Judge Cuts Sentences In 'Virginia Jihad' Cases

From NBC4, with thanks to Two Stellas.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. -- A judge reduced the sentences of three U.S. Muslims convicted for their roles in a conspiracy that began with paintball games in the woods and evolved into a plan to join the Taliban and fight U.S. troops. Two of the three still will serve life sentences.

A federal appeals court ordered the new sentencing hearings for Masoud Khan, of Gaithersburg, Md.; Seifullah Chapman, of Alexandria; and Hammad Abdur-Raheem, of Falls Church; following a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that reduced the role of federal sentencing guidelines from mandatory to advisory.

Khan had been sentenced last year to life plus 65 years in prison, while Chapman had been sentenced to 85 years.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema said at the time she imposed those sentences that they were "draconian" and "sticking in my craw" but that she had no choice because of congressionally mandated minimum sentences for certain firearms convictions...

As a result, Khan's sentence was reduced only to life plus 45 years. Chapman, 32, had his sentence reduced from 85 years to 65 years. There is no parole in the federal system, so both will have to serve the vast majority of their terms.

"I have a limited ability to impose what I consider to be an appropriate sentence," Brinkema said. "These statutes are really draconian. I've said it before and I'll say it again."

The sentence reductions could be useful to Khan and Chapman only if the firearms convictions are overturned on appeal. If that occurs, each would serve only a 10-year sentence, which Brinkema said she considered appropriate...

Some group members turned their attention against the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. At a meeting on Sept. 16, 2001, the group's spiritual leader, a Fairfax Islamic scholar named Ali al-Timimi, warned that an apocalyptic battle between Muslims and nonbelievers was at hand and urged the group to engage in holy war. He specifically said fighting for the Taliban against U.S. troops was a legitimate jihad, according to some witnesses who struck plea bargains.

Khan spoke briefly, urging those in the courtroom to fear God.

"Through trial and injustice one comes to know and love his creator," Khan said. "Those who have brought upon this injustice have only hurt themselves."

In all, 10 men were convicted for their roles in the conspiracy, including al-Timimi, who was sentenced to life in prison for soliciting treason and other counts. Two who were charged were acquitted.

Muslim hardliners torch 'sinful' TV sets in northwest Pakistan

From Arab Times, with thanks to Nicolei.

PESHAWAR, Pakistan, July 30 (AFP) - Hundreds of Muslims in Pakistan's staunchly conservative northwest have set ablaze dozens of TV sets following a cleric's ruling that watching television was a sin, police said Saturday.

The men congregated in a park after Friday prayers and piled up about 25 TV sets, doused them with fuel and set them on fire, said witnesses from the Charsadda district of the North West Frontier Province near the Afghan border. "These people actually responded to a cleric's call," said district police chief Muhammad Iqbal, after a local mullah had said on radio that watching TV was a sin and declared a jihad or holy war against vulgarity and obscenity.

The park echoed with shouts of "Allah-o-Akbar" (God is greatest) and "Islam zindabad" (long live Islam), while the emotional crowd also decried an ongoing crackdown on suspected extremists following the London bombings.

Parliamentarian Maulana Gohar Shah addressed the crowd and called the 800 arrests and series of raids on Islamic seminaries ordered by President Pervez Musharraf a "conspiracy of the infidel (non-believer) world"...

Bail set for Saudi man accused of raping, enslaving housemaid

An update on the Al-Turki case from the Denver Post, with thanks to Two Stellas.

Despite strenuous objections from prosecutors, a federal judge set bail Thursday for a Saudi Arabian man who is accused of raping his housekeeper and holding her as a virtual slave in his Aurora home.

U.S. District Judge Walker Miller set bail at $400,000, which is the amount the Saudi government has put up so Homaidan Al-Turki can bond out on related charges in state court. He will have to post $400,000 bail for each case.

"It was a close call, given the serious nature of the charges and the fact that he is a foreign national," Miller said. "We are an open society, and it's not too hard to get out of here."

Miller said that while the crimes were serious, the evidence presented thus far did not weigh heavily against setting bail. Also, Al-Turki had received extraordinary support from his community and academic peers. The decision overturned a ruling issued this month by a federal magistrate who denied bail in the case...

Italian anti-terror law enacted

From the BBC, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

The lower house of the Italian parliament has approved new measures to combat the threat of terrorist attack, which means they have become law.

The bill includes surveillance of the internet and phone networks and making it easier to detain suspects.

Those who hide their features from the public - including through wearing the Islamic burqa - also face punishment.

A number of Western countries have introduced extra measures after the London bombs this month.

The BBC's Jacky Rowland notes that explicit threats against Italy have appeared on a number of extremist websites...

[Giuseppe Pisanu Italian Interior Minister said], "The terrorist threat with Islamic origins has a world-wide dimension, it could materialise everywhere and no corner of the planet is immune."...

Louvre to have Islamic Art Wing

"Prince Walid Helps Set Up Islamic Art Wing in Louvre" from IslamOnline, with thanks to Fjordman.

PARIS , July 27, 2005 – Saudi billionaire Prince Al-Walid Bin Talal has donated a multi-million-euro gift to finance the construction of a new Islamic art wing in the Paris-based Louvre Museum to show off the bright face of the Muslim world.

The 4,000-square-meter wing in the world's largest museum will showcase up to 10,000 pieces, one of the greatest concentrations of Islamic art in existence, Agence France Presse (AFP) reported Wednesday, July 27.

Financed by 17 million euros from the Saudi business tycoon, the Islamic art wing is designed by architects Mario Bellinin from Italy and Rudi Ricciotti from France . It is scheduled to open in 2009.

Only some 1,300 objects from the Louvre's Islamic collection are currently on display.

The new rooms will have 36,000 square feet of display space, about four times the current area.

The donation is one of the biggest cultural gifts in France 's history.

"Your gesture is a testament to the generosity of the Islamic world," the French Culture Minister Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres told Prince Walid in a ceremony on Tuesday, July 26...

Cliff May: "America is not fighting a war against Islam. America is fighting a war against Islamism"

I respect Cliff May's work. I think his article on the Palestinians was an absolute knockout punch, and I applaud much of what he has accomplished with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. But his latest article is one of the most appalling things I have read in a long time -- principally because it comes from Cliff May, who should know better.

It isn't that Cliff goes out on a limb in this one -- oh no, his position here is the easiest one to take in the world. He simply seems with his Islam/Islamism distinction here to repeat the dogma that currently goes unchallenged in official Washington and the mainstream media: that Islam is a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists. But what is most disheartening about this piece is not that; it is that May asserts this and never offers a scrap of evidence for it. He even acknowledges that the fabled Vast Majority of Moderate Muslims Who Abhor Terror has been singularly inactive against it. Through it all, however, he doesn't seem to notice that there are no clothes on his emperor: that he hasn't given his readers even one reason to believe that what he is saying is true.

I think May's column here is indicative of a much larger tendency. Most people, inside and outside of Official Washington, believe that Islam is peaceful at its core not because of any evidence, but because they really, really wish it were. And because those who have come to a different conclusion after examining the Qur'an and Sunnah, or who simply note that the jihadists make copious use of the Qur'an and Sunnah, are branded as racists and hatemongers, they just can't bear to come to that conclusion. Well, if we are going to face squarely what we are really up against and come up with viable defensive strategies, we better start getting over that, and fast.

From "The War Against the Free World," by Clifford D. May:

America is not fighting a war against Islam. America is fighting a war against Islamism.

The difference between Islam and Islamism is straightforward: Islam is a religion, a faith, the basis of a great civilization and culture, one that once dominated the world.

By contrast, Islamism is an “ism” – a theory, a doctrine, a political movement. Islamists believe that Muslims have a God-given right to dominate the world; or, as the Islamist theorist Abdullah Azzam phrased it, a duty to establish “Allah's rule on Earth.”

Sure, Cliff, big contrast there. Now let me ask you this: when did "Islamism" develop? Did not Muhammad himself teach that "Muslims have a God-given right to dominate the world" After all, he said: "It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right affairs rest with Allah." (Sahih Muslim, book 1, no. 30). Doesn't the Qur'an command Muslims to "fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah" (Qur'an 8:39)? Could I not quote hundreds of other passages to support this? And no, Cliff, I would not be pulling them out of context. All the schools of Sunni jurisprudence, as well as the Shi'ites, say the same thing.

Scholar and former Pakistani diplomat Husain Hoqqani quotes a booklet by Lashkar-e-Taiba (Army of the Pure), an Islamist group reportedly linked to the recent London bombings, which declares “the U.S., Israel and India as existential enemies of Islam,” and lists among its goals “the restoration of Islamic sovereignty to all lands where Muslims were once ascendant, including Spain, Bulgaria, Hungary, Cyprus, Sicily, Ethiopia, Russian Turkistan and Chinese Turkistan. . . Even parts of France reaching 90 kilometers outside Paris."

Theoretically, it is possible to be an Islamist and not support terrorism. An Islamist might believe there are peaceful ways for Muslims to achieve the power and glory to which they are entitled. In practice, however, it is an exceptional Islamist who scruples about the killing of “infidels.”

Yes, Cliff, but you still haven't explained what evidence establishes that Islam is distinct from Islamism. And you can't -- which is one reason why what you mention next is true:

Egyptian-born journalist Mona Eltahawy has lamented the fact that even many Arab and Muslim intellectuals can't quite bring themselves to condemn suicide bombings carried out in the name of Islam. Though they call themselves moderates, she writes, they “are little more than apologists for a terrorism that not only kills innocents in the dozens but ruins the lives of the millions of Muslims living in the West.”

Islamists have been waging war on America for more than a generation. The seizing of the U.S. embassy in Tehran was an act of war perpetrated by the Islamists who came to power in the 1979 Iranian Revolution. The Hezbollah bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983 also was an act of war, as were other attacks in that decade and the 1990s.

After Sept. 11, 2001, al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden became the world's best-known Islamist. The sophistication and lethality of his attacks made the hostage-takers and truck-bombers look like dilettantes. But long before we were surprised by bin Laden's capabilities, we should have been aware of his intentions. In 1996, bin Laden had published his “Declaration of War Against the Americans.”

America's leaders failed to respond to that threat as they failed to respond two years later when bin Laden wrote: “There are two parties to the conflict: World Christianity, which is allied with Jews and Zionism, led by the United States, Britain and Israel. The second party is the Islamic world.” For good measure, bin Laden issued a fatwa, a religious ruling, in which he called on Muslims to kill Americans – civilians and military alike.

The vast majority of Muslims did not heed his call. But some did. And too few Muslims – too few religious leaders, in particular – stood up to say forcefully that bin Laden was a renegade, an enemy of Islam who brings shame to the faith.

Why not, Cliff? Because they knew that Osama was acting in accordance with traditional Islamic law. They knew they had no leg to stand on against him. It is true that they were afraid. But that is not all.

One reason that did not happen is fear. Harvard scholar Ahmed H. al-Rahim notes that some Muslims who criticize Islamism – the writer Farag Fouda, for example -- have been assassinated. Others – Sayyid Mahmud al-Qimany, for example – have been threatened, and so “to spare his family the fate that befell Fouda's, Mr. Qimany recanted all his writings, promising never to write again… his only weapon was his pen, which alas he surrendered to the Islamists as others before him surrendered their lives.”

At this point, scholar Mamoun Fandy has written, “we desperately need a series of fatwas that assert that Islam does not condone violence against innocent people. …We also need to exclude those among us who believe that violence is the way to defend Islam. … It is also time to remove the title of 'mosque' from any place in which Molotov bombs are prepared.”

No, Fandy, we are getting those "fatwas that assert that Islam does not condone violence against innocent people." They are not enough. We need a clear declaration that Islam considers the aggregate of civilians in America, Britain, Israel and elsewhere to be civilians. We need this because it has been explicitly denied by jihad terrorists. Those terrorists would have no trouble endorsing fatawa that condemn attacks against innocent people. What we need are fatawa that they would not be able to endorse -- that they would see as condemning their actions. We have not seen such fatawa.

A war is being waged against America and, indeed, against the entire Free World, nations the Islamists view as decadent, weak and Satanic. Mr. al-Rahim has proposed that Muslims who reject the bellicose Islamist interpretation of Islam need to find the courage to say so unambiguously and publicly.

Indeed. But Cliff and others like him also need to face up to all the reasons why they haven't done so already.

“Why not a ‘Million Muslim March' on Washington,” he wrote, “of law-abiding Muslim citizens clamoring to reclaim their faith from those who would kill innocents in its name?”

And if there were a serious “peace movement” would its members not march with banners saying, “Stop the War Against the Free World”?

Would they not be demonstrating outside the embassies of Iran and Syria and other nations ruled by terrorist masters? Would they not be protesting, too, outside London's Finsbury mosque, one of a number of “houses of worship” where an ideology of hatred and murder is preached and, on occasion, practiced?

OK, let's see such marches. Let's see Muslims protest outside the Finsbury Park mosque. Let's see the Million Muslim March. If what Cliff May says here is correct, we should have already seen these things. Why haven't we?

UK: Apology after bacon found in library's Koran

Over the years I have come across many, many defaced books in libraries. Defaced in all sorts of ways, for all sorts of reasons. There are all sorts of jerks and dweebs everywhere who do this sort of thing. What is noteworthy about this story is not -- horror of horrors! -- the slice of bacon in the Qur'an, but the furious dhimmi overreaction of Sandra Barnsley. They are not going to "win"? Who? The pork lobby? No, of course she means the fiendish defacers of Qur'ans. But how does she propose to make good on her assurance that "nothing like this ever happens again"? Is she going to post a full-time anti-bacon guard in front of the library's Qur'ans? Will police search all those who enter the library and confiscate any stray rashers? (I guess you could call those strip searches.)

Maybe Prince Charles could get involved in this. He could appoint a whole Qur'an-protection force. They could be outfitted like the guards in front of the Buckingham Palace, except that their uniforms would feature brown-and-beige stripes, a la a slice of bacon. He could call them The Royal Qur'an Bacon Guards, and commission them in an elaborate ceremony at the Palace, after which they would march in formation to the nation's libraries and take up their exalted posts. Retirees from the Bacon Guard would, of course, be awarded the United Kingdom's highest honor, The Sacred Order of the Dhimmi. From Rugby Today, with thanks to JS:

THE ANGRY manager of Rugby Library has apologised to Muslims after a slice of bacon was found in a copy of The Koran.

The rasher had been placed in the pages of a reference copy of the book, which is available for general use.

Library manager Sandra Barnsley said: "I cannot believe anyone would do this, but they're not going to win.

"I apologise to all members of the Muslim community and we will do everything in our power to prevent any repeat of this incident."

A customer who was using the book for research found the bacon on Monday.

He alerted library staff, who got rid of the book immediately.

Under the terms of Islam, Muslims do not eat any pork-based products.

Sandra said: "We don't know how long the bacon had been there but obviously we were all very upset by this incident as well.

"We welcome all faiths and cultures into the library and we have never had any problems of this nature before."

"It is difficult to be vigilant at all times but I can assure all our customers we will make every effort to ensure nothing like this ever happens again."

Hyping Islam 's role in the History of Science

Jonathan David Carson in The American Thinker (thanks to Hugh Fitzgerald) unmasks some dhimmitude in Science magazine about the historical role of Islam in scientific development. I also discuss this in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades).

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) claims for its journal Science

“the largest paid circulation of any peer-reviewed general science journal in the world, with an estimated total readership of one million.”

Thus when it publishes a politically correct history of the relationship between science and Islam, as filled with errors as a garbage can left too long in the sun is filled with maggots, its falsehoods enter credulous and influential minds on every continent, including Antarctica.

“Science in the Arab World: Vision of Glories Beyond” by Wasim Maziak in the June 3, 2005, issue of Science, cites as its sole source for Islamic history “the historian James Burke.” Burke has written that the invention of lens-grinding lathes led to hairdressing, that Mozart's Marriage of Figaro brought about the development of the stealth fighter jet, and that the Boston Tea Party caused the invention of contact lenses. One can easily and quickly verify that Mr. Burke is no historian, but a television star, by pulling up information about him on Amazon.com, where even his admirers admit to his "snarkiness."

Rather than refuting all of the snarky errors in this snarky history, I will focus on a single snarky paragraph:

Of equal importance to the Arab-Islamic scientific discoveries on the European Renaissance was the reintroduction of ancient Greece’s natural philosophy by way of translations by Islamic scholars. The historian James Burke identifies several knowledge shocks that ignited the Renaissance. One was delivered by Ibn-Sina (Avicenna, 980 to 1037), whose Kitab Al-Shifa (“The Book of Healing”) introduced medieval Europe to the principles of logic and their use to gain knowledge and understanding of the universe. Another major shock was delivered by Ibn-Rushd (Averroes, 1126 to 1198), whose writings and commentaries reintroduced to medieval Europe the Aristotelian approach to studying nature by observation and reasoning.

The “Islamic scholars” who translated “ancient Greece’s natural philosophy” were a curious group of Muslims, since all or almost all of the translators from Greek to Arabic were Christians or Jews, as were the translators from Arabic to Latin. Consider the astonishing statement of Bernard Lewis in The Muslim Discovery of Europe:

We know of no Muslim scholar or man of letters before the eighteenth century who sought to learn a western language, still less of any attempt to produce grammars, dictionaries, or other language tools. Translations are few and far between. Those that are known are works chosen for practical purposes [philosophy being considered a practical discipline] and the translations are made by converts [who knew western languages before conversion] or non-Muslims.

According to Franz Rosenthal in The Classical Heritage in Islam,

“Almost all of the translators [from Greek into Syriac or Hebrew or from Greek, Syriac, or Hebrew into Arabic] were Christians.”

One possible exception is Masarjawaih, who may have been a Jew. Another is Thabit b. Qurrah (ca. 834-901 A.D.), a “heathen” Sabian from Harran.

Similarly, “Aristoteles latinus” by Bernard Dod, a chapter of The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy, provides a comprehensive list of medieval translations of Aristotle from Arabic into Latin, none by Islamic scholars—unless by “Islamic” one means “Christian or Jewish.”

But if Islamic scholars did not actually translate ancient Greece’s natural philosophy from Greek into Arabic and from Arabic into Latin, didn’t they at least preserve these works? Didn’t they rescue Plato and Aristotle from oblivion? They “ignited the Renaissance.” Didn’t they?

No, they did not. Plato did not make the long journey from Greek to Syriac or Hebrew to Arabic to Latin, and Western Europeans preferred [surprise!] translations of Aristotle directly from the Greek, which were not only superior but also more readily available.

Read it all.

Fitzgerald: Blame the Experts

Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses a favored proposition of official dhimmi Washington -- that we should work together with the Saudis to combat terrorism:

Blame the "experts." Blame C.I.A. intelligence agents who operate at the level of Michael Scheuer: a schoolboy, with a schoolboy's understanding of Islam, and his worldview vitiated by his peculiar views on assorted Jewish cabals here and there. Blame the former National Security Council "senior director for Middle Eastern affairs" who continues to suggest (see Flynt Leverett, "Ambassador with Portfolio" in The New Duranty Times, July 26, 2005) that we should work to "combat terrorism" jointly with the Saudis and should reach out to the new Ambassador Prince Turki, and who repeats phrases about "access to oil" and the oil market that show he hasn't the faintest idea how the world oil markets work, or what the role of Saudi Arabia has been in oil-pricing over the past third of a century, and who even believes that the "war on terrorism" is "at its heart, a war on Al Qaeda." Naturally, such a person has no conception of why the islamization of Europe, even if it occurred in a completely peaceful fashion, would be a mortal threat to the United States and to Western civilization. When such a person talks about reestablishing our "strategic partnership" with Saudi Arabia (by which one assumes he is referring to the fact that the Saudis wanted to help, for their own Muslim reasons, defeat the Russians in Afghanistan, and for their own Wahhabi and Al-Saud reasons, wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein and were thrilled to have the Americans do it -- just as twenty years ago they were happy to help, with the Americans, resupply Saddam Hussein with American tanks, their Saudi markings painted over by, among others, an acquaintance of mine), let us take it with a large grain of salt.

Flynt Leverett is a great believer in appeasement of the Saudis, which he thinks is necessary. It is contained in a sentence toward the end of his Op/Ed piece: In order to win over Prince Turki to join the fight against terrorism, he says, “the United States would need to be prepared for a serious conversation about modifying its policies toward regional security, stability and peacekeeping in Iraq and the Arab-Israeli peace process to recognize Saudi interests and initiatives -- a conversation that Prince Turki could facilitate."

This is the same mixture as before: more of the same appeasement that has been tried for the past 33 1/3 years. Yet a different strategy toward Saudi Arabia was set out brilliantly by J. B. Kelly in his detailed "Arabia, the Gulf, and the West." But we would never put in place taxes, ever-increasing, on gasoline at the pump, or on oil, in a way that would have allowed us to recapture oligopolistic rents (perhaps several trillion dollars) because we were all so busy with the “expert” opinions of Western hirelings: lawyers, public relations agents, businessmen who wanted to sell arms and others who did not want to diminish those petrodollars because they derived such individual profit from "recycling" them, diplomats, intelligence agents who lacked intelligence, and the likes, it seems, of this Flynt Leverett.

And this Flynt Leverett, who let me remind you is the "former senior director for Middle Eastern Affairs at the National Security Council," ends his Op/Ed with this remarkable paragraph:

"The 60-year partnership between the United States and Saudi Arabia was not, as President Bush alluded [sic] in a 2003 speech, a mistake. It was, and remains, an indispensable element in America's quest for a mroe stable regional and international order. The administration should take advantage of Prince Turki's presence in Washington to give that partnership the attention it deserves."

What deserves attention is how someone capable of thinking that there has been a "partnership," and not a consistent snookering, of Infidel America by malevolently anti-Infidel Saudi Arabia, was ever allowed near a government office, much less allowed to become the "senior director for Middle Eastern affairs at the National Security Council." I can hear Kelly's scorn and bitter laughter now. With this kind of "expert" helping direct or form our policy toward Saudi Arabia, we are lost.

The Flynt Leveretts of this world, who so misunderstand Saudi Arabia and the nature of that hollow "partnership," do not realize that the Saudis have never been our allies. Sometimes there has been cooperation when, for their own interests, they wished to back Iraq against Shi'a Iran, or the muhajedin against the Soviet Army in Afghanistan, or were happy to see the Americans remove Saddam Hussein. But that is very different from saying we have been partners. In Afghanistan, once the Soviets had gone, the Saudis backed to the hilt (and so did the U.A.E.) the regime of the Taliban. The Taliban, in turn, gave aid and comfort and refuge to the Saudi-financed Al Qaeda forces of Bin Laden. While the Saudis dislike the Shi'a of Iran, they do not dislike them because they find the Islamic Republic of Iran hideous in its imposition of the Sharia and in its totalitarianism, but merely because the Iranian Shi'a and the Saudi Wahhabi are mortal enemies. If the Saudis were happy to support the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, it is not because he massacred nearly 200,000 Kurds -- the Saudis saw nothing wrong with that, and never mentioned it. Nor did they care about his massacres of the Shi'a. No, all they cared about was Saddam Hussein's threat to them.

It is the same with terrorism. They are indifferent to terrorism, except that which is directed at them, and their interests. Why should they care if Al Qaeda, or Hezbollah, or Jaish-e-Mohammad or Laskar Jihad, attacks Hindus, Jews, Christians? Why? It would violate everything the Saudis so deeply believe in, even if some smoothy, with liquid brown eyes and a soft voice (is Prince Turki one of those, one of those whose daggers-and-dishdasha war dances of triumph are only behind the scenes?) assures us, or some Barbara-Wawa level of interviewer, otherwise.

There is no need to appease Saudi Arabia on anything. In fact, we should be letting them know that the continued existence of the House of Al-Saud, or of its control over the Al-Hasa Province, and its continued belief that the Americans will protect them, can no longer be taken for granted. And one test will be whether the Saudi funding for mosques, madrasas, Da'wa of every kind (look at the Freedom House report on Saudi anti-Infidel hate literature all over American mosques) ends. Because if it doesn't end, we can regard Saudi Arabia as the declared enemy, and begin to seize its illiquid assets. Such talk will get their attention. It is the only way, in fact, to get their attention.

Will someone in the Pentagon please bring J. B. Kelly over for a little walk down Memory Lane, about Sheik Zayed, and Pachachi in Abu Dhabi back in 1971, and why Oman and Sultan Qaboos are not getting their due, and why Saudi Arabia is by far the most malevolent state in the entire area? What would it cost? A plane ticket? A hotel room for a week? Bring him over. If someone in the Pentagon sufficiently high up is reading this, you know what to do. And while you're at it, how about having Bat Ye'or come in to discuss the islamization of Europe -– that is, Eurabia? Another ticket, another hotel room. Last I looked, the Pentagon was spending half-a-trillion. Has it gone up? Can you afford two tickets, and two hotel rooms, possibly with a Saturday-overnight so that you can save a little on the Pentagon budget, for more rah-rah propaganda about the Democracy Is On the March stuff?

C'mon Pentagon, you can take a moment from your busy busy schedule to listen to J. B. Kelly and Bat Ye'or in the flesh -- can't you?

LA psychologist clashes with Algerian jihadist over Islamic teachings and terrorism

We need more interviewers like Wafa Sultan who aren't afraid to challenge jihadist distortions, obfuscations, and sleights of hand. Instead, the mainstream media is awash with dhimmis on both the left and the right. "LA Psycohologyst [sic] Wafa Sultan Clashes with Algerian Islamist Ahmad bin Muhammad over Islamic Teachings and Terrorism," from MEMRITV, with thanks to Alain:

Wafa Sultan, a psychologist from LA, here speaks with Dr. Ahmad Bin Muhammad, an Algerian professor -- this was aired on Al-Jazeera on July 26, 2005. Sultan starts out by asking him why Muslim men become suicide bombers. She speaks plainly about the role of Islam:

Wafa Sultan: [...]In our countries, religion is the sole source of education, and is the only spring from which that terrorist drank until his thirst was quenched. He was not born a terrorist, and did not become a terrorist overnight. Islamic teachings played a role in weaving his ideological fabric, thread by thread, and did not allow other sources – I am referring to scientific sources – to play a role. It was these teachings that distorted this terrorist and killed his humanity. It was not (the terrorist) who distorted the religious teachings and misunderstood them, as some ignorant people claim.

When you recite to a child still in his early years the verse: "They will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off," regardless of this verse's interpretation, and regardless of the reasons it was conveyed or its time – you have made the first step towards creating a great terrorist...

In response, Dr. bin Muhammad plays the deflection game, or tu quoque, as Hugh Fitzgerald has labeled it:

Bin Muhammad: The guest from America asked how a young man could blow up a bus. If only she had asked how a president could blow up a peaceful nation in Iraq. How does a president help the arch-killer of occupied Palestine? Why doesn't she ask from where Hitler was brought up – Hitler, who murdered 50 million innocent people. Why doesn't she ask where the people who dropped two atom bombs on Japan were educated? Who killed three million innocent Vietnamese? Who annihilated the Indians? Who maintained imperialism to this day? Who waged the Spanish civil war, which exacted a toll of 600,000 in 36 months? Why don't we ask these questions? Who has over 15,000 nuclear warheads – Muslims or the non-Muslims? The Muslims or the Americans? The Muslims or the Europeans? We want an answer. Where was Bush educated – if education is really what makes a person a criminal?...

But Wafa Sultan, unlike so many others, is not about to let him get away with it:

Wafa Sultan: Murder is terrorism regardless of time or place, but when it is committed as a decree from Allah, this is another matter...

The Crusader wars about which the professor is talking – these wars came after the Islamic religious teachings, and as a response to these teachings. This is the law of action and reaction. The Islamic religious teachings have incited to the rejection of the other, to the denial of the other, and to the killing of the other. Have they not incited to the killing of Jews and Christians? If we had heard that a tribe in a distant corner of China has a holy book and religious teachings calling to kill Muslims – would the Muslims stand idly by in the face of such teachings?

The Crusader wars came after these Islamic religious teachings. When these Islamic teachings were delivered, America did not exist on the face of the earth, nor was Israel in Palestine...

Why doesn't he talk about the Muslim conquests that preceded all the wars he is talking about? Why doesn't he mention that when Tariq bin Ziyyad entered Andalusia with his armies, he said to his people: "The sea is behind you, and the enemy is in front"? How can you storm a peaceful country, and consider all its peaceful inhabitants to be your enemies, merely because you have the right to spread your religion? Should the religion be spread by the sword and through fighting?...

Stunned, the good doctor flails about:

Bin Muhammad: Who invented slavery in recent centuries? Who colonized the other – us or them? Did Algeria colonize France, or vice versa? Did Egypt colonize England, or vice versa? We are the victims...

I am not saying that killing innocent people is nice. I say that all innocent people should be protected. But at the same time, we must start with the innocent among the Muslims. There are millions of innocent people among us, while the innocent among you – and innocent they are – number only dozens, hundreds, or thousands, at the most...

Wafa Sultan: Can you explain to me the killing of a hundred thousand children, women and men in Algeria, using the most abominable killing methods? Can you explain to me the killing of 15,000 Syrian civilians? Can you explain to me the abominable crime in the military artillery school in Aleppo? Can you explain the crime in Al-Asbaqiya neighborhood of Damascus, Syria? Can you explain the attack of the terrorists on the peaceful village of Al-Kisheh in Upper Egypt, and the massacre of 21 Coptic peasants? Can you explain to me what is going on in Indonesia, Turkey, and Egypt, even though these are Islamic countries which opposed the American intervention in Iraq, and which don't have armies in Iraq, yet were not spared by the terrorists? Can you explain these phenomena, which took place in Arab countries? Was all this revenge on America or Israel? Or were they merely to satisfy bestial wild instincts aroused in them by religious teachings, which incite to rejection of the other, to the killing of the other, and to the denial of the other. When Saddam Hussein buried 300,000 Shiites and Kurds alive, we did not hear a single Muslim protesting. Your silence served to acknowledge the legitimacy of these killings, didn't it?...

Vatican, Israel in terror spat

This is a disquieting sign of resurgent Vatican dhimmitude. If the Vatican really thinks Israel violated international law, Navarro-Valls should specify when and where. If he cannot do so, he shouldn't make such statements. Otherwise, all a flat, non-specific statement does is lend support to the idea of moral equivalence, and give aid and comfort to the jihad terrorists.

From Al-Jazeera, with thanks to all who sent this in:

The dispute erupted on Monday, when Israel summoned the Vatican envoy to complain that Benedict had "deliberately failed" to include a "suicide bombing" in the Israeli city of Netanya when he listed countries recently hit by terrorist attacks....

Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls made an unusually harsh rebuttal on Thursday, issuing a two-page list of the times John Paul condemned attacks against Jews and calling Barkan's accusations "groundless" and invented.

"The attacks against Israel sometimes were followed by immediate Israeli reactions not always compatible with the rules of international law"

Vatican statement

He said the Vatican couldn't condemn every attack against Israel because often Israel would respond in ways that violated international law.

"It would consequently have been impossible to condemn the former and remain silent on the latter," he said in a statement.

"It's not always possible to immediately follow every attack against Israel with a public statement of condemnation, and for various reasons, among them the fact that the attacks against Israel sometimes were followed by immediate Israeli reactions not always compatible with the rules of international law," a statement from the Vatican press office said on Thursday night....

Seymour Reich, who has been involved in Jewish-Vatican negotiations in the past, said both sides had overreacted and urged them to "take a deep breath and look at the bigger picture regarding Israel-Vatican relations and the Vatican's world Jewry relations"....

He said he also didn't think the spat would affect celebrations this fall commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Vatican's "Nostra Aetate" declaration that revolutionised relations with Jews.

In the document, the Vatican rejected anti-Semitism and the notion that Jews were collectively responsible for the death of Christ.

Saudi women are driving all over the place - Princess

They just have to make sure nobody sees them. From Pakistan's Daily Times, with thanks to Nicolei:

WASHINGTON: Princess Loulwa Al-Faisal of Saudi Arabia denied here on Thursday that Saudi women were not allowed to drive, saying they drove all over the place except in the cities.

She told a meeting that in the desert they all drive and it is women who are standing against the right to drive in cities. “It will be good for us if all women were driving,” she added.

The Princess, a daughter of the late King Faisal and sister of Turki Al-Faisal, the Kingdom’s ambassador-designate to Washington, was speaking at the Middle East institute.

Bangladesh Islamic group protests US lawmaker's remark

Maybe I was wrong here: maybe the threat to target Muslim holy sites would be an effective deterrent to terrorist activity. Certainly if it has jihadist thugs like the Hizb-ut-Tahrir gang in a froth, it demonstrably rattles them. In any case, I firmly believe there should be a free and open discussion of this question, not a witch-hunt targeting Congressman Tancredo.

From the IANS, with thanks to Nicolei:

Hundreds of Islamic fundamentalists took to the streets in this Bangladeshi capital Friday denouncing the remarks made by a US congressman against Muslim holy cities of Makkah and Medina in Saudi Arabia.

Led by Islamic outfit Hizbut Tahrir, they took out a procession after the noon prayer and held a rally near the national mosque in downtown Purana Paltan.

They chanted slogans against the US, India and Israel branding them anti-Islamic forces.

Hizbut Tahrir leaders urged the Muslim community to stand up against the US threat of aggression against Islam. They said Muslims of the world would protect their holy places with their blood, if needed.

France ejects 12 Islamic 'preachers of hate'

A welcome bit of French anti-dhimmitude. And there is no legitimate reason why the British can't do this too -- except perhaps suicidal impulses. From The Telegraph, with thanks to Nicolei:

The gulf between British and French treatment of preachers of hatred and violence was thrown sharply into focus yesterday when France announced the summary expulsion of a dozen Islamists between now and the end of August.

A tough new anti-terrorism package was unveiled by Nicolas Sarkozy, the interior minister and a popular centre-Right politician.

His proposals reflect French determination to act swiftly against extremists in defiance of the human rights lobby, which is noticeably less vocal in France than in Britain.

Imams and their followers who fuel anti-western feeling among impressionable young French Muslims will be rounded up and returned to their countries of origin, most commonly in France's case to its former north African colonies.

Mr Sarkozy also revealed that as many as 12 French mosques associated with provocative anti-western preaching were under surveillance. Imams indulging in inflammatory rhetoric will be expelled even if their religious status is recognised by mainstream Muslim bodies.

Those who have assumed French citizenship will not be protected from deportation. Mr Sarkozy said he will reactivate measures, "already available in our penal code but simply not used", to strip undesirables of their adopted nationality. "We have to act against radical preachers capable of influencing the youngest and most weak-minded," Mr Sarkozy told the French daily Le Parisien.

Clueless at the Financial Times

In "Ethnic communities can be devout and good citizens" in the Financial Times (thanks to EPG), Krishna Guha falls into the extremely common error of thinking of the problem of Islamic terror as a racial one, and failing to recognize or understand the significant differences between the suspicions leveled at the Islamic community today and that directed toward other immigrant communities in the past: Muslim immigrants in the West are the first large-scale community of people whose religious tradition mandates warfare against unbelievers that the West has had to deal with.

Full citizenship carries responsibilities as well as rights. The right to freedom of speech and religion confers a duty to accept the free speech and religion of others.

Most liberal values are process values: people of faith can look to change society through politics. Yet some things are sacrosanct, including equal rights for women. Those who cannot accept this should exercise their right to exit western society.

Obviously the identity crisis is most extreme and dangerous among young Muslims – partly because Islam is a resurgent faith, partly because Sunni theological debate has been stifled, partly because of Muslims’ suffering in the Middle East and the Balkans.

And partly because of the imperative to impose Sharia -- but that goes unmentioned.

Yet lest anyone think that the fundamental question – can someone be a devout believer and a good British citizen? – is unique to Islam it is worth remembering that for centuries Protestant England agonised over whether it was possible to be Catholic and a loyal subject. As late as 1960 some Americans questioned whether Catholic John F. Kennedy could be president.

Yes, they did. But the fact that that happened and was groundless in that instance doesn't mean that similar concerns about a very different group are groundless now.

The horror of the London attacks is one of super-empowerment of a tiny handful in whom the identity crisis was twisted into murder. There have been white bombers too – David Copeland, the Soho nailbomber in Britain, Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma bomber in the US.

I couldn't care less if they were purple. Their color has absolutely nothing to do with it. John Walker Lindh was a "white" jihadist, and there are others. Also, is this really a question of "identity crisis"? The jihadists seem quite certain and firm about their identity.

There is much work to be done. Yet none of this proves Islam is incompatible with western society.

Sure, Krishna, because you haven't discussed the real issues that raise questions about that compatibility.

Britain has 1.6m Muslims and four bombers.

Don't count your chickens.

There was great anger within this community about the war in Iraq and what did they do? They marched from Speaker’s Corner to Trafalgar Square and elected a firebrand Scottish leftist MP for Bethnal Green in London’s East End. Nothing could be more British.

Well, all the readers of FT feel greatly reassured now, but in reality, Guha has offered them nothing in the way of genuine evidence that they need not be concerned.

WMAL succumbs to dhimmitude, suspends Michael Graham

This is yet another sad story, and it bodes ill for our freedom in America: Graham's words were inflammatory, but he had perfectly cogent and reasonable arguments to back them up. When WMAL brushes that aside and caves in to intimidation by CAIR -- and falls for its false fatwa -- it becomes that much more difficult to speak about the roots of Islamic terror, and how we must meet its threat.

Also, see this Daniel Pipes article, CAIR Founded by “Islamic Terrorists”? (thanks to waterdragon52 and all who sent this in), which expands upon information in this Dhimmi Watch post, for more about where CAIR is really coming from.

"630 WMAL Suspends Michael Graham," from WMAL, with thanks to Tim:

In a statement released last night, 630 WMAL president and general manager Chris Berry announced midday personality Michael Graham would be indefinitely suspended pending an internal investigation into Graham's July 25th remarks that Islam is a terrorist organization.

"Talk radio is an excellent forum to discuss issues important to our society. Nevertheless, the statements that Michael Graham made on July 25 crossed the line," Berry said. "He has been suspended pending an internal investigation. We do not condone his position, and we believe his statements were irresponsible."

Shortly after the second round of bombings in London last week, Graham began telling listeners Muslim leaders were complicit in terrorism, since they had not said or done enough to curb extremism.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations issued a press release late Monday condemning Graham's remarks and urging the station to repremand him. The station has received hundreds of emails and calls since then, both supporting and criticizing Graham.

Yesterday, CAIR and other American Muslim leaders gathered in Washington to announce a fatwah, or religious edict, against terrorism, citing criticisms that Muslim leaders had not said or done enough to curb extremism.

Basayev broadcast enrages Russia

Maybe ABC was playing the dhimmi. On the other hand, I think it's good for Americans to hear Basayev saying what he is saying. It counters a bit of the "Islam is peace" propaganda that continues to inundate us. From the BBC, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

Russia says it is outraged by an interview with Chechen rebel leader Shamil Basayev broadcast on America's ABC television network.

The Russian foreign ministry summoned a senior US diplomat in Moscow to express its "strong indignation" over the show....

The interview with Shamil Basayev - recorded at his hideout in Chechnya - was aired on ABC's Nightline programme on Thursday.
Many children were hurt in a gun battle as the Beslan siege ended....

In the interview, Mr Basayev - speaking through an interpreter - admitted that he was "a bad guy, a bandit".

"Ok, so I'm a terrorist, but what would you call them (the Russians)?

"If they are the keepers of constitutional order, if they are anti-terrorists then I spit on all these agreements and nice words," he said.

The warlord accused Russia of killing thousands of Chechen women, children and old people in what he described as "a colonial war".

When asked if Beslan-style attacks could happen again, he said: "Of course they can. As long as the genocide of the Chechen nation continues... anything can happen."

The warlord also refused to accept responsibility for the deaths of children killed in Beslan, blaming instead Russian authorities.

Hispanic, Muslim Groups Call on Colorado Congressman to Resign

Should he resign? Of course not. Has he done anything wrong? Of course not. All options should be discussed -- and discussed openly. I have been bitterly attacked here and elsewhere today, and even called a dhimmi (which really is just about the worst thing you can call me, as opposed to the terms of honor the jihadists keep bestowing on me) for my article on Tancredo. However, most people are misreading it. I was discussing the value of the threat as a deterrent. I don't think this threat would work to deter terrorism. Someone just wrote me saying we should instead threaten to occupy Mecca. On first thought I suspect that the threat that infidels would tread on the sacred soil might be far more effective than the threat that the sacred site would be annihilated.

But in any case, all this is well worth thinking over carefully and discussing calmly and rationally. These groups that are calling for Tancredo's head are trying to prevent that and make us all play the dhimmi -- for real. Congressman Tancredo is to be commended for having the courage to bring this discussion into the public forum.

From AP, with thanks to The One Who Must Not Be Named:

DENVER (AP) - Hispanic and Muslim groups called on Rep. Tom Tancredo to resign Monday, saying he has embarrassed Colorado by suggesting that Americans bomb Islamic holy sites if terrorists launch a nuclear attack on the United States.

They also criticized the GOP congressman's staunch advocacy of tougher immigration controls.

"Enough is enough. We're here to say 'Stop,'" Hispanic activist Manolo Gonzalez-Estay told a crowd of about 200 people at the state Capitol.

Abdur-Rahim Ali, imam of the Northeast Denver Islamic Center, said Tancredo's statement that "you could take out" Islamic holy sites in a retaliatory attack was unacceptable.

"What would happen if a prominent Muslim made that statement about Catholic holy places like the Vatican?" asked Ali.

They don't have to, Ali. They are sure they will take it peacefully:

Saudi Sheikh Muhammad bin Abd Al-Rahman Al-'Arifi, Imam of the mosque of King Fahd Defense Academy, discussed the coming Muslim conquest of the Vatican. Citing a Hadith in an article posted on the Kalemat website in 2002, he stated: "… We will control the land of the Vatican; we will control Rome and introduce Islam in it. Yes, the Christians, who carve crosses on the breasts of the Muslims … will yet pay us the Jiziya [poll tax paid by non-Muslims under Muslim rule], in humiliation, or they will convert to Islam…"

Doublespeak Unveiled: Muslim “moderates” are true to spirit of Islam

Bruce Thorton makes numerous important observations about the dhimmis in the Administration and some revealing behavior on the part of "moderate Muslims" in Private Papers (thanks to Andrew Bostom):

As stalwart as the Bush administration has been in the current conflict with Islamic jihadists, judging from the op-ed in last Saturday's New York Times by National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley and Homeland Security Advisor Frances Townsend, it still entertains dangerous illusions about the enemy we are facing.

Hadley and Townsend reprise the narrative the administration has used all along in making sense of our adversary. Those wishing to destroy us are enemies of freedom who espouse a totalitarian ideology akin to fascism and communism. As such, they are driven by a diseased passion for domination that will brook no dissent nor allow for ideals such as tolerance and human rights. And they gain traction from “conditions of despair and feelings of resentment where freedom is denied.” Thus America must promote democratic freedom and prosperity to remove those conditions, for “people everywhere prefer freedom to slavery and will embrace it whenever they can, because freedom is the wish of every human being.” Finally, since these terrorists are enemies of Islam as well, we must support those Muslims who “are speaking the truth about their proud religion and history, and seizing it back from those who would hijack it for evil ends.”

The key to this mistaken interpretation is the short shrift given to the power of spiritual needs — an omission surprising given how religious the media keeps telling us this administration is. That ignoring of spiritual reality is what makes the analogy with fascism and communism false. Both of those ideologies were anti-Christian: fascism was a species of debased Romantic neo-paganism, and communism was blatantly atheist. As such, both ran counter to the powerful Judeo-Christian forces that shaped European and Russian civilization, and so could not satisfy for long the spiritual yearnings of the people, yearnings denied their traditional expressions. Thus these ideologies were doomed because they denied not just political freedom, but the powerful human need for religious expression and spiritual experience.

The jihadist enemy, on the other hand, is operating on principles and values squarely in the tradition of Islam, and thus unlike fascism and communism is expressing a spiritual need and an orthodox religious mandate: to fulfill by force the will of Allah that all the world be subject to Islam and an Islamic state, the caliphate, ruled by sharia, Islamic religious law. Those conquered infidels who refuse to convert are reduced to dhimmi, subordinated and humiliated peoples whose restricted rights, diminished lives, and circumscribed behavior testify to the superiority of their Muslim overlords and their divine right to oppress the infidel and exploit him economically. This dynamic of jihad and dhimmitude has been extensively documented by Bat Ye'or and other scholars, and is apparent on every page of Islamic jurisprudence, theology, and history from the eighth century to today....

In fact, the obsession with the Palestinians is the smoking gun that reveals the jihadist sentiments of double-talking “moderates.” Consider how many British Muslims, supposedly opposed to homicide bombings, praised Hamas founder Sheikh Yassim, who engineered the murder of over 500 Israelis in furtherance of his organization's long-term goal to destroy Israel. After the Israeli Defense Forces killed him, a memorial service was held in London, an event attended by “moderates” like Muslim Council Secretary General Sir Iqbal Sacranie, who called Yassim a “renowned Islamic scholar,” an estimation shared by Inayat Bunglawla. Think about the implications: respected, Westernized “moderate” Muslims praise a terrorist murderer as an “Islamic scholar,” and we are supposed to believe that “fanatics” have “hijacked” and “distorted” Islam?...

Read it all.

Coptic TV Show Causes Controversy in Egypt

Unlike many other Middle Eastern Christians, Fr. Zakaria Boutrus is not afraid to speak the truth. From MEMRI, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

The weekly show "Questions About Faith" on the Egyptian based Christian Al-Hayat satellite channel features an Egyptian Coptic priest residing in the United States. Father Zakaria Boutrus, the show, and Al-Hayat TV itself, have come under harsh criticism in the Egyptian press. Boutrus and his show have been accused of attacking Islam; of being supported by the U.S. to sow division and strife; and of "mocking the verses of Allah."

Al-Hayat TV has been accused of being the work of foreign agents collaborating with the U.S., and Pope Shenouda III reportedly announced his opposition to the station's broadcasts, and denied that the station was in any way connected with the Egyptian Church. [1]

One episode which aired on July 4, 2005, discusses anti-Christian verses that, according to Boutrus, should be struck from the Koran. Another episode aired on June 27, 2005, discusses a Hadith, which according to Boutrus, is "reminiscent of Hitler." An episode from June 16, 2005, talks about how Islam is spread by the sword.

Clip 1 - Coptic Priest Zakaria Boutrus: Verses Must be Struck from the Koran; I Demand an Official Apology from Muslim Governments to Christians

TO VIEW THIS CLIP: http://memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=753

Boutrus: "I live in a country (the U.S.) that respects freedom of speech. I exercise my freedom of speech and talk, and no one can deny my free will. Gone are the days of the sharp sword that cut off the tongues of our people and forefathers to prevent them from speaking in the Coptic language. Gone are the days people's heads would be chopped off if they did not convert to Islam."

Interviewer: "What should the Muslims do to make you stop saying these things?"

Boutrus: "My demands involve ten important issues. Let's call it ten demands. The first demand... They are not for my sake, but for the sake of truth, belief, and Jesus. First, striking out all the Koranic verses that deny the divinity of Jesus and the revelation of God in him. Second, acknowledging that Jesus is the spirit and word of God, as they truly believe, without hiding this fact. Third, striking out the Koranic verses and hadiths that incite to kill Christians, like in the Al-Tawba chapter, v.29: 'Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in Judgment Day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His messenger have prohibited, nor do they follow the religion of truth' – that is, Islam. Among whom? 'Among the People of the Book.'

Interviewer: "Who are..."

Boutrus: "The Christians and Jews. 'Until they pay the Jizya poll tax in submission.' This is murder. Number four, striking out the Koranic verses and Hadiths that incite to terrorism and oppression in all their forms."

Muslim spokesmen in America assure us that Muslims don't believe in these things, so actually they should have no trouble striking them out.

Interviewer: "What do you mean by terrorism and oppression?"

Boutrus: "Terrorism – 'Urge the believers to fight,' and the hadith: 'I was commanded to fight people until they say: There is no God but Allah.' All this is terrorism and murder. Number six:Stopping the attack on Jesus and the Holy Book in mosques and in all the media. Number seven: Giving people and Muslims the freedom of... You may ask what do I care about the Muslims? No! They must have the freedom to choose their religion and the freedom to express their belief. Number eight:To abolish the punishment for apostasy, to stop torturing people who convert to Christianity, and to stop imprisoning or even killing them. Number nine:Formal apologies must be made by leaders throughout the Arab world for the murder of Christians in countries invaded by Islam. Number ten: Leaders throughout the Arab world should make formal apologies for the insults directed against our faith throughout Islamic history. The viewers may say: 'Is this priest crazy, or what? These demands could only be made by an insane man... To strike out Koranic verses... Does this make any sense? What is he going on about?' OK, if you cannot change (the Koran), why are you asking us to change our beliefs? Why do you demand that we say what you say, or else - the sword?

"(Al-Halabi) says: ' If the Prophet wanted an available woman...' – in other words, an unmarried woman, a widow, or a single woman – '...he was allowed to enter her...' I don't like to use the word i-n-t-e-r-c-o-u-r-s-e. '...without her guardian and without witnesses...' Without witnesses. '...and against her will.' Against her will. 'If he desired a married woman, her husband had to divorce her for him. And if he desired a servant-girl, her master had to give her to him. He can even marry off the woman to whoever he wants, against her will.'"

Interviewer: "We know that the Prophet is allowed what others are not."

Boutrus: "Why? Is he made of different stuff than the rest of mankind?"

Clip 2 - Coptic Priest Zakaria Boutrus: The Prophet Muhammad's Hadith Is Reminiscent of Hitler

TO VIEW THIS CLIP: http://memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=751

Boutrus: "A hadith by the Prophet Muhammad says: 'Two religions will not exist together in the Arabian Peninsula.'"

Host: "Is this not a type of racism?"

Boutrus: "This is Hitler. This is Hitler, whom we despise. Who destroys entire nations? The (Jewish tribes of) Bani Qureiza and Bani Nadhir, and Najran... It is forbidden. Murdering people because they don't have the same beliefs as you..."

Clip 3 - Coptic Priest Zakaria Boutrus on the Spreading of Islam By the Sword

TO VIEW THIS CLIP: http://memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=718

Boutrus:"Islam, as portrayed in the encyclopedia of Islam, in the Koran and the Hadith, was spread by means of the sword. 'The sword played a major role in spreading Islam in the past, and it is the sword that preserves Islam today. Islam relies upon Jihad in spreading the religion.' This is very clear in the encyclopedia. This appears in section 11, page. 3,245. It says: 'Spreading Islam by means of the sword is a duty incumbent upon all Muslims.' Thus, Islam is spread by means of the sword.

"Another thing is the punishment for apostasy. 'The punishment of killing any Muslim who abandons Islam is one of the most important factors terrifying all Muslim. He does not dare question the truth of Islam, so that his thoughts will not lead him to abandon Islam. In such a case, he would receive the punishment for apostasy: He would lose his life, and his property and wives would permitted for all.'

Read it all.

Moroccans Beat Up van Gogh's Son, 14

You'd think the vast majority of decent, law-abiding Muslims (about whom we hear so much, but whom we never see taking action against the jihadists) would be coming up to Lieuwe van Gogh, son of the murdered Theo van Gogh, expressing their sorrow, and offering their condolences. Instead, this. From Rogier Van Bakel's Nobody's Business blog (thanks to JS):

Since the murder of Theo van Gogh, last November, his now 14-year-old son Lieuwe has twice been physically attacked by young Moroccans, or (more likely) Dutch citizens of Moroccan descent. [Link, in Dutch.] Van Gogh's parents said this in an interview on national television.

They insisted their grandson had done nothing to provoke the assaults. In one incident, recalled Anneke van Gogh, Theo's mother, "[Lieuwe] was walking the dog in the Watergraafsmeer area of Amsterdam, and they came up to him and said, 'Is your name van Gogh?' Lieuwe said no, of course, but they beat him anyway."

She also recounted how, some time after Theo van Gogh's assassination, a group of Moroccans appeared in the street where he had lived, inquiring about Lieuwe's whereabouts. It was the neighbors' impression that the visitors weren't there to offer condolences, and the police were called — but according to the filmmaker's mother, no one bothered to show up. That would have been in keeping with local officers' alleged non-action after the two beatings Lieuwe received. The cops were called then, too, Anneke van Gogh told the TV interviewer, but they declined to make an appearance.

Recently, Lieuwe was transferred to another class, in another building of his school, after he'd been repeatedly bullied by Muslim pupils. His grandmother said that Lieuwe had had to endure taunts like "Good thing they killed your dad."...

The Real Suicide Bomb

From the superb Cox and Forkum (thanks to Solomon).

The D.C. Watson Invitational: A Politically Incorrect Poll on Islam

DC Watson reacts to this poll with his own poll:

The recently published Pew poll has announced that fewer Americans are linking Islam with violence, dropping from 44% in 2003 to 36% presently. No surprise here: the Council on American Islamic Relations has welcomed the results of this survey, which is in sharp contrast to their reaction to the Cornell University Poll, which resulted in 44% of Americans wanting the civil rights of Muslims curtailed.

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

The Pew survey results can be reviewed here: http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=89

Forget the phone surveys. Americans, and our many friends abroad, since these pollsters never seem to call YOUR house, this is a chance to be open and honest, and make your opinions known. Let not the politicians dictate what is good for you and what is not. This is an open survey, not a limited one. All opinions on Islam are welcome, and everyone is welcome to participate.

1. Agree or Disagree

Islam promotes peace and tolerance of all people, Muslim and non-Muslim, and promotes equal rights for both men and women.

2. Agree or Disagree

Muslims do not commit terrorist acts any more frequently than Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists.

3. Agree or Disagree

Many Muslim immigrants living in Western nations have refused to integrate into the societies of their host nations.

4. Agree or Disagree

Many Muslims living in Western nations are disrespectful to the citizens of their host countries.

5. Agree or Disagree

Muslims living in Western nations would benefit, and better assimilate into Western societies if the constant interference of sneaking, lying Islamic civil rights and advocacy organizations, radical Muslim street barkers, and fanatical Imams in the mosques were eliminated.

Post your answers as comments below.

Fallaci: The Enemy We Treat Like A Friend Part II

Here is Part II of Oriana Fallaci's latest (part I is here), again from the Mystery Achievement blog (thanks to JS):

Will the massacre touch us too?--will it really touch us the next time? Oh, yes. I haven’t the slightest doubt. I’ve never had the slightest doubt. I’ve been saying this, too, for the last four years. And I add: They have not yet attacked us [only] because of their need for a landing zone, a bridgehead, a handy outpost named “Italy.“ Geographically handy because it is the closest one to both the Middle East and Africa; that is, to the countries that supply the greatest number of troops. Strategically handy because we offer succor and collaboration to those troops.

But soon, they will go on a rampage. Bin Laden himself has promised it--explicitly, clearly, precisely. More than once. His lieutenants (or rivals) have done likewise. The Corriere itself demonstrates this with its interview with Saak Al-Faqih, the exiled Saudi who became friends with Bin Laden during the conflict with the Russians in Afghanistan and who, according to the American secret services, a financer of Al Qaeda. “It is only a question of time. Al Qaeda will strike you soon,“ said Al Faqih, adding that the attack upon Italy is the most logical thing in the world. Is not Italy the weak link in the chain of allies in Iraq? A link comes soon after Spain and was preceded by London only out of pure convenience. Then [he said]: “Bin Laden well remembers the words of the Prophet: “You will force the Romans to surrender. And he wants to force Italy to abandon its alliance with America.“ In sum, [and] emphasizing that similar operations will not be carried out [by Muslims] who have just arrived at Lampedusa or Malpensa; but instead after having achieved a mature familiarity with the country, after having penetrated its social fabric: “[The only problem with] recruiting the needed manpower will be the embarrassment of riches.“

Many Italians still don’t believe this. Notwithstanding the declarations of the Minister of the Interior, Rome and Milan are at risk; and look out--so are Turin, Naples, Trieste, and Treviso; not to mention the cities of art like Florence and Venice. [But] the Italians carry on like children for whom the word “death” has no meaning. Or like the scatterbrained to whom death seems to be a stroke of bad luck that only happens to other people. In the worst case, a stroke of bad luck that will save them for last. Worse: they believe that to avoid it they only need to be clever; that is, to kiss butt. Vittorio Feltri was right when he wrote at “Libero” that the decadence of Westerners is to be identified with their illusion of being able to deal amiably with the Enemy, and even less with their fear. A fear that induces them to meekly host the enemy, to attempt to conquer him with sympathy, hoping that he will allow himself to be absorbed; while [the enemy] is the one who wants to absorb.

Read it all.

Would-be London bombers were on the dole

"The benefit bombers who repaid help with hatred: They came into this country as child refugees but grew up to plot mass murder," from the Times Online, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

ON THE rundown North London housing estate where they lived, they were known as idlers and petty criminals who passed their time playing football and smoking marijuana.

Residents of Curtis House in New Southgate regarded Muktar Said-Ibrahim and Yasin Hassan Omar as feckless young men living aimlessly on state benefits.

Ibrahim had served time in Huntercombe Young Offenders’ Institution, Oxfordshire, according to Whitehall sources, and Omar, was known as a shoplifter.

As children, both fled civil war and bloody conflict in Eritrea and Somalia for the safe refuge of Britain. Yet they came to hate their adopted homeland so much that they volunteered for suicide bombing missions.

In preparing for “martyrdom” Ibrahim, 27, and Omar, 24, had turned the tower block that they shared with hundreds of people into a terrorist safe house and a bomb factory. Forensic science teams have found traces of explosives in flat No 58 and the rubbish chute as well as a substantial cache of bombmaking chemicals in a lock-up garage.

Read it all.

"Jihad" reference prompts complaint

Oh brother. Why doesn't he complain to Osama bin Laden and Omar Bakri about THEIR use of the word "jihad"? From AP, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

SALEM, Ore. — A Portland Muslim leader is asking a pesticide-industry lobbyist to retract a statement in which she warned that Senate Democrats had declared "jihad" against Republicans over an environmental dispute.

Shahriar Ahmed, president of the Bilal Mosque in Beaverton, said use of the term in an e-mail dealing with a controversy over a pesticide-use reporting program perpetuates negative stereotypes about Muslims.

"The term 'jihad' here was used intentionally to aggravate the situation," Ahmed said during a news conference yesterday.

The word has been used by Muslim extremists to describe holy war, but Ahmed said mainstream Muslims use the Arabic word to describe a person's internal struggle to do good.

Ahmed went to the Capitol to criticize an e-mail sent by lobbyist Paulette Pyle of the pesticide-user group Oregonians for Food and Shelter.

In a July 15 e-mail to about 500 farmers and foresters, Pyle warned that "the Senate Democrats have declared 'JIHAD' against the Republicans because they are opposed to [Pesticide Use Reporting System] funding."

Pyle said she meant nothing derogatory about Muslims and only used the term in an e-mail to members and supporters of the pesticide group as a way to highlight the issue.

"When I wrote that e-mail, it was like, 'I've got to say something to get your attention,' " she said, referring to farmers who she said were busy with harvest.

Courtney Campbell, chair of the philosophy department at Oregon State University, said many Muslims would be offended by how the word is used in Pyle's e-mail because it has a deep meaning in their religion.

"It really is using a pretty central term in the religion in a completely inappropriate context," Campbell said. He compared it to the significance of the word Israel, which he said has a similar meaning to the Jewish faith.

Ahmed was joined at yesterday's news conference by Sen. Frank Shields, D-Portland, who said it appeared that the word was used in the e-mail in a "racist and religionist" way.

"Religionist"? I see the PC drones are catching on to the fact that Islam is not a race, but to get at what they want they have to invent a whole new word.

But Pyle said Shields is blowing the statement out of proportion.

"Good grief. Are you kidding? I never even thought about it in that context," she said.

They should be kidding. Any sane and reasonable person would be kidding. They are not kidding.

Poll: Fewer People Link Islam, Violence

Watch for the sleight of hand. From AP, with thanks to all who sent this in:

WASHINGTON - The percentage of Americans who believe Islam is more likely than other religions to inspire violence has declined in the past two years, according to a poll taken after the London bombings.

Just over a third, 36 percent, now say the Islamic religion is more likely to inspire violence, while 44 percent said that in July 2003, according to the poll conducted by the Pew Research Center and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

"This may have to do with some backing off of negative opinions the American public had of Muslims in 2002 and 2003," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center.

The poll found that recent terrorist bombings in London have had no noticeable impact on the public's view of Muslim-Americans or of Islam.

Just over half in the poll, 55 percent, said they have a positive view of Muslim-Americans. That's roughly the same number who felt that way in July 2003 and higher than the number who said they have a positive view of Muslim-Americans in March 2001, before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

About the same number in the poll, 57 percent, said they have a favorable view of evangelical Christians. Three-fourths had favorable views of Jews and Catholics.

"The more people know about Islam, the less critical they are," said Kohut.

People who were more knowledgeable about Islam tended to have a more positive view of Muslim-Americans and their religion. Only a third of Americans said they have some knowledge or a lot of knowledge about Islam.

OK. If a third of Americans say they have some knowledge or a lot of knowledge about Islam, although a large percentage of them may have gotten it from Karen Armstrong and John Esposito, that means that two-thirds own up to being ignorant of Islam. But since only 36% think that Islam is more likely than other religions to inspire violence, we may surmise that almost two-thirds of Americans don't think that Islam is more likely to inspire violence. Then we are asked to believe that this is because those who are more knowledgeable about Islam know that it doesn't inspire violence.

ACLU Sues N.C. To Allow Qur'an For Oaths

Other texts are mentioned here, but the one that caused the controversy in the first place was the Qur'an. Why is this a bad idea? Because, as I discuss in reference to Islam in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), the idea that all these texts teach the same values is a multiculturalist dogma with no basis in fact. "ACLU Sues N.C. To Allow Various Religious Texts For Oaths," from WRAL.com, with thanks to Tim:

RALEIGH, N.C. -- The religious texts of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and faiths other than Christianity should be allowed in North Carolina courts for oaths promising truthful testimony, the ACLU argued in a lawsuit filed against the state Tuesday.

State law allows witnesses preparing to testify in court to take their oath either by laying a hand over a "Holy Scripture," by saying "so help me God" without the use of a religious book or by using no religious symbols.

"We hope that the court will issue a ruling that the phrase "holy scripture" includes the Quran, Old Testament, and Bhagavad-Gita in addition to the Christian Bible," said Jennifer Rudinger, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina....

The ACLU last month called on the state Administrative Office of the Courts to adopt a policy allowing use of the Quran and other religious texts in North Carolina courtrooms. The request came after the two top judges in Guilford County decided that Muslims could not legally take an oath on the Quran.

Criticism of suicide bombers censored at the UN

The International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) is the World Union of Humanist, Secular and Rationalist organisations, with 100 member organisations in about 40 countries. Here is a press release from them (thanks to Andrew Bostom):

CRITICISM OF SUICIDE BOMBERS CENSORED AT THE UN

IHEU today attempted to call on the United Nations to condemn
killing in the name of religion, but were prevented from doing so by the heavy-handed intervention of Islamic representatives. The IHEU call, at today's meeting of the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, follows moves by Islamic clerics to legitimise the current wave of terror attacks.

At this afternoon's meeting, IHEU representative David Littman attempted to deliver a prepared text in the joint names of three international NGOs: the Association for World Education, the Association of World Citizens, and IHEU, but was prevented from doing so by the intervention of Islamic members of the Sub-Commission. After repeated interruptions he was unable to complete his speech.

The Islamic members of the Sub-Commission objected to the speech as an
attack on Islam. The text however is a report on recent critical comment on Islamist extremism by a number of notable Muslim writers and is a call to the UN Human Rights Commission by the NGOs "to condemn calls to kill, to terrorise or to use violence in the name of God or any religion".

The text referred to recent decisions by high-ranking Muslim clerics
confirming that those who carry out suicide bombings cannot be treated as apostates and remain Muslims(1), a fatwa by a Saudi cleric that innocent Britons were a legitimate target for terrorist action(2), and remarks by Yusuf al-Qaradawi, dean of the College of Sharia and Islamic Studies at Qatar University who has visited Britain, that terror attacks are permissible.

Commenting on this censorship, Roy Brown, President of IHEU said:

"This is part and parcel of the refusal by the Islamic representatives at the UN to condemn the suicide bombers, or to accept any criticism of those who kill innocent people in the name of God.

These actions follow the refusal of the Islamic states at the meeting of the Commission in April to condemn those who kill in the name of religion, and to categorise their attempts to criticise Islamic terrorists as "defamation of religion".

"It is high time", Mr Brown insisted "that the Islamic States at the UN recognised that the suicide bombers are acting in the name of their
religion, and to unequivocally condemn their actions."

Iran: Public execution for the teenagers convicted of rape

Sharia alert: teenagers hanged. I am not minimizing the heinousness of their crime, if they really committed it. I am questioning the punishment, particularly if Outrage!'s accusations are true. From the TimesOnline, with thanks to all who sent this in:

IRAN has publicly hanged two male teenagers convicted of raping a 13-year-old boy at knifepoint. After the Supreme Court upheld the verdict of child rape, they were executed on Tuesday in Edalat (Justice) Square in the city of Mashhad.

The British gay rights group Outrage! has accused Iran of torturing the two into confessing that they had homosexual sex. It believes that the assault charges were a smokescreen to justify killing homosexuals.

Pictures of the hangings, on the ISNA student news agency website, showed the terrified young men crying as they were interviewed by state media in a lorry on the way to the gallows. Another picture showed hangmen in balaclavas tightening the nooses around their necks.

Iran’s religiously conservative judiciary decided that the pair had raped the 13-year-old at knifepoint while he was out cycling in the northeast province of Khorassan. The young men’s ages were not released but Ruhollah Rezazadeh, the lawyer for one of them, told ISNA that he was under 18, yet the judiciary had refused to spare him for being too young. The other accused was said to be 18 years old.

Iranian newspapers reported that the two were also given more than 200 lashes for theft and drinking alcohol.

Pope won't call Islam religion of peace

Many people have sent me reports on the Pope's words. Some have bewailed his apparent lapse into dhimmitude. I tend to think that his reluctance here to "apply generic labels" is actually a sign of just the opposite: after all, this is a man who chooses his words very carefully. From WND, with thanks to all who sent this in:

Pope Benedict XVI yesterday refused to declare Islam "a religion of peace."

Asked by reporters whether Islam could be considered a religion of peace shortly before entering a meeting with priests and deacons of Valle d'Aosta in northwest Italy where he is spending a brief holiday, the pontiff refused to reply positively.

"I would not like to use big words to apply generic labels," he replied. "It certainly contains elements that can favor peace, it also has other elements: We must always seek the best elements."

Muslims Call Comments by WMAL Host 'Hate-Filled'

CAIR continues its efforts to limit free speech and open discussion about Islam and the elements of Islam that give rise to terrorism. From the Washington Post, with thanks to all who sent this in:

A local radio talk show host touched off complaints from an Islamic civil rights organization yesterday after repeatedly describing Islam on the air as "a terrorist organization" that is "at war with America."

The organization, the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), asked the station to take disciplinary action against Michael Graham, who hosts WMAL-AM's late-morning call-in program.

A station executive, Randall Bloomquist, said yesterday that Graham's comments were "amped up" but justified within the context of the program. He said the station, which is owned by the Walt Disney Co., had no plans to reprimand Graham.

The show host touched off the flap during a discussion of the Muslim community's response to recent acts of terrorism. Graham suggested the fault lies with Muslims generally because religious leaders and followers haven't done enough to condemn and root out extreme elements. "The problem is not extremism," Graham said, according to both CAIR and the station. "The problem is Islam." He also said, "We are at war with a terrorist organization named Islam."

CAIR denounced the comments yesterday as "hate-filled" and "Islamophobic" and asked its members to contact the station's advertisers to express their dismay.

"It's amazing," said Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR's communications director. "I talked with Mr. Bloomquist and asked him if he would reprimand someone who used the n-word on the air. He said yes. I asked him if he would reprimand someone who read [approvingly] from the [anti-Semitic] 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion.' He said yes. So I asked him if he would do the same if someone had called Islam a terroristic organization. Well, he said, it's all about context, but he never quite explained it to me."

Added Hooper, "The First Amendment allows people to be idiots and bigots. All you can do is embarrass people and have them defend their reputation. If WMAL doesn't feel embarrassed and doesn't want to defend its reputation in the face of anti-Muslim bigotry, then there's not much we can do about it."

The question is: what is Hooper doing, what is CAIR doing, what are Muslims doing to fight terrorism within Islam? Not just words, but deeds. If they are indeed doing little or nothing, on what grounds can they protest rhetoric such as this?

ADDENDUM: Here is Graham's explanation of his words:

If the Boy Scouts of America had 1,000 Scout troops, and 10 of them practiced suicide bombings, then the BSA would be considered a terrorist organization. If the BSA refused to kick out those 10 troops, that would make the case even stronger. If people defending terror repeatedly turned to the Boy Scout handbook and found language that justified and defended murder -- and the scoutmasters responded by saying "Could be" -- the Boy Scouts would have been driven out of America long ago.

Today, Islam has whole sects and huge mosques that preach terror. Its theology is openly used to give the murderers their motives. Millions of its members give these killers comfort. The question isn't how dare I call Islam a terrorist organization, but rather why more people do not.

Fallaci: The Enemy We Treat As A Friend

Wake up! Wake up! From the Mystery Achievement blog (thanks to Andy) comes this translation of a column by Oriana Fallaci that ran in Corriere della Sera:

Now, I ask myself: “What do you say, what do you have to say, about what happened in London?” They ask me face-to-face, via fax and email; often scolding me because up until now I have remained silent. Almost as if my silence were a betrayal. And each time I shake my head and murmur to myself: what else should I say?!? I’ve been saying it for four years--that I fight against the Monster that has decided to eliminate us physically and, along with our bodies, to destroy our principles and values. Our civilization. For four years I’ve been talking about Islamic Nazism; about the war against the West; about the death cult; about European suicide. About a Europe that is no longer Europe, but Eurabia, and that with its feebleness, its inertia, its blindness, its servitude to the enemy is digging its own grave. For four years, like another Cassandra, I’ve been shouting until I’m hoarse “Troy is burning! Troy is burning!” and I despair of the Danaids for whom, like Virgil in the Aeneid I weep for a city entombed in its torpor. [A city] that, through its wide-open doors receives fresh troops and joins complicit parties [inside]. For four years I’ve been repeating to the wind the truth about the Monster and its accomplices; that is, the accomplices of the Monster who, in good or bad faith, open wide the doors--who, like [those] in the Apocalypse of John the Evangelist, throw themselves at his feet and allow themselves to be stamped with the mark of shame.

I began with “The Rage and the Pride.“ I continued with “The Force of Reason.“ I followed [those] with “Oriana Fallaci Interviews Oriana Fallaci,” and “The Apocalypse.” And in each one I preached, “Wake up, West! Wake up!“ The books, the ideas, for which in France they tried me in 2002, accusing me of religious racism and xenophobia. For which Switzerland asked our Minister of Justice to extradite me in handcuffs. For which in Italy I will be tried for vilifying Islam; that is, for an offense of opinion. (An offense that carries a sentence of three years in prison; none of which will be served by the Islamist caught with explosives in his cantina). Books, ideas, for which the “Caviar” left, the “Fois Gras” right, and even the “Prosciutto” Center have denigrated and vilified me, putting me in the stocks together with all who think as I do. That is, together with the sensible and unprotected people who are defined by the radical-chic in their frivolous talk as “the riff-raff of the Right."

Read it all. Read it all. Read it all.

A word from Matthias Küntzel

Not long ago I commented here on an article by Caroline Glick in which she attributed to scholar Matthias Küntzel the idea that "the notion of a violent holy war or jihad against non-Muslims was not a part of any active Islamic doctrine until the 1930s." I remarked: "If Küntzel means that violent jihad was invented in the 1930s, he betrays his ignorance of Muhammad's own career, and of Islamic history."

Yesterday Matthias Küntzel kindly sent me this clarification, indicating that his views on this matter are in fact entirely correct:

Caroline Glick’s essay “The beginning of the reckoning” deserves indeed much praise. The tiny correction I want to add does not reduce her merit at all. I did not write that “the notion of a violent holy war or jihad against non-Muslims was not a part of any active Islamic doctrine until the 1930s.” My essay states: “The Moslem Brotherhood was the organization which first developed the concept of a belligerent jihad FOR OUR MODERN TIMES and which turned the longing for death into an Islamic ideal. … Whenever their bataillons marched down the boulevards of Cairo in semi-fascist formation, they sang: ‘We are not afraid of death, we desire it. Let us die in redemption for Muslims.’ THIS PARTICULAR INTERPRETATION OF THE MEANING OF JIHAD did not arise until the 1930s.” (See www.matthiaskuentzel.de or Antisemitism International, An Annual Reseach Journal of the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 2004, pp.44-52)

In my book “Djihad und Judenhass” (Jihad and Jew-hatred) the English
version of which will be published soon, I refer to El-Awaisi’s
important book about “The Muslim Brothers and the Palestine Question
1928-1947” (London-New York: Tauris Academic Studie, 1998):

“Al-Banna called the Muslim Brothers’ concept of Islam ,the Islam of
Muslim Brothers’, as it represented a new understanding of Islam at the time. What concerns us here about this new understanding is the concept of jihad, which has been almost absent from Islamic education before the foundation of the Muslim Brothers. Muslim groups of the time paid no attention to it. Political parties were involved with political struggles and mosque Imams and preachers treated jihad as irrelevant to their religious brief. “ (p.124)

This is accurate, but it describes a quite temporary condition in the history of the Islamic world.

In analyzing the roots of Islamism ­ a modern mass movement which came into being during the same decade as Fascism and National Socialism I am concentrating on the particular. This does not mean to excuse or ignore Mohammed’s wars or the anti-Jewish suras of the Koran which I cite in my writings.

However, anti-Judaism as laid down in the Koran, is not the same as
antisemitism as laid down in the “Protokolls of the Elders of Zion”. My particular topic is not the root cause of dhimmitude but the root cause of modern antisemitism within the Islamic world which has resulted in the desire not to oppress but to annihilate Jews.

My most recent paper on “National Socialism and anti-Semitism in the
Arab World” discusses in detail why and how the decisive transfer of a Nazi-like antisemitism to the Muslim world took place between 1937 and 1945. See “Jewish Political Studies Review” 17:1 (Spring 2005), pp. 99-118 or: http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-kuntzel-s05.htm

Indonesia: Christians face jail for giving treats to children of Muslims

How dare these dhimmis dare to step out of line? From the TimesOnline, with thanks to all who sent this in:

THREE Indonesian housewives face up to five years in prison for allegedly trying to lure Muslim children into Christianity at a Sunday School “Happy Week”.

Senior Christian figures claim that the prosecution is politically motivated and part of a campaign of persecution by Islamic fundamentalists against Indonesia’s Christian minority — about 8 per cent of the Muslim-majority population.

The three women faced threats from a yelling mob of 150 fundamentalists during a court appearance in West Java last week. It is claimed that the women were teaching lessons in reading and writing to mixed classes of Christian and Muslim children, taking them on trips to parks and swimming pools, and rewarding them with treats such as pencils for memorising Christian prayers and Bible verses. Many of the alleged offences took place at a special Happy Week earlier this year, although the lessons began in 2003.

A claim of “Christianisation” was made against the women by a chapter of the Indonesian Council of Muslim Clerics, which alleged that they enticed Muslim children to participate and that they had tried to convert the children to Christianity by giving them gifts.

The three, Rebekka Zakaria, Ratna Mala Bangun and Ety Pangesti, have been held in prison since May, charged under Indonesia’s criminal law with using lies, deception or enticement to change a child’s religion. They are evangelical Christians who belong to the Church of David’s Camp in Haurgelis, a strongly Muslim fundamentalist area in West Java which is about 2 per cent Christian.

They say that the Muslim children were friends of Christian youngsters and were attending with the consent of their parents. No attempts were made to convert them, they say.

Bambang Widjaya, the chairman of the Indonesian Council of Evangelical Churches, said: “The main motive behind this is political. Fundamentalists want to use this case to launch a political campaign and rally support for their goal of implementing Sharia (Islamic law).

“The Government is too scared of Muslim voters to intervene. In many areas Muslims are tolerant, but in other areas where there are fundamentalists there is discrimination. Fundamentalists are growing in influence in our country.

“These women have been terrorised by mobs, who have even tried to hit them. They are not scared, however. They are very tough women.”

Anti-dhimmitude from a letter in The Guardian

"Muslims and violence," a refreshingly honest letter, apparently from two Muslims, in The Guardian, with thanks to John, who notes that "this sort of thing used not to get into the 'Guardian,' but there have been several such recently."

For Muslim religious leaders to condemn the London bombings is commendable. But to support this by saying Islam is unequivocally a religion of peace is disingenuous (Comment, July 22). The prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon Him) himself, while at times preaching tolerance, also ordered the murder of all the men of a belligerent Jewish tribe and the enslavement of all its women and children, following the seizure of Medina - irrespective of whether they were combatants or not. In similar manner, many Muslim leaders justify the killing of Israeli civilians by Muslim suicide bombers and some also justify the terror on the tube because of the UK's role in the invasion of Iraq.

Over and above this all-pervasive contradictory attitude within Islam are Islamic laws which are even more straightforwardly barbaric on a host of topics, such as holding a women's testimony in a court of law to be worth less than a man's, or the mandatory death penalty for practising homosexuals and Muslims whose conscience tells them to leave Islam (apostates).

Some Muslims choose to turn a blind eye to the uncomfortable words that stare them in the face. But as people who (along with hundreds of others) narrowly escaped death on the underground, we strongly feel that this conspiracy of silence about the very real violence in religious texts needs to be broken.

Raza Griffiths
Shahzad Ahmed
Address supplied

Jihadist Guardian trainee may sue over firing

Dilpazier Aslam update: of course, he knows how to exploit the system. Note also that The Guardian didn't know what Hizb-ut-Tahrir is. "'Guardian' trainee may sue over sacking," from The Independent, with thanks to Filtrat:

A trainee journalist at The Guardian newspaper is considering legal action after being sacked for refusing to give up membership of a radical Muslim organisation, first revealed in The Independent on Sunday.

Dilpazier Aslam, 27, was sacked on Friday after refusing to give up membership of Hizb ut-Tahrir. The organisation is banned in Germany and elsewhere. Although Hizb ut-Tahrir is non-violent and legal in this country, The Guardian said it considered the organisation to be anti-Semitic....

"There was a failure of understanding about what this organisation was," a Guardian source said. "It just shows the media's lack of understanding of Muslim life. It was much more Guardian cock-up than conspiracy."

UK: Change foreign policy, say top Muslims

British Muslims attempt to dictate the UK's foreign policy. From the Evening Standard, with thanks to Andrew Bostom.

Senior Muslims have warned the Government that it needed to revise British foreign policy if it wants to put an end to the violence.

Dr Azzam Tamimi, from the Muslim Association of Britain, said the country was in real danger and that this would continue so long as British forces remained in Iraq.

He described the July 7 bombings and the attempted attacks in London on Thursday as "horrifying" but said it was not enough to simply unite in condemnation of the bombers.

Dr Tamimi, speaking after a Sky News debate in Birmingham, said: "The latest developments very clearly show this is a very big thing. It's not just a few individuals from Leeds. I think it's time everybody got serious and engaged in an attempt to prevent it. Part of that would be to understand what's going on.

"7/7, 21/7, and God knows what will happen afterwards, our lives are in real danger and it would seem, so long as we are in Iraq and so long as we are contributing to injustices around the world, we will continue to be in real danger.

"Tony Blair has to come out of his state of denial and listen to what the experts have been saying, that our involvement in Iraq is stupid." His comments were echoed by the marketing manager for The Muslim Weekly newspaper.

Shahid Butt said he believed the threat to Britain would reduce if it pulled its troops out of Iraq. He said: "At the end of the day, these things [violent incidents] are going to happen if current British foreign policy continues. There's a lot of rage, there's a lot of anger in the Muslim community.

"We have got to get out of Iraq, it is the crux of the matter. I believe if Tony Blair and George Bush left Iraq and stopped propping up dictatorial regimes in the Muslim world, the threat rate to Britain would come down to nearly zero."

Massoud Shadjareh, chair of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, also called on the Government to take responsibility for creating the "political environment" in which these attacks have happened.

Faith leaders in Leeds shocked, shocked by police raids

"We demand you raid our churches as well! Go on, turn the 'ole thing inside out!"

"Faith leaders in Leeds shocked by police raids," from Church Times, with thanks to Mark:

CHRISTIAN LEADERS in Dewsbury and Leeds have pledged to stand together with their Muslim neighbours this week, after police raided homes in both areas and named the London suicide bombers as local residents.

The Revd Nigel Stimpson, Vicar of Ravenhill and Thornhill Lees, where police raided houses on Tuesday, said there was a feeling of unease.

Speaking on Wednesday morning, he said: "I have just returned from taking a school assembly, and one of the children was related to one of the men who has been arrested. At leadership level, we have very good relations with Muslim leaders, and there is a feeling of disbelief that this could happen on our doorstep."

"This" -- the bombings? Or the raids? He seems to be referring to the latter. Was he as indignant at the bombings? That is not recorded.

Serious concern was expressed about the effects of the news among extremist groups, particularly the British National Party, which has already used an image of the bus blast for an election leaflet.

That is unfortunate. But it is a result of mainstream politicians' unwillingness to deal honestly or forthrightly with the issue at hand. When they fail, groups like the BNP can capitalize upon the resentment among the public. If they want to neutralize the BNP, let them deal with the jihad threat.

The Bishop of Pontefract, the Rt Revd Tony Robinson, who co-chairs the North Kirklees Inter-Faith Council, said on Wednesday that since the raids he had been in constant touch with Muslim leaders.

"There is obviously concern among the Muslim communities that the BNP will use this as ammunition. We are standing together with them, and this afternoon the Bishop of Wakefield and I will visit Dewsbury Mosque."

The Bishop of Wakefield, the Rt Revd Stephen Platten, said: "The Muslim community is bound to feel alarmed by what has happened and we will stand with them on this."

The Revd Neil Bishop, secretary of the group Faith Together in Leeds 11, said on Wednesday: "Christian-Muslim relations are almost unique in this part of the world, and we are upset.

"Our Muslim colleagues are very disappointed and sad about what has happened. It seems to negate everything they have been working for: presenting a compassionate face of Islam, active in the local community."

You want to present a compassionate face of Islam? Easy: cooperate with anti-terror efforts. Turn jihadists over to the authorities.

Bolt: Importing hatred

Andrew Bolt writes in Australia's Herald Sun, with thanks to Andrew Bostom.

It's time we accepted the difficult truth: many of the Muslims we invite to live in Australia want to destroy us.

FOR four years, since the September 11 attacks, I've begged our Islamic leaders to drive extremists from their mosques.
For four years I've also reassured you that most Muslims here are moderate.

I've even insisted they have some moderate Muslim leaders, and last week again endorsed Sheik Fehmi Naji El-Imam of Preston mosque as a man of peace.

How eager I was to praise. Heavens, I described as "moderate" the Melbourne-based Islamic Information Services Network of Australia (IISNA), which purged from its website articles I'd noted claiming democracy was a sin, Jews were behind September 11 and Western society was a pollution.

But was I just kidding myself