually impossible. It is dominated by pseudo-scholarly hacks who parrot the tired and intellectually laughable politically tendentious lines of the likes of Edward Said -- but I don't need to tell you that, do I, Omid?

It is ironic, Omid, that you sneer at the idea of inviting me to Colgate, when you have already done so. You're the one who introduced poor dumb uncredentialed folks like me into the debate by adding us to your course's enemies list of "Islamophobes," triumphalists, "unrepentant Orientalists," etc. It appears that you do not wish to allow us to speak for ourselves, but rather, loftily, no doubt waving your diploma all the while, you will explain our works to your hapless charges. You have not allowed them to form their own opinions about our work by calling us these names at the outset, and you are evidently afraid to let them hear us (or at least me) and judge for themselves. I must say, you are the very model of a modern academic.

Finally, you doubtless know that the argument from authority is the weakest of all arguments. People should listen to you and not to me because you have a Ph.D.? I'll bet you that I could spend five minutes at Colgate and find ten refutations of the idea that a degree confers expertise bumbling around in classrooms. What you have not done, and evidently will not do, is actually confront and attempt to refute the substance of the arguments I have marshalled in my books Islam Unveiled and Onward Muslim Soldiers. It's a lot easier to hide behind your sheepskin, ain't it, Omid?

Cordially
Robert Spencer

What they played in Rotterdam instead of Submission

Bowing to Muslim pressure, The Netherlands' principal film festival cancelled a showing of the murdered filmmaker Theo van Gogh's Submission, an exposé of the mistreatment of women mandated by Islamic law.

But they did show Yasmin (thanks to Twostellas for the link), a film that so distorts the reality of anti-Muslim bigotry in England that twice its attempts to film acts of hatred against Muslims were interrupted by non-Muslim bystanders who, unaware that what they were seeing was part of a film, rushed to the aid of the beleaguered Muslims. The film nevertheless portrays Britain as a hotbed of anti-Muslim hatred.

Find Submission online here (thanks to Filtrat).

UK: Muslims warn parties on hate bill

With dhimmitude galloping ahead in the UK (cf. so many of the stories I have already posted here this morning), the Muslim Council of Britain tells both major parties: toe the line on the religious hatred bill, or else. From the Times Online, with thanks to Ali Dashti:

The Muslim Council of Britain, the country’s biggest Islamic organisation, has sent letters to Michael Howard, leader of the Tories, and to Charles Kennedy, leader of the Lib Dems, reminding them of the importance of the legislation for Muslims. The letter is believed to warn Howard and Kennedy of the negative impact that opposition to the bill may have....

Iqbal Sacranie, secretary-general of the Muslim council, said: “We are clear that incitement to religious hatred will remain central to our campaign as we approach the election. We feel that any opposition will be seen by the Muslim community as not being supportive of issues affecting them.”

Islamic groups have been campaigning for incitement to religious hatred to become law for more than 10 years. They feel that such a law is required to protect their communities from Islamophobia, especially from far-right groups.

Great. What will protect non-Muslims from the jihadist sentiments of Britain's largest Muslim group?

Muslims intimidate UK college into submission on prayer room

"East Berks U-turn over Muslim prayer room," from icBerkshire, with thanks to Ali Dashti:

A COLLEGE has made a dramatic U-turn on its decision to ban all pupils from using its prayer room after disgruntled students alerted the Express.

Angry Muslim students who threatened to stage a mass protest at East Berkshire College's Langley Campus, in Station Road, have been allowed back into a well used prayer room, dubbed 'the contemplation room', after the issue was brought to the attention of the Express.

Lifelong resident of the Manor Park Estate, and student at Langley College, Raza Ban, 17, said: "We had a prayer room up until December, and on the entrance to the room there was a sign that said 'cultural prayer room'.

"But someone changed that sign to read 'Muslim Prayer Room Only'. Then someone took all the pictures down and changed them to Islam."

"So the college closed it down and gave us an office instead where a maximum of only three people can fit."

Serving an extremely diverse student body, the college comprises a 49 per cent mix of full-time students of ethnic minority origin, whom the Langley Campus claim have always had access to areas suitable for prayer.

But despite alternative suggestions to the prayer room being brought to the negotiating table by the college, Muslim students felt they had no choice other than to practice their faith outside the building.

Raza said: "Friday is the biggest prayer day, we went and asked if the college could give us a room, they said 'no'. "We have thought about staging a mass protest but decided to tell the Express about it first."

And The Express can reveal that just before the time agreed for our photographer to meet students at the college and take pictures of the them praying outside the building at 1.30pm on Tuesday, the college decided to re-open its prayer room.

Dhimmitude in the UK: Police chief attacks terror labelling of Muslims

From The Guardian, with thanks to Ali Dashti:

A police chief whose force has increased its special branch to cold war levels in the fight against terror appealed yesterday for a more mature public debate on the threat from extremists.

Colin Cramphorn, the chief constable of West Yorkshire, called for an end to use of the misleading terms "Islamic" or "Muslim" to describe supporters of violence against the west....

The slur on the country's overwhelmingly law-abiding Muslim population risked alienating a significant community which had no sympathy with violence and as much of a stake in defeating terror as everyone else.

Mr Cramphorn is in charge of policing a sensitive area in the run-up to the general election, with the far-right British National party fielding its leader, Nick Griffin, in the West Yorkshire town of Keighley. Mr Griffin is to answer police bail in Halifax early next month. His arrest followed secret BBC filming of a BNP meeting in Keighley at which he called Islam "an evil, vicious faith".

Mr Cramphorn, who uses the word "jihadist" to describe groups such as al-Qaida, said Islamophobia threatened precisely the intelligence work needed to contain the real threat of terror attacks. The security forces needed the eyes and ears of everybody to help their work, and to understand what radicalised people such as the British "shoe bomber" Richard Reid.

Well, I use the term "jihadist" too. After all, the Muslim warriors we are facing themselves explain that they are fighting a jihad. The Arabic word for them is mujahid, or, in English, jihadist. But it is ridiculous to call them jihadists and then turn around and deny the existence of "Islamic terrorism." Jihad only has any meaning in the context of Islam. If they are jihadists, they are committing violence, or approving of that violence, in the name of Islam. It is not "mature" to notice this, or point it out? And how exactly does Mr. Cramphorn (Matthew Arnold complained over a century ago about the ugliness of English names -- "Higginbotham! Stiggins! Bugg!" I see they haven't improved) propose to fight against an enemy he refuses to identify properly?

What's that, Cramphorn? This nomenclature offends the "the country's overwhelmingly law-abiding Muslim population"? I see. Well, please explain one more thing to me: how is it that in this overwhelmingly law-abiding population, Al-Muhajiroun, a jihadist group of Islamic terrorists, came to be Britain's largest Muslim group?

Anti-dhimmitude: Dershowitz Says Faculty Members Work To Encourage Islamic Terrorism

Academic dhimmitude: passing off propaganda as education, and making students accept highly politicized and controvertible material as fact -- notably, that Islam as a religion is peaceful and tolerant, just as the dhimmis of old had to sing the praises of Islam's peacefulness and tolerance or risk forfeiting their contract of "protection."

Anti-dhimmitude: calling things by their right names, and refusing to be cowed from legitimate criticism of Islam and jihad by cries of "bigotry" and "academic freedom." Alan Dershowitz here proves to be a capable anti-dhimmi. From the New York Sun, with thanks to EPG:

It's not often that a professor tells a packed crowd at Columbia University that Edward Said was a political extremist and that faculty members in the school's Middle East studies department encourage Islamic terrorism.

The professor who made those statements yesterday isn't from Columbia but from Harvard. Law professor Alan Dershowitz showed up at the intellectual home of Said, a literature professor who was a fierce critic of Israel, to rebuke Columbia's faculty and administration for tolerating an atmosphere on campus that he said promotes the hatred of Israel.

"This is the most unbalanced university that I have come across when it comes to all sides of the Middle East conflict being presented," Mr. Dershowitz told hundreds of students and a smattering of Columbia faculty members.

"I have never seen a university with as much faculty silence," he said.

At a campus already divided by a controversy that has flared for months - one that pits a handful of Jewish students against some professors in the Middle East and Asian Languages and Cultures department - the appearance of Mr. Dershowitz was the latest indication that the most serious crisis of President Lee Bollinger's tenure is far from over.

Mr. Dershowitz's speech, which lasted about an hour, drew a few catcalls from some hostile members of the audience, who accused the lawyer of supporting torture. It also prompted frequent outbursts of applause from many in the audience, as he repeatedly expressed contempt for the Columbia scholars in the Middle East studies department who are the subject of an internal campus inquiry.

Shari’ah Pakistani style: no music, dancing and images of women but mosques everywhere

Sharia alert. From AsiaNews, with thanks to Emergency Room:

Islamabad (AsiaNews) – A new attempt is underway to reinforce Islamic fundamentalism at the expense of religious freedom and religious minorities. Mian Nadir Shah, a Member of the North-Western Frontier (NWFP) Provincial Assembly, tabled two private bills that would ban music and dancing in public places and educational institutions and using photographs of women in advertising. In both cases, the offences would be punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to 5, 000 and 10, 000 rupees respectively. The accused would have no right to bail.

The proposal is backed by the NWFP’s ruling coalition. Some leaders of the Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal (MMA), an alliance of six Muslim religious parties, said that the proposed “bills would not limit citizens’ freedom”.

Minister Sirajul Haq told reporters that the proposed ban on music and dancing would apply only to public places—including bus terminals, commuter vehicles, hotels and other places—where they can bother people or sites—like educational institutions—which were meant to spread culture.

Oh. That makes it OK.

Malaysia's moral police

Sharia alert -- in "moderate" Malaysia. From Straits Times via Malaysiakini, with thanks to Ali Dashti:

They have no standard uniforms, nor do they carry weapons. Instead, they are armed with just an unshakeable belief they are carrying out God's will by enforcing the syariah law.

Malaysia's religious police, known simply as Islamic Department enforcement officers, usually catch Muslims for eating during the fasting month and unmarried Muslim couples in compromising positions. Sometimes, they nab Malays for drinking in pubs.

Australian charity to open Muslim orphanage in Aceh

Is not Fr. Riley still naive? Will he have any assurance that the orphanage he pays for will not teach its children hatred and contempt for the benefactor? Unlikely that he will. He probably doesn't even know that that is a possibility. "Charity deal to open Aceh orphanage," from AAP, with thanks to Ali Dashti:

An Australian charity accused of trying to convert Muslim children has admitted it had been naive but said it has agreed with one of Indonesia's largest Islamic groups to set up an orphanage in tsunami-shattered Aceh.

Youth Off The Streets (YOTS), headed by Sydney Catholic priest Father Chris Riley, signed an agreement with the 30-million member Muhammadiyah to set up a centre for children on the outskirts of Aceh's provincial capital, Banda Aceh.

Before signing, Riley admitted he had been unaware of religious sensitivities in Aceh, the only Indonesian province with sharia law, when he first arrived with a plan for an orphanage.

The plan drew fire from supporters of the hardline Islamic Defenders Front, who accused Riley of trying to convert Muslim children to Christianity.

"I must admit when I went into Banda Aceh I knew little about it, so I was pretty naive," Riley told AAP before signing.

But he said he was delighted to work with Muhammadiyah on the project and had been amazed at how quickly arrangements for the centre had come together.

"All we want to do here is help a bit. And, this partnership has ensured that the kids will be kept in their own culture, with their own religions, spirituality, and we're just going to help basically Muhammadiyah, who are employing the Aceh people up there," Riley said.

"We're not terrorists. We are people, just like everyone else."

Of course you are, Irfan. But it's too bad that no one at this little seminar is likely to know the right questions to ask: not "Is it rude to shake your wife's hand?" but "What do you think of Sharia? Do you think that if the Muslim population grows to a majority or a sizable minority in the U.S., that Islamic law should supplant the Constitution? What do you think of Qur'an 9:29 and Sahih Muslim 4294, among many other passages of Qur'an and Hadith?" Etc.

From "Raising Awareness," the Corning Leader, with thanks to EPG:

BATH | They're professionals, entrepreneurs, employees and neighbors. They raise their children, honor the American flag and believe God is great and Mohammed is his prophet.

"We're not terrorists," said Irfan Mehr, a Hornell pharmacist. A native of Pakistan, Mehr has lived in Steuben County for decades. "We are people, just like everyone else."

Mehr and other local Islamic leaders will bring that message to county employees Wednesday in a workshop designed to stimulate questions and build understanding of Muslims and their culture.

"I anticipate a lot of questions to begin with. That's what we're hoping for," said workshop sponsor, county Legislator Kenneth Isaman, R-Hornellsville. "I've gone to a number of Islamic functions, social, religious. And yet there are questions I've hesitated to ask - for, I don't know, fearing of offending them somehow, I suppose. Like, is it rude to shake your wife's hand? ... Or what is the difference between Sunnis and Shiites?"...

"We don't advocate violence," Mehr said. "I say that again, we are not terrorists."

Isaman said the expected turnout for Wednesday's workshops is already well beyond his expectations.

The original plan was for a single, morning meeting between Muslim leaders and interested county employees and officials.

Since then, other workshops have been scheduled to accommodate the number of officials and employees from the county Public Works, Social Services and Public Health departments, the Health Care Facility,Treasurer's Office and other county agencies.

Other meetings are likely to follow.

"I can only see this expanding,"Isaman said. "I'd like to see towns, town officials get involved in this. We need to be aware of Muslims' customs, respect them. They are integral members of our community. We should treat them that way."

UK: Terror court backs al-Qa'eda suspect

From The Telegraph, with thanks to Ruth King:

The Home Secretary was "disappointed" yesterday after Siac, the special anti-terrorist court, decided not to send a man with alleged al-Qa'eda links back to prison. The 35-year-old Algerian had been released on house arrest after suffering a mental breakdown in custody.

Charles Clarke's counsel had told the Special Immigration Appeals Commission that the suspected terrorist, known as G, had breached bail conditions under which he was confined to his home and denied unapproved visits.

But, after a closed hearing, Mr Justice Collins ruled that Mr Clarke had failed to prove "to the necessary standard" that G had wrongly received two unidentified visitors in November.

The Home Secretary's response, in a prepared statement handed out by a Home Office press officer before G himself had even left the courtroom, was treated with "contempt" by Gareth Peirce, G's solicitor.

She said that if the Home Office could make a mistake about her client breaching his bail conditions once, it could do so again.

Likening the risk of bail being wrongly withdrawn to the "sword of Damocles hanging over anyone's head", she said it was the "ultimate nightmare" for her client to be at the mercy of secret evidence that he was unable to disprove.

G attended the hearing yesterday with his wife. He was not required to sit in the secure dock.

Although Siac concluded in October 2003 that G had "actively assisted terrorists who have links to al-Qa'eda", he was released from Belmarsh prison into house arrest last April after his continued detention caused a "serious relapse" in his mental condition. He was suffering from a "depressive illness".

Jihadists at Notre Dame

If Omid Safi and others like him play their cards right, they might one day end up in the big leagues of academic propagandizing for the global jihad: Notre Dame. Tariq Ramadan, invited to teach there but stopped by DHS, was just the beginning. "The Fighting Islamists of Notre Dame," by Thomas Ryan at FrontPage (thanks to EPG), details the appalling record of the Kroc Institute, an exponent of the McDonald's fortune:

In July of 2004, Ramadan was made aware by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that his work visa had been revoked, barring his entrance into the U.S. Russ Knocke, a spokesman for the DHS, stated that Ramadan’s visa revocation had been conducted in accordance with a law that denies entry to foreigners who have used a “position of prominence within any country to endorse or espouse terrorist activity.”

Although Ramadan dismissed his denial of admittance as “unjustified,” the Islamic scholar’s own words and actions over the years certainly demonstrate the reasons why U.S. officials refused to allow him into the country. Ramadan’s connections to Islamic extremism are numerous. For example, according to Spanish judge Balatasar Garzón, Ramadan had “routine contacts” with Ahmed Brahim, an Algerian man believed to be both the financial chief of al-Qaeda, as well as the financier of the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya. In 1995, while suffering a series of terrorist attacks in Paris perpetrated by the Algerian Islamist terrorist movement, French Interior Minister Jean Louis Debre forbade Ramadan to enter France because of his connections to the terrorist group. And according to the French daily newspaper Le Monde, Ramadan is suspected of having links with al-Qaeda, and is believed to have organized a 1991 meeting between al-Qaeda second-in-charge, Ayman al Zawahiri, and Omar Abdel Rahman, who was convicted in the 1993 bombing of the first World Trade Center.

Despite his associations with known terrorists, following the revocation of his visa, Ramadan demanded, “Can you prove the ‘links’ to terrorists?…Have you read the articles in which I call upon fellow Muslims to condemn unequivocally radical views and acts of extremism?” But, regardless of his profession of innocence of both word and deed, Ramadan has made statements that follow suit with his fundamentalist affiliations, using his position as a commended Islamic scholar to shrewdly undermine Western ideologies in both written and spoken form. His anti-Semitism and sexist views have been well documented, as he failed to condemn the practice of stoning women for crimes against Shari’a (Islamic law). Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Ramadan rejected the notion that there was any proof that bin Laden was involved, and additionally described the 9/11 attacks, the Madrid train bombings, and the Bali nightclub attack as “interventions.” Dalil Boubakeur, head of the French Muslim Council and head of the Paris Mosque, has said, “when one invites Tariq Ramadan, it is not to listen to what Allah and the angels said; Ramadan is the vehicle of fundamentalist Islam.”...

The Kroc Institute Director, R. Scott Appleby has had a lot to say about Islamic fundamentalism, however. Appleby has specifically sought to diminish the impression that that Islamic fundamentalism is a growing threat. “It would be misleading,” he wrote after 9/11, “to say fundamentalism is on the rise now. I would say we're just more aware of it because these people are better organized, more mobile and more vocal than ever before.”

Appleby served as editor for the book Spokesmen for the Despised Fundamentalist Leaders of the Middle East, published in 1997. In the book’s introduction, he further expresses the belief that the actions of the terrorist group Hezbollah were guided by a desire to avoid taking innocent lives. Appleby might try explaining that to the 242 US marines on a peacekeeping mission in Lebanon who were blown up by Hezbollah in 1982. Appleby writes, “In the contemporary Middle East, we have seen what happens when a charismatic leader announces ‘a break in the established normative order.’ Under particular kinds of conditions he thereby unleashes forces beyond his control. This is certainly one of the lessons of [Sayyid Muhammad Husayn] Fadlallah. As a scholar of Islamic law, the spiritual mentor of Hizbullah followed a very precise legal formula in justifying suicide bombings (normally, suicide is a clear violation of Islamic law), and he studiously imposed religiously derived restrictions on the use of violence in general (insisting, for example, that Hizbullah avoid the death of innocents whenever possible).” This reassurance is deceptive since in the eyes of militant Islamic fundamentalists, no non-fundamentalist or Westerner is innocent; the 9/11 attacks, which claimed nearly 3,000 innocent lives, proved just that.

Appleby has also made comparisons between Osama bin Laden and President Bush. In a 2003 interview, Appleby asserted that the Sept. 11th attacks were an attempt by Osama bin Laden to awaken Muslims from passivity and to demonstrate that there’s a crisis of religion and culture and that Muslims must take sides in the fight. Appleby suggested that President Bush had adopted the same stance when he stated, “You’re either with us or against us.” This makes no distinction between the aggressor and his victim.

Yet another Kroc Institute professor Cynthia Mahmood has said we need to pursue a dialogue with Osama bin Laden, and not confront him with violence. Mahmood is a professor of Anthropology, and serves as the Institute’s director of graduate studies. In February 2004, Mahmood delivered a talk to neighboring Goshen College, titled “When People of Faith Become Militant.” In her speech, Mahmood recounted her experiences interviewing Pakistani militants that later fought with the Taliban. She described to the students in attendance that at one point during her interview, one of the militants purposely aimed a gun at her, and that she was able to diffuse the situation by offering to talk to the man about his concerns. She went on to say that they ended up talking over tea. Mahmood’s principal recommendation for dealing with terrorists is engaging them in conversation. In her 2002 article “Why We Need to Talk to Extremists,” Mahmood compares suicide bombers to those who join the U.S. military, stating that their goals are no different. Of the State Department’s revocation of Ramadan’s visa, Mahmood said:

It's a real pity for the United States to be afraid of alternative voices. Unless we engage in discussion with them, it becomes an echo chamber where we talk to each other constantly. Places like the Kroc Institute have to push the envelope a bit.

In fact what she was pushing was a troubling addition to the echo chamber. Mahmood added that Ramadan was a “star,” revealing where her sympathies lay.

Read it all. And no more Big Macs.

Human rights lawyer: non-Muslims now "second-class citizens" in Malaysia

Many times people have challenged me by saying that dhimmitude is a relic of the past, and that no Muslims today are striving to revive it. That is factually untrue, as several imams are on record saying that they would like to revive it, as I document in Onward Muslim Soldiers. And here is more evidence that it is not at all a dead concept: a Malaysian human rights lawyer complaining that the advance of Sharia there has made non-Muslims into second-class citizens.

From "Malaysia: Islam and multi-culturalism," in BBC News, with thanks to Twostellas:

The policies of Mahathir and Umno have come under fire from two different quarters.

For secular liberals like human-rights lawyer Malik Imtiaz, the "Islamisation" of Malaysian society and politics has gone too far, and is eroding the country's once-liberal traditions.

The non-Muslims, he says bluntly, are second-class citizens.

For the Islamic opposition party Pas, on the other hand, Islamisation has not gone nearly far enough.

Anwar Ibrahim is resuming his role as a leading opposition politician
Ever since it broke away from Umno in the 1950s, PAS has argued that Malaysia should become an Islamic state governed by the Sharia (Islamic law).

This has thrown Umno onto the defensive.

If what American Muslim advocacy groups say about Islam is true, the Sharia advocates should be the ones on the defensive. But as you can see, that is not the case.

Swedish museum: "Removal of art was not caused by email threats"

Ali Dashti has kindly sent along this additional information about the incident I posted about here, "Museum removes erotic art after Muslim anger."

Ali's translation of extracts from Swedish article:

http://www.expressen.se/index.jsp?a=237428

"The world's largest superpower cannot protect itself, so how are you to protect yourself," it said in one of the threatening emails the museum received. "Do you want to start a war with Muslims everywhere?" it said in another. In one, museum director Jette Sandahl was encouraged to "learn from Holland." The email refers to the murder of Theo van Gogh Novemver 2nd 2004 for his "blasphemous" film about Islam.

http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=932&date=20050204&PHPSESSID=0ed6f0ff44d6677dcbe2fe9c0f6ac0e4

The museum, however, insists that the "threats" it received have nothing to do with the removal of the work; it seems they don't want to feel that they can be bullied. Jette Sandahl, the museum's director, told the press that the removal is all about focus: the exhibition was meant to be an educational one about HIV/AIDS, not freedom of expression, and she is simply attempting to bring the focus back.

Omid Safi clarifies his enemies' list

Last April I wrote here about a professor at Colgate University, Omid Safi, who in a fine example of how indoctrination and propaganda have replaced genuine intellectual inquiry, was requiring his students to write brief reports on a person selected from a list he provided, which he had labeled "Islamophobes, Neo-cons, Western triumphalists, etc."

I wrote then about his propagandistically stacking the deck for his students with such labels, particularly when they are applied to such world-class scholars as Bat Ye'or and Samuel Huntington. I also took issue with his list for demeaning such scholars (which of course is what he intended to do) by lumping them together with political activists, journalists, etc., whose work is far more superficial. And for including a Muslim, Stephen Schwartz, on a list of "Islamophobes."

Safi almost certainly saw my post, as several of his students contacted me indignantly not long after it went up, demonstrating their wholehearted acceptance of Safi's propangandizing and their imperfect command of English (one remonstrated with me for calling Safi's students "hapless" in the belief that this word meant "stupid," when actually it means "luckless" or "unfortunate").

However, the good professor is unrepentant: in the Spring 2005 version of this course, he has explained his inclusion of Schwartz in a footnote, and has expanded his broad-brush smear of his little enemies' list: now the list, which is otherwise unchanged, is made up of "unrepentant Orientalists, outright Islamophobes, Neo-conservatives, Western Triumphalists, right-wing Christian Evangelicals, etc."

Hmmm. "Unrepentant" Orientalists? Omid, my man, of what exactly do Orientalists such as Schacht, Wansbrough, Jeffrey, Muir, Margoliouth, Hughes and others have to repent? Telling the truth? Not confusing academic research with propagandistic indoctrination? Not considering Islam to be beyond criticism, particularly in the ways it incites people to violence and fanaticism?

And "outright" Islamophobes? Tell me, Omid: which person on your list is an "outright" Islamophobe? "Islamophobia" is a term invented by people trying to stifle uncomfortable questions about Islam; tell me, which one of your enemies willingly accepts this term?

You tell me, Omid. Last year, when I first became aware of your course, I offered to come to Colgate and have a public discussion with you. I'm still available; contact me at director@jihadwatch.org.

Report on Islamohpobia [sic]:

You are each required to turn in a report on a significant person who contributes to a negative public presentation of Islam and/or Muslims; whose political views and/or scholarship shape how Islam is presented today. This group is a broad coalition that includes folks from diverse backgrounds, such as unrepentant Orientalists, outright Islamophobes, Neo-conservatives, Western Triumphalists, right-wing Christian Evangelicals, etc.:

Report: 4 pages. Include: a brief biography, intellectual history, and comments on Islam (and/or Middle East where relevant)

-1) Bernard Lewis, 2)Samuel Huntington, 3)Fouad Ajami, 4)David Frum, 5)Paul Wolfowitz, 6) Leo Strauss, 7) William Kristol, 8) William Bennett, 9) Daniel Pipes, 10) Charles Krauthammer, 11) Alan Bloom, 12) Robert Spencer, 13) David Pryce-Jones, 14) Stephen Schwartz, 15) Bat Yeor,16) Jerry Falwell, 17)Pat Robertson, 18) Francis Fukuyaman, 19)Franklin Graham 20) Niall Ferguson 21) Robert Kagan 22) Dore Gold 23) Ibn Warraq

[*Stephen Schwartz directs his critique at the Wahhabis, and is affiliated with Sufism, but he has fully identified himself with Neo-con think tanks and political ambitions.]

UPDATE: I confess that I wrote all of the above without noticing that Safi has appended a lengthy piece entitled "Omid Safi comments on Islamophobia" mostly about me. He even quotes the April 11 post linked above in full, with comments, "before it can be taken down or altered." (Don't worry, Omid. I have no plans to do either.)

There is not much of substance in all of this beyond documentation -- which he evidently thinks will be horrifying enough in itself to his students -- that my books have been published by conservative publishers and I am affiliated with conservative organizations. Omid, I assure you: if I could interest any liberal groups in this struggle for our survival, I most certainly would. As I have said many times, the struggle against the global jihad is not a conservative or liberal issue, but a human rights issue. In the meantime, however, given the general indifference (at best) of the Left, I will get the word out any way I can.

Omid's other points, and my comments:

1) Accusation of taqiyya: the notion that one is hiding one's true belief to survive. This is a common accusation against many moderate and liberal Muslim thinkers, including Tariq Ramadan.

All right. But is it accurate? Is there not evidence of Salafis engaging in taqiyya? Does the fact that it's a "common accusation" mean that it's false? Omid, my man, surely even your undergraduates can see the holes in that one.

2) Accusation of dhimmitude: the notion that one seeks to create an Islamic state in which Jews and Christians would be second class citizens. There is no proof given, of course, on how one little professor at Colgate is going to create an Islamic state, of all places in the United States

Nice try, Omid, but your straw man here is simply absurd. I have never suggested that Omid Safi is trying to create an Islamic state. My April 11 post is headed "academic dhimmitude." This refers to the fact that Safi is passing off propaganda as education, and making his students accept highly politicized and controvertible material as fact -- notably, that Islam as a religion is peaceful and tolerant, just as the dhimmis of old had to sing the praises of Islam's peacefulness and tolerance or risk forfeiting their contract of "protection."

3) Look at the first question of the first comment: "Only one question: does he have tenure?" This can be taken as nothing other than an attempt to silence academic voices and discussions by threatening the source of their employment.

Absurd again. Comments are unmoderated, and I neither have nor claim any responsibility for them, but in this case I'll reply. Safi here is using the tactic we have recently seen Ward Churchill and Shahid Alam use: claim that academic freedom is being threatened when all that is really being threatened is their professional irresponsibility and passing off of propaganda as fact. If Safi really believed in academic freedom, his course syllabus would not have an enemies list.

4) Without me asking them to, two of the students in the class, named Josh and Alyssa above, wrote back to contest Robert Spencer's views. Their main point was that unlike Mr. Spencer, they had actually been in the class. Their objections are never acknowledged.

Omid, Omid, Omid. Do you expect your indoctrinees not even to read your own material? You posted the April 11 Dhimmi Watch post in full, in which I answer Josh and Alyssa not once, but several times. Come now, man! If you wanted to tell your students that I didn't answer Josh and Alyssa, you shouldn't have republished my answers!

5) Here is a bigger issue about who Robert Spencer is. Does he have a PhD in Islamic Studies? Is he teaching as an academic? Does he present his views at the American Academy of Religion, Middle East Studies Association, American Oriental Society, etc. (established, respected academic organizations that specialize in the study of Middle east, different religious traditions, etc.) Are his books published by academic publications? Answers are no, no, and again, no.

Right. And why don't I do these things? Because the organizations you name are full of people who are not genuine academics, but ideologues who praise those who parrot their politics and savage those who don't. Your presentation of my publishers' (horror of horrors) conservative funding is evidence enough of the fact that you cannot deal with the substance of what I have said about Islam, but think it sufficient to press your followers' ideological buttons.

One more thing: You say, "Once Carl Ernst pointed this the [sic] connections of Robert Spencer to consverative [sic] oganizations [sic], what was Robert Spencer's response? To write a column called: 'Well done, good and faithful servant: American prof's book on Islam wins award in Cairo'"

Actually, I didn't write that in response to Ernst. I hadn't seen what Ernst wrote until tonight. But I'm glad you brought it up, Omid, because the Egyptian prize is just another indication of the high ideological coloring of both Ernst's work and yours. It is more than absurd for you to quote Ernst saying that my books are "supported by specific political and ideological interests," as if yours aren't.

Bottom line, Omid: you can't refute them. You can't go into Islam Unveiled or Onward Muslim Soldiers and find anything inaccurate in them. So instead, you resort to dark mumblings about my "connections" and smears of "Islamophobia."

This is what passes for higher education these days.

Indonesia: 10 years in prison...for a kiss?

Sharia alert. "Indonesia seeks to save kissing for marriage," from IOL, with thanks to all who sent this in:

Jakarta, Indonesia - Call it a kissing crackdown.

Indonesia's government is considering a law banning unwed couples from pecking in public - and harshly penalising those who do, The Jakarta Post reported on Saturday.

The campaign against kissing is part of a proposal of sweeping reforms to laws adopted by the country's Dutch colonial rulers in the late 19th century.

The head of the panel that drafted the law said Muslim beliefs about decency had influenced its decision. Neighbouring countries with large Muslim populations, such as Malaysia and Brunei, already enforce laws defining "khalwat", or "close proximity", a crime akin to adultery for unchaperoned meetings between Muslim men and women....

But they would also impose penalties on unwed couples who kiss in public, while permitting police raids on the homes of those suspected of living together out of wedlock.

Pornography and public displays of "certain sensual body parts" would be outlawed and media, movies and songs censored.

Penalties for law breakers would range from fines as high as 300 million rupiah (about R200 000) to up to 10 years imprisonment, according to the daily.

Al-Qaida's camp followers

Arnaud de Borchgrave in UPI, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 7 (UPI) -- Much like Nazi and Soviet sympathizers in the 20th century, al-Qaida enjoys a movement of worldwide groupies whose common link is hatred of America.

Their principal objective is to clip the eagle's talons. They now get together once a year in Porto Allegre in Brazil at the same time as the capitalist world's nabobs meet at the World Economic Forum at Davos in Switzerland. Their new hero this year was Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez, anointed by Fidel Castro as Latin America's anti-Yankee standard-bearer. Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado's tenured professor, who applauded the 9/11 al-Qaida terrorists, would have felt at home in Porto Allegre.

This year the anti-American contrarians came from 135 countries for the 5th World Social Forum for six days of debates and marches directed against George W. Bush. U.S. media were busy elsewhere and all but ignored the noise in Porto Allegre. The Maldon Institute, a Baltimore-based research organization, filled the vacuum.

The anti-imperialist jamboree ended on Jan. 31 in a three-mile-long parade of some 150,000 people with banners against President Bush, the war and occupation of Iraq, the Pentagon, the CIA, the Free Trade Associations of the Americas, and IMF and the World Bank. The organizers also posted 352 proposals cobbled by participants and printed on large white panels - such as a Global Call to Action Against Poverty.

Harrumphed WSF executive member Joao Pedro Stedile, leader of the Movimento dos Sem Terra (MST), or Landless Peoples' Movement), "The U.S. Empire is our common enemy."

Jihadist sues dhimmi

"Bin Laden filmmaker sues Michael Moore," from WND, with thanks to EPG:

An Egyptian associate of Osama bin Laden plans to sue American director Michael Moore for allegedly using images of the terror chief in the Bush-bashing film "Fahrenheit 9/11" without permission.

Essam Deraz took almost four years getting footage of the head of al-Qaida at training camps in Afghanistan. He's reportedly the only person to capture bin Laden on film in the late 1980s.

"I was the only cameraman with the Arabs," Deraz told London's Sunday Times. "All of those shots of bin Laden talking in the cave, talking into his walkie-talkie, they were all my work.

"I was there from 1986-89 and was in contact with bin Laden on many occasions. I saw him in Peshawar in Pakistan and in Jalalabad in Afghanistan. The film clips in 'Fahrenheit 9/11' – five of them – were mostly shot in March and April 1989.

"I was wounded twice and on one of those occasions bin Laden arranged for me to be taken to hospital in his vehicle. These are the only film clips ever taken that show bin Laden on the battlefield."

Deraz worked for the BBC in the 1970s and says he had no sympathy with al-Qaida, which wasn't in existence when his footage was shot.

"Now I find that Mr. Moore's film is being distributed in America and in other countries and I have received nothing," he told the Times.

Deraz has filed a petition with the Egyptian public attorney, laying a claim to intellectual property rights. He's looking for the film to be confiscated until a financial resolution is reached.

Bat Ye'or to speak at Columbia University tomorrow

The Comparative Defense Studies Program, The Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies, and The Middle East Institute of Columbia University host:

“Eurabia: the Euro-Arab Symbiosis and the Estrangement from America”

by Bat Ye'or

Bat Ye'or, born in Egypt, is a British citizen living in Switzerland since 1960. She is a renowned expert on the history of non-Muslims under Islam and has written many articles and four books on the subject. The translation of The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam (1980) from French into English (1985) brought her international recognition. It remains an essential introduction to her second work, The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam. From Jihad to Dhimmitude (French 1991/English 1996/German 2002). With Islam and Dhimmitude. Where Civilizations Collide (2002), she completed her pioneering triology on the study of "dhimmitude"; her books are essential reading on this subject. Bat Ye'or's latest work, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis (Jan. 31, 2005) is about the transformation of Europe into “Eurabia" over the past 30 years.

Bat Ye'or will speak Tuesday, February 8, 2005 from 12-2:00pm in Room 1302, School of International and Public Affairs, 420 West 118th Street (south/east corner of 118th St. & Amsterdam Ave: Room 1302 on 13th floor).

Most Hizballah sites hosted in U.S.

Here are some capitalists busy selling the rope by which they will be hanged. "Most Hezbollah sites hosted in U.S.," from WND, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

A recently disclosed list of companies providing service to Hezbollah websites exposed something shocking – 22 out of 25 primary sites for the Lebanese terror group are hosted by U.S. companies.

Internet Haganah, an organization that works to uncover and shut down websites affiliated with the global jihad, says it has been tracking and monitoring 25 major Hezbollah sites and found that, aside from two established in Iran and one in the UK, the rest of the Hezbollah sites are hosted by American companies. Israeli security sources confirmed the organization's findings.

Seventeen Hezbollah sites, including Nasrollah.net, a Hezbollah site coordinated with Iran, and Aljarha.org, which raises money for the terror group, have obtained their domain names from Bulkregister LLC, a Baltimore company, says Haganah. Domain names are maintained by registrar companies, usually for yearly fees, to lease site names and ensure domains remains available. Other Hezbollah domains registered through Bulkregister include Al-nour.net, Alrassoul.org, Naimkassem.org, Hayaa.org, and Moqawama.net.

OnlineNic in Chicago registers three Hezbollah sites including Wilayah.com, which specializes in religious indoctrination; two Hezbollah sites, Nasrollah.org and Moqawama.tv signed for domains through Register.com in New York; and eNom of Bellvue, Washington, provides domains for Hezbollah's Al Manar TV sites, which were recently banned in the U.S.

Most Hezbollah websites are also hosted by American companies. Hosting companies provide space on webservers for the actual site content. Alabanza, Inc. in Baltimore hosts three Hezbollah sites, including the Hezbollah news site Intiqad.com. iPowerWeb, Inc. of Santa Monica, California, hosts Nasrollah.net, Naimkassem.org, Moqawama.tv.

According to Haganah, other U.S. companies that host Hezbollah sites include CIHost of Bedford, Texas; FastServers of Cedar Falls, Iowa; and ITX via DataPipe in Hoboken, New Jersey.

Muslim apostates cast out and at risk from faith and family

It is good to see the Times dealing honestly with the problem of apostasy. The death penalty for apostasy should be enough to illustrate the incompatibility of traditional Islamic law with Western pluralism and the principle of freedom of conscience. From the ever-superb Anthony Browne, with whom I once had the honor of participating in a radio exchange with the infamous Omar Bakri, in the Times Online, with thanks to all who sent this in:

THE first brick was thrown through the sitting room window at one in the morning, waking Nissar Hussein, his wife and five children with a terrifying start. The second brick went through his car window.

It was a shock, but hardly a surprise. The week before, another brick had been thrown through the window as the family were preparing for bed in their Bradford home. The victim of a three-year campaign of religious hatred, Mr Hussein’s car has also been rammed and torched, and the steps to his home have been strewn with rubbish.

He and his family have been regularly jostled, abused, attacked, shouted at to move out of the area, and given death threats in the street. His wife has been held hostage inside their home for two hours by a mob. His car, walls and windows have been daubed in graffiti: “Christian bastard”.

The problem isn’t so much what Mr Hussein, whose parents came from Pakistan, believes, but what he doesn’t believe. Born into Islam, he converted eight years ago to Christianity, and his wife, also from Pakistan, followed suit.

While those who convert to Islam, such as Cat Stevens, Jemima Khan, and the sons of the Frank Dobson, the former Health Secretary, and Lord Birt, the former BBC Director-General, can publicly celebrate their new religion, those whose faith goes in the other direction face persecution. Mr Hussein, a 39-year-old hospital nurse in Bradford, is one of a growing number of former Muslims in Britain who face not just being shunned by family and community, but attacked, kidnapped, and in some cases killed. There is even a secret underground network to support and protect those who leave Islam. One estimate suggests that as many as 15 per cent of Muslims in Western societies have lost their faith, which would mean that in Britain there are about 200,000 apostates.

For police, religious authorities and politicians, it is an issue so sensitive that they are accused by victims of refusing to respond to appeals for help. It is a problem that, with the crisis of identity in Islam since September 11, seems to be getting worse as Muslims feel more threatened.

Read it all.

Saudi official: Bin Laden sent by Jews

We'll see if they dare to repeat this at the conference itself, in front of the American representatives. From WND, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

Speaking at a meeting of Saudi leaders in preparation for the kingdom's international conference on counterterrorism, Defense Minister Prince Sultan referred to Osama bin Laden as being "sent by the Jews."

The prince was quoting a poet who said, "Long live security - may its men hold their heads high on every corner. [Bin Laden], whose ideology is sick, who was sent by the Jews, who is the architect of theft, was treacherous and sent us the criminals. This traitor of the nation tried to harm us, but his efforts boomeranged back upon him."

The prince's remarks can by viewed, with translation, at the Middle East Media Institute's special website of television clips [Clip No. 518].

The first-of-its-kind conference, beginning today through Tuesday, will be attended by leading counterterrorism experts from more than 50 countries, including the U.S.

But Israel is not invited, despite its extensive experience combating terrorism at home.

"We have invited all countries that have suffered from terrorism to the conference, and all have agreed to take part," said Prince Turki ibn Muhammad, assistant undersecretary for political affairs at the Saudi Foreign Ministry.

Jive Turki. So Israel has never suffered from terrorism, eh?

Prince Turki said efforts must be made to address root causes.

"We have to address the reasons that lead to the spread of this dangerous phenomenon," he said.

Sure we do. So let's see, Turki, my man. I'll start: 9/11 was a combined effort of the CIA and Mossad, right? Or was it just the agents of the Zionist entity on their own? And did Spiderman play a key role, or was his involvement just peripheral?

Now Koran-compatible "Islamic banking" is coming to the U.S.

Are non-Muslims eligible for these interest-free loans? "Koran-Friendly Lenders," from Business Week, with thanks to Jerry Gordon:

Who wouldn't want an interest-free loan? If you happen to be a devout Muslim, it's the only option. Paying interest -- riba -- is forbidden. That puts would-be homeowners who are Muslim-American in a bind. Saving to pay for a home in full when housing prices are skyrocketing is nearly impossible.

Now Koran-compatible "Islamic banking" is coming to the U.S. Leading the way is Devon Bank, a small community bank in Chicago owned by the Loundy family, who are Jewish. In January, Freddie Mac (FRE ) agreed to buy Devon's Islamic home financing products, freeing up capital for a national expansion. Devon also is working with Fannie Mae (FNM ) to develop Koran-compatible home mortgage products. Other banks are starting to offer Islamic services in the U.S., including the University Bank in Ann Arbor and HSBC in New York.

Devon, on Chicago's North Side, anchors a neighborhood that has shifted from Eastern European Jews to Indian, Pakistani, and Middle Eastern Muslims. To meet customers' needs, the bank, which has $261 million in assets, spent two years developing financial products that could conform to Islamic laws and pass the financial scrutiny of U.S. regulators.

Under Murabaha, or installment financing, Devon buys a property chosen by a customer, then turns around and sells it for a price that includes projected interest costs. There is no principal and thus, technically, no interest. Islamic financing is nearly half of Devon's mortgage portfolio.

Can someone help me out here? Does this mean that the Muslim homebuyers buy the houses at rates that include the projected interest costs? Or that Devon absorbs the interest costs?

The bank also offers Koran-friendly financing for commercial real estate, business equipment, and letters of credit. "We are a community bank helping a community that's being underserved," says David Loundy, the bank's legal counsel. "In this case it's the Muslim community." Given an estimated 6 million Muslims in the U.S., that's bound to change.

Note that the bank seems to have accepted the inflated Muslim population figures put forward by American advocacy groups.

Dutch flag "insulting to Muslim immigrants", banned from Dutch schools

The Dutch have banned their flag, but I'm sure they'll be quite happy to wear the zunnar. (The zunnar, folks, was a cloth belt worn by dhimmis, to signify their inferior status.) From Rayra at LGF comes this:

In the Netherlands the national flag is now banned on most schools. If a student wears the national flag of his own country he will be suspended or expelled from school. The reason for this is that this provokes the immigrants (the muslims) and therefore it is considered discrimination if you wear your country's flag in your own country. Even people who have an bumpersticker whit the flag on their car are harassed and called a facist by the Muslims. Most schools also ban certain clothing like the Lonsdale brand and combat boots with white or red laces. This is also concidered a sign of racism. There are of course no restrictions for the immigrants on clothing.

Dutch article here.

Ontario must say 'no' to Islamic law

From Mona Eltahawy of the Progressive Muslim Union of North America in the Christian Science Monitor, with thanks to Ali Dashti:

NEW YORK – In January last year, the US-backed Iraqi Governing Council incurred the wrath of Iraqi women by ordering that Islamic law, or sharia, replace the civil code that had governed family and divorce law since the 1950s. Women from Iraq's different religious sects denounced the decision in street protests and conferences that eventually led to sharia being listed as just one of several sources of legislation in Iraq's temporary constitution. It is that image of Iraqi women braving the streets of occupied Baghdad to protest sharia that makes it impossible to understand what former Ontario Attorney General Marion Boyd was thinking when she recommended Jan. 17 that the province allow sharia tribunals to settle family disputes for Muslims. Her report examining the issue was commissioned by current Attorney General Michael Bryant, as Ontario considers whether to let Islamic law be used in private arbitration of civil and family-law disputes when all parties agree to it. As a Muslim woman who is familiar with the many ways sharia is abused and used against women in my own country, Egypt, and in several other Muslim countries I have reported from, I urge Mr. Bryant and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty to reject Ms. Boyd's recommendations.

Many Canadian Muslims agree. The Canadian Council for Muslim Women has called Boyd's recommendations naive. A coordinator of the International Campaign Against Sharia Court in Canada has warned that these tribunals will compel women to stay in abusive relationships. Tarek Fatah, a founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, denounced the former attorney general's report as "multiculturalism run amok."

Boyd's recommendations seem to be aimed at compensating Muslims for the ugly Islamophobia that has surfaced in North America in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. But women must not pay the price for liberal guilt.

According to most interpretations of sharia, women are not treated equally to men. For example, a woman inherits half of what a male relative does. Even more problematic, there is no consensus on sharia, which is derived from the Koran and the life and sayings of the prophet Muhammad.

So whose interpretation of sharia would Ontario Muslims follow? And who would have the authority to decide?

Read it all.

Muslim Dilemma: Kill Jews or Convert Them?

A few choice MEMRI translations on a disagreement among Muslim clerics on how to deal with Jews. Neither one mentions the third option for dhimmis -- subjugation as inferiors under Islamic law -- although it has been invoked by imams in Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority in the last few years. I recount those incidents in Onward Muslim Soldiers. From Israel National News, with thanks to Ali Dashti:

Speaking on Saudi Arabia's Iqra TV last month, Sheikh 'Aed Al-Karni expounded:

"The Prophet Muhammad, as is said in the Hadith [post-Koranic instructions for behavior and belief - ed.], sent Ali to the Jews - to the Jews, the brothers of apes and pigs - to fight them. Ali, being so brave and daring, thought he was sent to behead them. The Prophet Muhammad told him that it was better to guide them to the righteous path than to kill them...."

Adding elucidation of the founder of Islam's instruction, Al-Karni concluded, "By Allah, if you guide a Jew or a Christian to the righteous path, it is better than slaughtering one or two thousand of them on the battlefield."

A London-based Islamic preacher, however, has a different view. Appearing on Iranian television's Arabic broadcast on December 30, Sa'id Radhwan declared:

"The only option with these Jews is Jihad. Jihad is the only option that the [Palestinian] resistance should employ and maintain against the Jews. It is impossible for [the Palestinians] to regain their lands and their holy places in any way but Jihad, because Jihad is the only way to liberate the Palestinian lands and the Al-Aqsa Mosque."

Central Asia: Researchers Say Polygamy Harmful to Regional Economies

From RFE/RL, with thanks to Ali Dashti:

Prague, 2 February 2005 (RFE/RL) -- A husband with several wives and many children usually spends his money on quantity rather than quality, and therefore his children receive a mediocre or even poor education. This, in turn, lowers the education level of those societies in which polygamy is a common practice.

That is the conclusion of three Hebrew University professors in a report called "The Mystery of Monogamy." It is based on a study conducted in the African country of Ivory Coast.

Eric Gould is a Hebrew University economics professor and one of the authors of the report. He tells RFE/RL that the purpose of the research was to look at the correlation between polygamy and economic development, since all of the societies in which polygamy is practiced are developing countries, while monogamy is the common practice in all developed countries.

Gould says the overall impact of polygamy on developing economies is negative. "In general, wealthy men like lots of children and lots of wives. But the difference between developed countries and nondeveloped countries is how people get wealthy and a value of education in a society," he says. "So, in a nondeveloped country, men don't get wealthy through their education and through their human capital. They basically get land or another kind of wealth. They know their children are not going to get wealthy through education, and so forth. So, they prefer lots of children with a low level of human capital."

Saudi Court: The Value of One Woman’s Life is Equal to that of One Man’s Leg

The Islamic Society of Boston (to take just one example) maintains that Islam considers men and women "equal in the sight of God." Mmm-hmm. From the Saudi Institute, with thanks to Ali Dashti:

Washington, DC (January 29) -- A Saudi court has ruled that the value of one woman’s life is equal to that of one man’s Leg. The court ordered a Saudi to pay a Syrian expatriate blood money after he killed the man’s wife and severed both his legs in a car accident six months ago.

The Syrian, Saadi Naif Azabouti, lost his wife and two legs in the accident. The court ordered $13,300 compensation for the man’s wife, and the same amount for each of his legs, Al-Watan newspaper reported on Wednesday.

Saudi courts are run according the Wahhabi Islamic traditions and are
limited to Wahhabi judges. Other Muslims, such as non-Wahhabi Sunni and Shiites, are banned from being judges.

Women in Saudi Arabia face wide-ranging discrimination institutionalized by the Saudi government, which doses not recognize women as separate entities, but rather as an extension of their male relatives.

French pol: " the Armenian problem is not an issue concerning Turkey-France relations"

Dhimmitude from a French politician? Why, it's unprecedented! From "Debre: Armenian Issue is not Our Problem" in Turks.us, with thanks to Ali Dashti:

Speaker of the French National Parliament Jean-Louis Debre discussed Turkey's European Union (EU) membership bid just before his Turkey visit begins today. Debre responded to a question about whether the Armenian issue was a problem in the development of Turkey-France relations: "Let's be honest. First of all, the Armenian problem is not an issue concerning Turkey-France relations. It is rather about Turkey-Armenia relations and Turkey's own history in particular."

The EU that Turkey wants to join was the built by confronting public and state history, Debre said, and they believe that Turkey would understand this and its part of the European project. The French Speaker also added that it is about "overcoming the conflicts to build a peaceful unity, respecting human rights, paying attention to the responsibility to remember, and making peace with one's own history." Meanwhile, the French Parliament approved the so-called genocide bill in 2001, which led to a long break in Turkey-France relations.

Well, wouldn't making peace with one's own history involve owning up to the Armenian genocide? So it seems that the Speaker is just hoping they will do, but he certainly won't be too disappointed if they don't.

Pakistan: "Music, dance and photos of women should be banned"

Sharia alert. Last night after I gave a talk a gentleman confronted me with the fact that only two states today fully implement Sharia -- as if the rest of the Islamic world has nothing to do with it. In fact, it is advancing everywhere. Sir, this one's for you. "MMA MPA seeks law against music, women's photos in ads," from Dawn, with thanks to Ali Dashti:

PESHAWAR, Feb 3: An MPA of the ruling Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal on Thursday tabled two private bills in the NWFP Assembly suggesting that music and dance in public places and educational institutions, and using photographs of women in advertisements be declared penal offences punishable by up to five years in prison along with a fine of up to Rs5,000 and Rs10,000, respectively....

In their speeches in the house on Thursday, both opposition members said the bills were aimed at Talibanisation of the province. In the first draft law, a public place is a building, house, room, tent, enclosure, road, lane, bridge, square or any other place to which the public is admitted to witness a dance or music performance on payment or otherwise....

If the law is enacted, dancing and music in a public place or in an educational institution will be considered an offence punishable with imprisonment of up to five years and with fine of up to Rs5,000.

The proposed law empowers a police officer not below the rank of inspector to enter any public place or educational institution and arrest any person who in his opinion has committed, or is committing or is about to commit such offence, including the person who abets the commission of such an offence.

The second bill pertaining to photographs of women reads: "Photograph means a photograph of a woman obtained through camera or hand drawing/painting or portrait, whether factual or artificial, which may amount to any incentive to sensuality or excitement of impure thoughts in the mind of an ordinary man of normal temperament; or tends to corrupt those minds which are open to such immoral influence, or which is deemed to be detrimental to public morals and calculated to produce pernicious effect, in depriving and debauching the minds of person."

Hollandistan Follies : Dutch University to offer tax payer financed Imam course : "Because ... many Imams don't have much of a feeling for Dutch society"

"The Free University is getting an Imam-course," a translation of "Vrije Universiteit krijgt imam-opleiding" by by Beila Rabinowitz, director of Militant Islam Monitor:

The Free University in Holland (VU), is getting 1.5 million euro from the Ministry of Education to provide a course for Imams. According to the goverment such a course is necessary, because many of the Imams at present do not have much of a feeling for Dutch society.

Dean and Professor Dr. M.Brinkman, of the Theological Faculty at the VU, confimed on Tuesday that the University will be getting the course. The VU hopes to begin with this on September 1st and sees it as an extension of the existing course for chaplains such as those in hospitals.

Museum removes erotic art after Muslim anger

One thing is certain (cf. the Brooklyn museum that was exhibiting a portrait of the Virgin Mary pelted with dung a few years ago, and many other cases): if Christians had complained, the museum would have cried "censorship" and kept the exhibit up.

From Reuters, with thanks to all who sent this in:

STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - A Swedish museum dedicated to world culture has removed an erotic painting plastered with verses from the Muslim holy book, the Koran, from an exhibition about AIDS after Muslims complained it was obscene.

Jette Sandahl, director of the World Culture Museum, which opened in Gothenburg a month ago, said on Wednesday that the painting by an Arab artist living in France was replaced by another less offensive one.

Sweden is home to 400,000 Muslims. The row over artist Louzla Darabi's painting comes amid tensions in Europe about a perceived increase in Islamic militancy since a Dutch filmmaker critical of Islam was murdered in the Netherlands late last year.

Sandahl told Reuters that most of the hundreds of e-mails and letters sent were "respectful and polite but some were more aggressive."

"It was the combination of the image and text from the Koran which was problematic," she added.

Darabi told Gothenburg Channel 4 television that her work was not meant "offend anyone but to stress the link between love and God symbolised by the Koran's text".

When Muslims Convert

Daveed Gartenstein-Ross in this Commentary piece emphasizes that even those ex-Muslims who live in the West have very real security concerns. He also points out that some Muslims residing in the West are all too willing to use the West's liberal institutions to advocate the barbaric Sharia punishment of death for apostates. He discusses in particular Syed Mumtaz Ali, the architect of Canada's Sharia tribunal, and law professor Ali Khan, both of whom have advocated extending Islamic apostasy laws to the West -- to yawns from Western authorities.

In the Islamic world, there is a broad consensus, both popular and scholarly, that apostates deserve to be killed. A rich theological and intellectual tradition, stretching as far back as Muhammad and his companions, supports this position. Though official proceedings against those who reject Islam are fairly rare—in part, no doubt, because most keep their conversion a closely held secret—apostasy is punishable by death in Afghanistan, Comoros, Iran, Mauritania, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Yemen.1 It is also illegal in Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, the Maldives, Oman, and Qatar.

The greatest threat to apostates in the Muslim world derives not from the state, however, but from private individuals who take punishment into their own hands. In Bangladesh, for example, a native-born Muslim-turned-Christian evangelist was stabbed to death in the spring of 2003 while returning home from a film version of the Gospel of Luke. As another Bangladeshi apostate told the U.S. Newswire, “If a Muslim converts to Christianity, now he cannot live in this country. It is not safe. The fundamentalism is increasing more and more.”

Because of this ideological environment, every apostate in the Muslim world must live in constant fear of death. And unfortunately, as harsh recent experience has taught us, Islamist ideology is hardly confined to the Muslim world alone. Advocates of jihad, to say nothing of actual terrorists, can be found in every corner of the West. More disturbing, because of what it says about our own ideological self-defenses, is the respectability that has been granted to spokesmen for Islamic fundamentalism who have learned to promote their agenda in our own idiom, even as they argue that mere conversion out of Islam should be considered a crime.

A prime example in this connection is Syed Mumtaz Ali, the president of the Canadian Society of Muslims. The Indian-born Mumtaz Ali was the first South Asian lawyer in Ontario when he set up practice more than 40 years ago, and has been the intellectual force behind the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice, a group dedicated to applying shari’a (Islamic law) to certain civil disputes in the province. Ontario’s Arbitration Act, passed in 1991, paved the way for this campaign—and for Mumtaz Ali’s emergence as a respected public figure—by granting religious authorities the power to arbitrate in family and property matters so long as the parties involved gave their consent (and with the proviso that the decisions can be appealed to Canadian courts).

Instituting even so restricted a version of shari’a has been controversial in Canada, especially among feminists rightly worried about its effects on Muslim women. But for Mumtaz Ali, this first, modest concession to the claims of Islam has been just the beginning. As he declared in defending the shari’a tribunal, “freedom of religion as guaranteed under Canada’s constitution means not only freedom to practice and propagate religion but also to be able to be governed by one’s religious laws in all aspects of one’s life—spiritual as well as temporal.”

What Mumtaz Ali meant by this portentous remark is made clear in an astonishing essay under his name that can be found on the website of the Canadian Society of Muslims.2 Not only does he affirm there the traditional proposition that apostates must “choose between Islam and the sword,” but he argues that, if Canada is to be true to its own Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it must allow the country’s Muslim community to punish those of its members who renounce or traduce their faith.

[W]hat such a large segment of the Canadian minority believes as a precept of their faith/religion ought to be fully recognized if the Charter’s provision respecting freedom of religion are [sic] to have any real meaning. . . . Failing [to incorporate Islamic law concerning apostasy and blasphemy into the laws of Canada] will be a flagrant breach of equality rights. . . . Failing to interpret the guaranteed rights and freedoms of Muslims in accordance with the true spirit of multiculturalism results in the effective denial of this fundamental philosophy of the Canadian constitution. This is a tragic departure from that cherished “tolerance” (the real tolerance) which is the distinguishing quality of a cultured people.

Mumtaz Ali allows that recognizing Islamic law in this context “does not necessarily entail any obligation to enforce the Islamic punishment for blasphemy/apostasy within the Canadian jurisdiction” (emphasis added). Apostates, that is, will not have to be stoned or beheaded. But plainly some punishment by the community itself is in order, and Canada, as Mumtaz Ali would have it, has no right to stand in the way.

A still more original apologist for the harsh treatment of apostates who reside in the West is Ali Khan, a law professor at Washburn University in Kansas. In a recent issue of the Cumberland Law Review, Khan suggested that Islam can be seen as a form of intellectual property, and Muslims as “trustees” who have vowed to protect their faith’s “knowledge-based assets.”

These assertions, on their face, seem innocuous enough, if a bit absurd. But Khan’s argument quickly takes an ominous turn. If Islam is understood as intellectual property, he contends, the faith should enjoy what he calls “the right to integrity”—that is, its trustees should be able to safeguard “the protected knowledge from innovations, repudiation, internal disrespect, and external assaults.” Thus, Khan continues, apostasy should be punished because it is aimed at dishonoring the protected knowledge of Islam. The murtad (apostate) is akin to a corporate insider who discloses the secrets he has undertaken to protect; he is akin to a state official who turns traitor and joins the ranks of the enemy; he is akin to a custodian who destroys the very monument he was safeguarding on behalf of the community. All legal systems punish insiders who breach their trusts; Islam punishes murtaddun [apostasy] too, sometimes severely.

Khan does not specify what punishment should be meted out to those Muslims in the West who compromise the “intellectual property” of Islam, and perhaps he has something in mind for them that falls short of capital punishment. After all, as he surely knows, American law generally does not countenance the execution of corporate spies and inside traders. The key point, however, is not the outlandish substance of Khan’s argument. Rather, it is the fact that he was able to use an American law review as a soapbox from which to advocate the licensed punishment of apostates—and that his grossly illiberal views were never rebutted in its pages.

Read it all. This piece should be required reading for every elected official in North America and Europe.

Honor Thy Father -- Or Else

Val McQueen on Islamic honor killings in Tech Central Station (thanks to JS):

This is so routine in many Muslim societies, the perversity of it is seldom questioned within those societies. We know there is even provision for it in some countries, such as Jordan, which gives lesser penalties to men who commit "honor killings" to "remove a stain from the tribe" than for other murders. They also give a free pass to a man who kills his wife because he suspects she might have committed adultery, and a rapist has his sentence reduced if the woman he raped wasn't a virgin. (By contrast, Pakistan has re-introduced the death penalty specifically for this crime, with accomplices being handed an automatic life imprisonment. According to Pacific News writer Muddassir Rizvi, in 1999-2001, there are estimated to have been 1,100 "honor killings" there.)

And just as genital mutilation takes place in Britain with British doctors turning a blind eye in the name of "multiculturalism", so the murder of disobedient girls and women is countenanced, or at least not reported by the neighbors.

Read it all.

UK cash funded Hamas suicide bombings

"British charity still operating in open." From WND, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

On its website, Interpal, established in 1994, says it is a British charity "that focuses solely on the provision of relief and development aid to the poor and needy of Palestine and the world over, primarily in Palestine and the refugee camps in Jordan and Lebanon." The charity reportedly raised more than $8 million last year.

But documents discovered and declassified this month from Israel's 2002 Operation Defensive Shield and operations in the Palestinian territories last year, along with other supportive evidence released through the Center for Special Studies in Israel and shared with WND, show Interpal transferred large sums to the Bethlehem Orphan Care Society.

The society, outlawed in Israel in 2002, was being run by Dr. Ghassan Issa Mahmoud Harmass, a high-ranking Hamas figure in Bethlehem. Security sources say that aside from some humanitarian work it did to endear itself to the Palestinian population, the society passed on funds to Hamas’ terrorist apparatus, and gave money to the families of Hamas suicide bombers....

"The [British] authorities are afraid of the large Muslim community," said a security source. "Britain's failure to close Interpal and take action against Hamas' charities is coming from internal politics."

The Return of the Ents

A new essay by Wolfgang Bruno:

The always eminent writer and historian Victor Davis Hanson compares modern Europe to the Middle Earth of J.R.R. Tolkien’s epic “The Lord of the Rings”, recently turned into one of the most successful movie trilogies in history by New Zealand director Peter Jackson. Like the inhabitants of Tolkien’s imaginary world, Europeans are accustomed to living in peace and prosperity. But their sedate way of life is starting to come under threat, although not all of them have noticed it yet. The shadow of an ancient foe is rising in the East, an enemy that has not threatened us for so long that we had almost forgotten about it, and how dangerous it can be.

Memories of past battles have become dim, to the point where we treat them almost as Fairytales. The enemy was defeated last time, but not destroyed. It has been lying low since then, retreated into its heartland and waited for the next opportunity to strike. And now, it senses weakness.

The One Ring, the Ring of Power, which triggers a major war deciding the future of freedom in Middle Earth, is a great analogy for Islam. Many men have become enticed by the undeniable power of the Ring, hoping to use it for their own gain in the vain belief that they can control it. But the Ring of Power has a will of its own, and is inherently evil. It cannot be used for anything good. It will slowly corrupt the ones using it, replacing whatever was noble and positive with darkness, leaving nothing but an empty shell. Like the Nazgûl or Ring Wraiths, once great kings of men, now soulless tools at the hands of evil.

A long time ago, the area from Egypt via Syria to Iraq, Iran and Pakistan was the seat of the earliest civilizations known to man. Today, Islam has long since consumed these vibrant cultures, and replaced them with Islamic backwardness, terrorism and hate, with no other purpose in life than to be at the service of the Ummah. This is the fate of France, too, unless the French wake up and change their ways. The French elite are on an insane quest: The primary enemy for them is not Islam, but the Anglo-American rivals they have been fighting a loosing battle for supremacy against since the age of Napoleon, if not before. They think they can ride the tiger, and “use” Islam to regain some of their former glory. The equivalent of Saruman, the traitorous wizard, would have to be Jacques Chirac and the French political elite behind the Eurabia project. They are the enemy within, pretending to be on our side while having joined the forces of darkness a long time ago, and they may drag others with them when they fall.

Outsiders have been puzzled that a fantasy tale such as the Lord of the Rings could spellbind generation after generation. Perhaps the answer to the riddle is that despite being full of Elves, Trolls and strange beasts, it is essentially a very human story, a tale of cowardice, treachery and death, but also of hope, new beginnings and unexpected courage. Above all, it is a story about the quiet people, the little people, like the Hobbits or the Ents, suddenly rising to the occasion and showing bravery and zeal nobody had expected from them, not the least themselves. People who are ripped out of their daily lives to face a mounting evil gathering outside the gates, threatening to destroy everything they hold dear. Many of the individuals who are there to protect us and our civilization shrink in front of the challenges facing them. Some, like Saruman or the Eurabian elites, hope to increase their own power. Others, like Denethor, Steward of Gondor, are paralyzed by indecisiveness, overcome by defeatism and their own personal delusions, leaving their nations defenseless while the enemy is about to attack. Yet some, like Théoden King of Rohan, have had blinders drawn before their eyes by the likes of Grima Wormtongue, the John Espositos, the Tariq Ramadans and the multicultural Islam-apologists of the world. They can still be redeemed in the 12th hour, and return to lead the defenses.

It is easy to watch many of our leaders fail in standing up to or even identifying our adversary, witness the sheer numerical size of the enemy, and conclude that we have lost the fight. It is also wrong. As Tolkien shows us, some of those in power will inevitably fail to handle their responsibilities. But others, who had not been taken into the calculation by either friend or foe, will rise up to the occasion at the last moment and tip the scales in favor of the forces of good. If the big people prove too small for the task at hand, then the little people will have to grow and carry the load. The real will to identify the Islamic enemy and his weak points today is not found in the media, in the overpaid think-tanks and certainly not in our “progressive” universities or among most of the politicians. It is found in small websites by ex-Muslims, such as SecularIslam.org, KnowIslam.info, FaithFreedom.org, ApostatesOfIslam.com and IslamReview.org, and some others by non-Muslims like JihadWatch.org. It is picked up and its message carried throughout the world by the blogosphere, the global community of weblogs and private websites that is increasingly asserting its influence and challenging the major networks. Big Media will have to follow their lead, or decline in trust and significance as more and more people contrast their apologist stance with better arguments and analyses given elsewhere.

It is not for us to decide the time we live in. All there is for us is to decide what to do with the time that is given to us. This task has been appointed to us. And if we do not find a way, than no one will. Perhaps it is time to throw evil back where it came from, be that the fires of Mordor or the glowing sands of Arabia. Much hangs in the balance, maybe even civilization itself. Only time will tell if we are up to the challenge.

Wolfgang Bruno is a European author, writing a book about the Internet movement of ex-Muslims. All of Bruno's essays can be republished and reproduced for free by anybody who wants to.

Oregon: Muslim asks FBI to explain remark on jihadists

"The leader of Bilal Mosque group says comments by the agent in charge in Oregon have set back fence-mending." So now even to suggest that jihadists are operating somewhere is "anti-Muslim." Needless to say, such an attitude makes adequate defense against the jihad absolutely impossible. From The Oregonian, with thanks to Michelle:

A prominent Portland-area Muslim leader has asked the top FBI agent in Oregon to explain his recent remarks about the presence of jihad-trained fighters in the state.

In an e-mail Monday to Robert Jordan, special agent in charge of the FBI in Oregon, Shahriar Ahmed, president of the Bilal Mosque Association in Beaverton, wrote he was "shocked" to hear Jordan say there are people in Oregon who have trained in terrorist camps in Afghanistan.

In his remarks, Jordan said: "We have people here in Oregon that have trained in jihadist camps in bad areas. In the bad neighborhoods of the world." He added that the FBI knows "they've trained overseas, taken oaths to kill Americans and engage in jihad," but the challenge is "to prove those things."

Jordan, through his spokeswoman, has refused to explain his remarks. Beth Anne Steele, the FBI spokeswoman in Oregon, said Monday that Jordan planned to respond to Ahmed's letter privately....

Ahmed said Jordan's comments have dealt a setback to efforts to mend ties between federal law enforcement officials and local Muslims, an already fragile relationship damaged by the botched Brandon Mayfield case last year.

Mayfield, an attorney and Muslim, was detained as a material witness for two weeks in connection with the deadly train bombing in Madrid, Spain. Federal officials had linked him to the terror attack through a fingerprint, which they later said they had misidentified. Mayfield is suing the federal government over his detention.

Ahmed, who has been a vocal supporter of Jordan and his efforts to repair relations with Muslims, said the agent's comments were "so out of character."

"He has been very cautious in what he has said," Ahmed said.

Ahmed said the remark damaged the image of Muslims. In his e-mail to Jordan, Ahmed writes that he thought Muslims had "communicated to you the affect such comments have, especially from law enforcement, in making our lives, those of our wives who wear the head scarf, the lives of our children, especially our daughters who wear the head scarf in school, extremely difficult."

Durie: Daniel Scot’s (in)credible testimony

Australian human rights activist Mark Durie has some important observations about the Australian religious vilification case:

In December of 2004, Judge Michael Higgins, presiding at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, found Pastors Daniel Scot and Danny Nalliah guilty of inciting religious hatred against Victorian Muslims. This was a historic case, the first finding of religious vilification under new Victorian legislation.

The case of the ICV vs Catch the Fire is a complex one. On the one side it is said to be about vilification of Muslims. On the other side it is said to be about freedom of speech, and in particular the freedom to publicly criticize a religious ideology. The case marks a significant translation of concepts of race into the realm of religious identity and belief. As such it deserves to be studied carefully.

One aspect of Judge Higgins’ findings which seems especially likely to provoke controversy, is his approach to witnesses’ credibility. Broadly speaking, His Honour found that all seven witnesses for the complainants could be relied upon, but in one way or another he rejected all the five witnesses for the respondents, and refused the respondents’ requests to call two additional expert witnesses.

His Honour’s treatment of Pastor Daniel Scot, one of the respondents in the case, deserves careful scrutiny. Daniel Scot had given a seminar about the Qur’an which became a principal focus of the complaint before the Tribunal. In considering whether Scot had vilified Muslims, the issue of his integrity proved to be critical. Judge Higgins found that Scot was not ‘credible’. He stated concerning Scot “I have considerable doubt that what he told the seminar was his real beliefs about the Qur'an”: in other words he seemed to be lying. His Honour also found Scot to be opportunistic and unbalanced in his method of teaching, that he selected material because it conveyed a bad impression of Muslims.

Judge Higgins considered that because of his lack of credibility Scot could not be considered to have acted ‘reasonably and in good faith’. This meant that Scot had no protection from the religious exception in the Act, which protects conduct which is conducted for a ‘genuine’ religious purpose, ‘reasonably and in good faith’.

Judge Higgins cited two examples of Scot’s dishonesty. One was Scot’s report that he had written three books, when in fact these were works in progress which he distributed at his seminars in photocopied form, under his birthname Sidiqqi rather than his assumed name of Daniel Scot. Scot would not be the first author to self-publish using photocopying, to consider his books works in progress, and to use a nom de plume. However of much greater interest is the second instance of Scot’s allegedly dishonest behaviour.

Mercy for amputees?

As second example, Judge Higgins cites Scot’s discussion of the penalty for theft. Under cross examination, Scot had said that only after a thief’s hand is cut off (Sura 5: 38) is he to be shown mercy (Sura 5:39). His Honour describes Scot’s discussion of this as ‘astounding’, and his reasoning ‘illogical and unsustainable’. He comes to this view based on an assertion from the bar table, and without hearing any evidence that Scot’s interpretations were wrong.

The matter arose because it had been put to Scot by counsel for the complainants that he could have drawn his audience’s attention to Sura 5:39, to balance the interpretation of 5:38. In other words, his listeners could have been informed that the Qur’an could be read more sympathetically, that the mercy of 5:39 might reduce the penalty of 5:38.

As it happens, Scot’s interpretation of this passage is traditional and quite accurate. Hadiths place these two verses together in a specific ‘context of revelation’ (asbab al-nuzul): they were ‘revealed’ during an incident involving the punishment of a female thief during Muhammad’s lifetime.

The hadiths which support this interpretation (see e.g. tafsir.com) make crystal clear that mercy is to be applied after amputation. Muhammad even declares that if his own daughter Fatimah had stolen something, he would have her hand cut off.

This is an example of a theological principle relating to Islamic hudud punishments, that the penalty atones for the crime. After punishment the person is considered purified and free of the offence, acceptable to Muhammad and to God, in this life and the next, and thus a worthy recipient of kind treatment. Indeed the Hadiths relating to these verses describe how Muhammad showed kindness to the female thief after her hand had been amputated. The correct interpretation of verse 39 is that Muslims should treat amputated thieves with kindness and mercy, as long as they have repented after punishment, and do not steal any more. Scot’s teaching in the seminar, and his replies under cross-examination, hold up very well.

His Honour’s apparent confusion over this matter is apparent when he further reports that: “Verse 40 then spells out punishment of a severe kind, e.g. losing a leg, for a further offence.” In fact verse 40 says nothing of the sort, and the only reference to this verse during the hearing was that Scot had made a mark against it for some reason in his copy of the Qur’an! It is puzzling to say the least how His Honour could have come to this conclusion about verse 40.

One reading of His Honour’s finding is that he is rejecting orthodox Islamic interpretations of the Qur’an as ‘illogical, unsustainable’ and ‘astounding’. Many might find this a bold and courageous judgment.

However it is more likely that Judge Higgins’ discussion of this matter merely demonstrates a poor grasp of Islamic jurisprudence. It is hardly surprising that an Australian judge is not qualified to rule on a matter of Islamic law. What is more troubling is that Judge Higgins had been presented with considerable amounts of evidence throughout the trial from both sides concerning the fact that the Qur’an is to be interpreted in context, and that this context would include the Hadiths. Yet he apparently overlooked all this in a crucial consideration of the question of Scot’s credibility, a matter on which the whole outcome of the trial hinged. If Scot’s answers seemed to His Honour to be incomprehensible and ‘astounding’, this was enough to prove his dishonesty.

Another troubling aspect of this particular matter is that Judge Higgins had found Scot was too ‘literalistic’ in his approach to the Qur’an, and that he did not attend to context. This lay at the heart of his objection to Scot’s manner of interpreting the Qur’an. Yet in relying on his own ability to interpret the text, His Honour ignores context, and does the very thing he has criticized Scot for.

His Honour also appears to rely too much on his own legal world view—that it is illogical to apply mercy after punishment. He does not take into account the theological values attached to the concept of mercy in Islam, and specifically the eternal dimension of relationship with Allah, which means that people are as much in need of Allah’s mercy after punishment as they were before.

All this goes to vindicate Scot, who rightly defends his interpretation of the verses —however counter-intuitive it sounds to an Australian judge’s ears — because he appears to have studied the matter and has taken into account the context in which the verses arose.

Did Scot warn tell his listeners that many Muslims do not accept his views?

This is not the only situation where it is hard to reconcile the transcript with His Honour’s findings. During cross-examination the following interchange occurs between the Queen’s Counsel Brind Woinarski and Daniel Scot:

Woinarski: You didn't tell this audience what many, many Moslems here in Australia believe, did you?
Scot: I said that many, many Moslems don't believe it, yes.

Yet His Honour reports this as

“He agreed that he did not tell them that there were many Muslims in Australia who did not hold the same beliefs…”

Here His Honour appears to treat the word ‘yes’ as if it was an unqualified answer to the ‘yes/no’ question, without putting it in the context of Scot’s whole answer. His report of the exchange thus ends up being the opposite of what Scot had said in cross-examination.

The point is of real importance, because it goes to the heart of the complaint: did Scot vilify Australian Muslims? Scot had said during the seminar that the ‘vast majority’ of Muslims did not embrace the interpretations he was teaching of the Qur’an and because of this he warned that ‘we have not to be fearful of Muslim people’. However this aspect of Scot’s message during the seminar is passed over when His Honour wrongly reports “He agreed that he did not tell them…”

Muslim demons or demonic Muslims?

Scot’s credibility is also undermined by the way His Honour reports a list of statements he was alleged to have made during the course of the seminar. What is missing is an acknowledgment that several of these ‘offensive’ statements were in fact reports from the Qur’an and Hadiths.

This omission verges on the absurd when His Honour reports Scot as stating that “Muslims are demons” (paragraph 383.6). Such a statement, if true, would indeed give a very negative impression of Scot’s credibility.

In reality Scot had reported that according to the Qur’an, “a group of demons — in Arabic it’s called a ‘jinn’ … became Muslim”. (This relates to Sura 46.)

In His Honour’s findings “a group of jinns became Muslims” becomes “Muslims are demons”. This entirely wrong report was picked up by the media all around the world. For example a radio talkback host in Melbourne was abusing Scot within hours of the ruling being handed down, calling him an ‘idiot’ for saying this very thing.

In fact Scot said nothing of the sort. If His Honour had not been silent about the fact that Scot was speaking about the Qur’an, such public vilification might have been avoided.

Conclusion

This was an exceedingly complex case, and more could be said about His Honour’s handling of Scot’s evidence. His Honour’s findings on the credibility of other witnesses also deserve scrutiny.

Also of interest are Judge Higgins’ rulings on Christian and Islamic theology. His Honour found, for example, that Wahhabism is “fundamentalist” and irrelevant to the Australian Islamic scene, and despite his repeated references to Muhammad as ‘”the Prophet”, he found that the Qur’an is an “ancient historical document” whose violent verses relate to contexts which “have no relevance to the 21st Century.”

Setting all such matters to one side, what is sadly ironic about the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act is that it incites vilification. A complainant will seek to show that the respondent’s conduct has threatened religious harmony, that they have vile intentions, that they are inciting hatred and are dishonest. In this respect, and to this point of the legal proceedings, the Islamic Council has succeeded in pursuing just such a case against Pastor Daniel Scot.

It is abundantly clear that such proceedings do not promote religious harmony. In the case of the Islamic Council of Victoria vs Catch the Fire Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot, incompatible religious world views have been in collision. There were theological sparks flying all throughout the case. In the end, Judge Higgins came to his decision in part by finding one side not to be credible, and in part by declaring aspects of the Qur’an to be irrelevant to 21st century life. However, in the manner of reaching this conclusion, his rulings raise more questions than they answer, closure has not been achieved, and further damage has been done to religious harmony. It seems inevitable that the decision will be appealed.

The Act itself states that it is meant to be interpreted in a way which promotes conciliation and resolves tensions between groups in the community. This case has demonstrated some profound difficulties faced by our legal system in achieving this admirable goal.

It is high time for the Victorian government to review the religious aspects of this Act, and to consider whether they could be removed altogether, making it simply a Racial Tolerance Act.

Mark Durie holds a PhD in linguistics with a specialization in the language and culture of the Acehnese. He is Vicar of St Mary’s Caulfield and writes regularly on matters of comparative theology. Although he was called as an expert witness in this case, His Honour did not allow his testimony into evidence.