Jihad Watch

Well done, Lee Baca! You've done a terrific job ignoring the fact that CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case -- so named by the Justice Department. You've also ably bypassed the fact that CAIR operatives have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. You show no awareness of the fact that several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. I am sure you have no idea, or don't care, that CAIR's cofounder and longtime Board chairman (Omar Ahmad), as well as its chief spokesman (Honest Ibe Hooper), have made Islamic supremacist statements.

And for all that, you now reap the praise of your masters. Congratulations!

"Headley, 49, had denied the charges but changed his plea to avoid the death penalty or extradition to India, Pakistan or Denmark."

Jihad Watch reader Paul comments: "Heh. Didn't really believe all those promises of the celestial Playboy Club, did we now, Daood?"

"US citizen David Headley admits role in Mumbai attacks," from the BBC, March 18 (thanks to all who sent this in):

A US citizen has pleaded guilty to scouting targets for the 2008 attacks on the Indian city of Mumbai.

David Headley, at his trial in Chicago, also admitted plotting to attack a Danish newspaper that published a cartoon many Muslims deemed offensive.

Headley, 49, had denied the charges but changed his plea to avoid the death penalty or extradition to India, Pakistan or Denmark.

The attacks on Mumbai in November 2008 left more than 170 people dead....

Prosecutors said Headley, a Pakistani-American, had made several surveillance trips to India and Denmark.

According to court documents, he passed on information to his contacts with the Pakistan-based Islamic militant group, Lashkar-e-Taiba.

The group has been blamed for organising the Mumbai attacks....

He is alleged to have told prosecutors that he had been working with Lashkar-e-Taiba since 2002.

He was first charged with plotting to attack the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten after they angered Muslims by publishing cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed.

Headley changed his name from Daood Gilani in 2006 after he was told by members of Lashkar-e-Taiba that he would be travelling to India to carry out surveillance duties for the group, prosecutors said.

Turning an ally into an enemy and enemies into allies. Which side is he on? Read more about this in my forthcoming book with Pamela Geller, The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War On America.

"Obama blocks delivery of bunker-busters to Israel," from the World Tribune, March 18 (thanks to Pamela):

WASHINGTON -- The United States has diverted a shipment of bunker-busters designated for Israel.

Officials said the U.S. military was ordered to divert a shipment of smart bunker-buster bombs from Israel to a military base in Diego Garcia. They said the shipment of 387 smart munitions had been slated to join pre-positioned U.S. military equipment in Israel Air Force bases.

"This was a political decision," an official said....

No kidding, really?

In traditional Islamic theology there is the idea that the teaching on jihad was revealed in stages: first, tolerance; then, defensive warfare; then, offensive warfare to establish Sharia over the world. Many, many Islamic authorities, ancient and modern, teach this -- and it belies the soothing Religion of Peace™ lies and half-truths that Islamic apologists peddle so successfully in Western countries. Here is yet another Islamic authority teaching the same thing. "This is an article from online Arabic magazine Moheet, which has offices in Egypt and the UAE." "Moheet: 'The Purpose of Jihad Is to Establish the Word of Allah,'" from Translating Jihad, March 18:

[...] Why It Is Considered Our Sixth Pillar of Islam - Jihad Is Ordained to Establish the Word of Allah
Moheet - Iman al-Khashab, 13 Mar 2010

Jihad in the path of Allah is a mainstay of the religion and a great religious duty, as the Prophet (PBUH) said: "The most important thing is Islam, and it is supported by prayer, and its apex is jihad in the path of Allah." Allah has commanded us in many verses (of the Qur'an), and urged us, as has also our Prophet (PBUH), regarding the issue of jihad. The Prophet desired it himself, and urged (others) to it. He declared its virtues so often that some scholars consider it the sixth pillar of Islam, due to its importance, which is attested by how often it appears in the Qur'an and hadith.

Jihad is an ancient religious duty, for Moses (PBUH), who struggled (jahada) to lead the children of Israel (out of Egypt), said to his people: "O my people! Enter the holy land which Allah hath assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin" (Qur'an 5.21). That is what happened to them, and Allah punished them. But in the end, after the death of Moses (PBUH), they waged jihad and conquered the holy house (Jerusalem), entering it through jihad in the path of Allah.

* * *

[Dr. Jamal al-Marakobi] added: "After that, Allah mandated jihad, rather than widespread destruction, as a punishment for the infidels who refused to worship Allah Almighty and disdained he who had created them. For jihad was the tradition (sunnah) of the prophets, from the first centuries until the coming of our prophet Muhammad (PBUH). For Muhammad went out with this law, which is jihad in the path of Allah, to establish the word of Allah and do away with shirk (polytheism) and infidelity. Allah said: "Fight them on until there is no sedition (fitna), and the religion is wholly Allah's, but if they cease, let there be no hostility, except to those who practice oppression" (Qur'an 2.193). This is the wisdom behind waging jihad, in order that Allah alone be worshipped, as (the Prophet) (PBUH) said: "I have been sent with the sword to ensure Allah is worshipped."

Dr. al-Marakobi said: "Allah obligated the ummah (Islamic nation) to jihad in the path of Allah, but it was ordained in stages. For in the days in which the Prophet (PBUH) and the Muslims were in Mecca, they were forbidden from waging jihad, and were obliged instead to (peacefully) propagate Islam. The Prophet (PBUH) was in Mecca for thirteen years after receiving the mission to call the people to Allah Almighty, and was not commanded to fight, but was forbidden from it, despite what he and his companions suffered at the hands of the infidels.

They were forbidden from jihad during this period because they did not have sufficient strength, and their enemy was stronger than they were. If they had fought at that time, their enemy would have overpowered them. When the Prophet (PBUH) emigrated to Medina, and found the Ansar (i.e. supporters; name given to Muslims from Medina), Allah authorized jihad for them, but it was not a commandment, as Allah Almighty said: "To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged--and verily, Allah is Most Powerful for their aid" (Qur'an 22.39). After that, they were commanded to fight those who fought against them, but still refrain from fighting those who did not fight against them, as the Almighty said: "Fight in the path of Allah those who fight you, but do not be the aggressors, for Allah loveth not aggressors" (Qur'an 2.190).

The Muslims were initially commanded to fight only those who fought against them. However, later they were commanded to fight not only those who fought against them but also those who did not, in order to establish the word of Allah. This was a requirement so long as the Muslims had sufficient power, were prepared, and had a state ruled by the Prophet of Allah (PBUH). The purpose of jihad is not simply to gain authority, or expand the kingdom, or get money, or kill people. The purpose of jihad is to establish the word of Allah. For if the infidels accept the call of Islam and return to their Creator, they will not be attacked. But if they rebel they must be fought so that their wickedness and infidelity may cease, and they may receive their punishment, although their punishment with Allah will be so much more severe and horrible in the fire of hell, for they are infidels and polytheists, who despise the worship of Almighty Allah....

Read it all.

Of course, Obama does accept the Palestinian narrative. In "The President's Middle East Playbook" at The Intermediate Zone, March 17, Avi Davis provides some important background on Obama's current bullying of Israel:

[...] Almost anyone who lives in Jerusalem knows that the area in dispute, Ramat Shlomo, is a Jewish neighborhood and has been so for thirty years. It is surrounded by other Jewish neighborhoods and no Israeli in their right mind would consider surrendering it in any final peace deal with the Palestinians. Giving up Ramat Shlomo would be the equivalent of giving up the world famous Hebrew University on Mount Scopus, the tony Jerusalem suburb of French Hill and even the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem's Old City. All three are just as integrated into the Jewish identity of Jerusalem as Ramat Shlomo. Only by accepting the Palestinian narrative - that all of Jerusalem belongs to the Palestinians, could anyone possibly envision the suburb as future Palestinian territory.

The punditocracy is awestruck by the apparent petulance of it all. What, they are all asking, did he hope to gain? Was the intention to dress down Netanyahu and bring him into line? Well, the Israeli prime minister is defiant and there is no sign whatsoever he will accede to the administration's demands that he cancel the permit. This stance has rallied much of the country behind him. Rather than weakening the Israeli leader, as Obama might have hoped, he has only added to his political capital.

The Palestinians watch in delight as they wait for the Americans to deliver Israeli concessions without having to do anything but chew on their falafel. They win either way. If the peace process continues to stall they can continue to wait, which is their modus operandi anyway. If Obama finally gets Netanyahu to say uncle, they will be dealing with a castrated Israeli leader viewed as unable to control his own foreign policy.

The Arab League, those irredentist potentates, are no doubt rolling around on their palace beds in glee. They had made clear to Obama that there could be no further progress in Middle East peace without resolving the grievous wound to Arab pride caused by the Arab-Israeli dispute. Ramat Shlomo has become their poster child for Israeli transgression and so now they are winning too, convincing an American president to do their bidding....

Read it all.

The local imam incited the Islamic supremacists to attack the Christians. So yet another imam is exposed as a Misunderstander of the Religion of Peace™. Why didn't his Qur'anic study tell him to respect the People of the Book, and not to wage jihad against or expect them to assume dhimmi status? Aren't Islamic apologists in the West forever telling us that the only people who believe that Muslims hold to jihad against Jews and Christians, and in dhimmitude, are greasy Islamophobes? How is it then that so many Muslims, including even imams, turn out to be greasy Islamophobes?

"Egyptian police arrest 13 Copts, victims of attack by Islamic extremists," from Asia News, March 18 (thanks to C. Cantoni):

Cairo (AsiaNews / Agencies) - Egyptian security forces have arrested 13 Coptic Christians - including four minors, subsequently released - victims of the attack on 12 March. They are being charged with illegal religious assembly, damage to public property, arson and assault. About a dozen Muslims, from a total of 2000 perpetrators, have been detained over the assault against 400 Coptic faithful at the Church of St. Michael in Mersa Matrouh in the north-west of Egypt.

The violence was sparked by extremists, incited by the local Imam, Mohamad Khamis Khamis, during Friday prayers. From the microphones of the mosque of Al-Ansar, located near the church of Saint Micheal, near the building that housed the Copts, the Islamist leader urged the faithful to "holy war" against the Christian place of worship, ordering its destruction, and calling for the expulsion of the "infidels."

The crowd was trapped inside the church and the Copts attacked them, raiding the homes before setting them on fire. The raid resulted in the wounding of 23 Christians, including two seriously, so who have been sent to Victoria Hospital in Alexandria, 200 km away. Sources of the local church denounced the complete devastation of 18 houses, four shops and 18 cars. "These people are completely ruined," says the activist Wagih Yacoub.

The attack on the Coptic Christian community lasted over 14 hours. The - delayed - intervention of the security forces prevented carnage. The police transported the parishioners from the church, located in the suburb of Rifiyah, to their homes, which they are patrolling to prevent new attacks by extremists.

Matta Zakaria, a local priest, reported to the agency AINA "the arrest of four children, aged between 13 and 17 years by the police." By "deception", the agents conducted the youths to the police station asking them to identify the Muslim assailants. Among young people there was also a young man who was not in church during the assault. The boys speak of "insults and beatings" by police, who ordered the release after the intervention of Copt several priests. The police have opened a file of investigation against those arrested - Christians and Muslims - on charges of illegal religious assembly, damage to public property, arson and assault. The pre-trial detention will last 15 days....

CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case -- so named by the Justice Department. CAIR operatives have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. Several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. CAIR's cofounder and longtime Board chairman (Omar Ahmad), as well as its chief spokesman (Honest Ibe Hooper), have made Islamic supremacist statements.

The fact that this gang of Islamic supremacist thugs, liars, smear artists and stomach-stapled beekeepers opposes this textbook is a huge mark in its favor.

"Muslim group calls textbooks discriminatory," by Jon Hurdle for Reuters, March 17 (thanks to all who sent this in):

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - Muslim activists launched a campaign on Wednesday against a series of educational books that they say promote anti-Islamic sentiment among U.S. school children.

"The World of Islam," a 10-book series, encourages young readers to believe Muslims are terrorists and seek to undermine U.S. society, said the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the nation's largest Muslim advocacy organization.

One book contains the passage: "For the first time, Muslims began immigrating to the U.S. in order to transform American society, sometimes through the use of terrorism."

So what's the problem? Is CAIR saying that Muslims have committed no acts of terror in the U.S.? Tell it to Nidal Hasan. Tell it to Abdulhakim Muhammad. Tell it to Naveed Haq. Tell it to Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar. Etc.

Moein Khawaja, civil rights director for CAIR in Pennsylvania, said the group has gotten dozens of complaints about the books from Muslim parents around the country.

He said he was not aware of any discrimination against Muslim children due to the books, which are intended for middle- and high-school students.

The books were published in late 2009 by Mason Crest Publishers of Broomall, Pennsylvania, which worked with the Philadelphia-based Foreign Policy Research Institute to ensure their accuracy. It was unclear if the books are in use in any schools.

Khawaja said at a news conference that the books are "rife with incorrect information and fear-mongering" and called the FPRI a "pro-war think tank that has vigorously advocated for the Iraq war in the past and continues to defend that position."

INSTITUTE DISAGREES

Founded in 1955, the institute says on its website it is a non-profit group devoted to research on international affairs. It counted among its board members Alexander Haig, U.S. secretary of state under President Ronald Reagan, who recently died.

FPRI vice president Alan Luxenberg denied the books were anti-Islamic.

"This assertion is without basis, and there is no better way to ascertain the truth than to read the books," the institute said in a press release.

Luxenberg said the terrorism quote had been taken out of context and that it followed five pages on the history of Muslim immigration to the United States that said only some U.S. Muslims became radicalized, starting in the 1980s.

Luxenberg is the author of one of the books, "Radical Islam," the cover of which features a machine gun and a Muslim head scarf, with what looks like bloodstains underneath the scarf and the title word "Radical."

In its defense, the institute noted a quote in "Radical Islam" that reads: "The Western world must ally itself with the Muslim world in the war on radical Islam."...

Yeah, that's worked so wonderfully so far.

One thing you can say in support of Jon Hurdle, Reuters reporter: he is the first mainstream media reporter I've ever seen to include some shadow of a hint, however inadequate, that all may not be on the up-and-up with CAIR:

Critics have accused CAIR of being a front for the Palestinian Hamas faction and of receiving funding from the Arab world.

She has been in custody since October, this says. Why are we only hearing about all this now?

An update on this story. "U.S. 'Jihad Jane' Pleads Not Guilty to Terrorism," from Reuters, March 18:

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A Pennsylvania woman who called herself "Jihad Jane" pleaded not guilty on Thursday to charges of providing material support to terrorists and conspiring to kill in a foreign country.

Colleen LaRose appeared in federal court in Philadelphia accused of plotting with others over the Internet to kill a Swedish cartoonist who depicted the Prophet Mohammed in a way that was offensive to Muslims, and of wanting to become a martyr to Islam.

LaRose, 46, from Pennsburg, Pennsylvania, has been in custody since October. A grand jury indictment against her, unsealed on March 9, says that she recruited men online to wage "violent jihad" or holy war, in South Asia and Europe.

She told co-conspirators that her appearance as a blonde-haired white woman would allow her to "blend in with many people" and avoid being detected as an Islamic terrorist, the indictment says.

Yeah, sure. As if anybody were giving Arab or Pakistani men extra scrutiny.

CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case -- so named by the Justice Department. CAIR operatives have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. Several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. CAIR's cofounder and longtime Board chairman (Omar Ahmad), as well as its chief spokesman (Honest Ibe Hooper), have made Islamic supremacist statements.

Nor is that all that can be said about CAIR. See more here.

But just try telling it to the blinkered dhimmi who is the sheriff of Los Angeles.

"Sheriff Baca argues with Republican congressman about Islamic group," by Robert J. Lopez in the Los Angeles Times, March 17 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca argued with a Republican congressman from Indiana during a hearing Wednesday when the lawmaker questioned his relationship with an Islamic nonprofit group.

Baca was in Washington testifying before the House Committee on Homeland Security when he was questioned by Rep. Mark Souder about attending fundraisers for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, officials said....

The exchange between Baca and Souder was recorded by a reporter for KPCC-FM (89.3). To hear the recording, click here.

"There's a substantial difference between protected speech and government officials going to fundraisers for organizations that do speech that is radical. And Sheriff Baca, you've been 10 times to the fundraisers for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which even the FBI has separated themselves from," Souder said, according to the recording.

Baca shot back, citing his service in the Marines and support of Israel, according to the report. "The security of Israel has always been at the forefront of my thinking," he said. "And for you to associate me somehow through some circuitous attack on CAIR, is not only inappropriate, it is un-American."

Whitmore said department records show that Baca attended two CAIR fundraisers in recent years.

"Just because they are Muslim Americans does not mean they want to destroy Israel or the U.S.," Whitmore said.

Right. But what about all the evidence?

Her jihad against free speech got nowhere, but other Muslims continue to pursue it in other ways. "'JihadJane' said to have confessed" by Derrick Nunnally, John Shiffman, and Kathleen Brady Shea for the Philadelphia Inquirer, March 18 (thanks to all who sent this in):

The Montgomery County woman who calls herself "JihadJane" has confessed to the FBI about her alleged role in a plot to kill a Swedish cartoonist, according to two people close to the investigation.

Colleen LaRose confessed to FBI agents shortly after her October arrest at Philadelphia International Airport, where she had just arrived from London, said the two sources, who spoke on conditon of anonymity.

LaRose, 46, whose arrest was kept quiet until related arrests last week in Ireland, is scheduled to be arraigned this morning at the federal courthouse in Philadelphia....

"...while the whole wide world is fast asleeeeeep..."

Yikes! C-Span has put its archive online, including all eight of my appearances going back to 2002. You can watch any or all of them here.

The two highlights, if you ask me (and I know you didn't), are my two-against-one debate with non-Muslim Islamic apologist Dinesh D'Souza and "moderator" Suhail Khan at the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2007, and the Heritage Foundation speech about Muhammad in 2006.

But you may prefer my bravura renditions of "In the Wee Small Hours of the Morning" or "Won't Get Fooled Again." Oh, those aren't online yet?

The dhimmitude and self-censorship on Facebook's part, however, may not be a given in this case. The creator of the site says he is redesigning it and that it will be back. We'll see. Free Speech Death Watch Update: "'Allah is'... angering Muslims?," by Rachelle Kliger for The Media Line News Agency, March 17:

Thousands of Muslim Facebook users have pushed to remove an Arabic-language Facebook page created by a user taking on the identity of Allah, or God.

The user claimed he/she was an atheist and believed in no God but him/herself, saying that Muslim prophets would be able to connect with users through the site and answer their questions, according to news reports.

The page, displaying warped Koranic verses and making fun of Islam, soon garnered a 600,000 strong following and drew thousands of responses to its status updates, many of them scolding the creator.

Campaigners who said it was an insult to Islam and to God demanded Facebook remove the page and some even urged users to boycott Facebook altogether.

While campaigners are viewing the removal of the page on Tuesday as an indication of their success, the creator of the controversial profile page said she (or he) removed it to create a new look.

Olivier Bassile, chief executive of Reporters Without Borders to the European Union and head of the organization's Belgian office, said censorship of the material was the wrong strategy by Facebook, if Facebook did indeed remove the page under pressure.

"It's related to freedom of expression," he told The Media Line new agency. "It was only logical that one day Facebook and other social media would face this pressure because the traditional media is already suffering from this pressure."...

Dr. Abeer Najjar, a media researcher at the American University of Sharjah, said she would not consider the response by Facebook of removing the page as indication that freedom of speech was under threat, as long as the request came from the public, but she warned that such calls are often used by governments to legitimize censorship.

"The problem is that when the public asks for it, it encourages the authorities and gives them legitimacy to censor other things," she told The Media Line. "The fundamental problem is that it empowers the governments and gives them a green light for more censorship."

Uh, yeah.

The United Arab Emirates' Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (TRA) went as far as to instruct all Internet service providers in the UAE to block the offensive page, following numerous calls and complaints from Internet users who were angry about the site.

Counter campaigns to the Allah page drew more than 100,000 people, including the "20 million campaign to close down the group of the heretic who claims he's God" that drew more than 52,000 and other campaigns that called on Muslim users to boycott the popular website....

"Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was a true Muslim Hanifa, and he was not of the polytheists" -- Qur'an 3:67

While ignorant non-Muslim Westerners burble about the "three great Abrahamic faiths," in the Islamic tradition the other two "great Abrahamic faiths" have no legitimacy whatsoever: the Biblical prophets were all actually Muslims, and Judaism and Christianity are illegitimate twistings of their original Islamic teachings. Judaism and Christianity are thus completely delegitimized.

This historical appropriation, which is far from the first of its kind, is of a piece with that delegitimization. Not only were Mary (and Jesus) Muslims, but they were "Palestinians." So now a nationality invented in the 1960s for the purposes of political manipulation is fitted out with some historical heroes. And this is all only fuel for the jihad against those who, in an act of projection astounding in its scope, are then portrayed as the ones actually doing the historical delegitimization and appropriation.

"Fatah proud of womem [sic] fighters, Martyrs, and Virgin Mary," by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook for Palestinian Media Watch, March 17:

In its official statement in honor of International Women's Day, the Fatah movement listed a group of "Palestinian" women of whom it is proud: Martyrs, fighters, prisoners and the Virgin Mary.

Turning Virgin Mary and Jesus from Judeans (Jews) into "Palestinians" is a basic part of the Palestinian Authority's revision of history. The PA leadership has for years been attempting to create a Palestinian-Islamic history in the Land of Israel. This is not an alternative interpretation of modern history; rather, it is an invented history from long before Islam was founded (610 CE) and long before the Romans tried to sever Jewish ties to the Land of Israel/Judea by renaming it "Palestine" in the year 135 CE. Although historically meaningless, turning Jesus and the Virgin Mary into Palestinians is a repeating theme of PA historical revision.

The following is the Fatah Communications and Education Authority statement in honor of International Women's Day from the official Fatah website:

"If we are proud of the holiness of our land, then we are proud and pride ourselves that the first and most important holy woman among the nations and peoples is from the holy land: The Virgin Mary - the woman of love and peace - is of the nation of Palestine, whose roots are grounded in the depths of history. Our movement takes note of its pride in all the women Shahidas (Martyrs), prisoners, Palestinian fighters, who have become a model of sacrifice and a school that teaches the meaning of giving and of sacrifice."
http://www.palvoice.com/index.php?id=23043
[Fatah website, March 8, 2010]

In Human Events I discuss the arrests of Jihad Jane and Jihad Jamie, and the implications of those arrests that the mainstream media is, true to form, ignoring:

Last week two American Muslim women were arrested for their involvement in a plot to murder the Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks. One has since been released, but the cases of both women raise questions for Muslim groups in America and law enforcement officials - questions that are not being adequately answered.

Both "Jihad Jane" -- Colleen (or Fatima LaRose)-- who has been charged with recruiting suspects for "violent jihad" and conspiring to kill Vilks, and "Jihad Jamie," Jamie Paulin-Ramirez, who has since been released, are American women who became, out of despair, desperation, or the search for some great cause, converts to Islam.

Terror analysts have devoted a great deal of time to discussing how both were "radicalized" via the Internet. This calls for a new variation on an old truism. Just as guns don't kill people (people kill people), so also the Internet doesn't radicalize Muslims: Islamic jihadists radicalize Muslims.

And these bored suburbanites didn't have to go to the Internet to get "radicalized." As long ago as January 1999, the Naqshbandi Sufi leader Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani declared in a State Department Open Forum that Islamic supremacists controlled most mosques in America: "The most dangerous thing that is going on now in these mosques," he said, "that has been sent upon these mosques around the United States - like churches they were established by different organizations and that is ok - but the problem with our communities is the extremist ideology. Because they are very active they took over the mosques; and we can say that they took over more than 80% of the mosques that have been established in the US. And there are more than 3000 mosques in the US. So it means that the methodology or ideology of extremist has been spread to 80% of the Muslim population, but not all of them agree with it."

Terrorism expert Yehudit Barsky affirmed the same thing in 2005, saying that 80% of the mosques in this country "have been radicalized by Saudi money and influence." The Center for Religious Freedom found in 2005 a massive distribution of hateful jihadist and Islamic supremacist material in mosques in this country. And in June 2008 federal investigators found that the Islamic Saudi Academy in Virginia, despite promises to stop teaching such material, was still using books that advocated that apostates from Islam be executed and that it was permissible for Muslims to kill and seize the property of "polytheists."

This is the kind of teaching that Jihad Jane and Jihad Jamie imbibed. Jihad Jamie, despite her apparent non-involvement in the plot to murder Vilks, appears to be passing on this hatred to her six-year-old son, Christian (now Walid). Her mother, Christine Holcomb-Mott, recounted that the boy "said that Christians will burn in hellfire. That's what they are teaching this baby." Paulin-Ramirez's stepfather, George Mott, also a convert to Islam, said of young Walid: "He's in an Islamic school. They're teaching him hate."

According to Mott, the boy told him: "We are building pipes [pipe bombs], like the Fourth of July!" And he asked Paulin-Ramirez: "What are you going to do, strap a bomb on and blow up something?"

Her answer was direct: "If necessary, yes."

Direct, yes, and chilling, because nothing is being done about it. Law enforcement and government authorities assume, without any evidence to support their assumption, that the overwhelming majority of Muslims in the U.S. reject and abhor such perspectives. Yet despite their protestations of moderation, American Muslim advocacy groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) have done absolutely nothing to develop any response to the Islamic "radicalism" that converts to Islam encounter on the Internet - or in American mosques.

The one thing that can and should be done would be to call American Muslim groups to account, and demand that they institute in mosques and Islamic schools comprehensive, honest, verifiable programs teaching against the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism.

But officials will never do this. They would prefer to pretend that the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism do not exist. And so we will see many more desperate American housewives becoming Jihad Janes and Jihad Jamies.

We're not talking "interior spiritual struggle," either. "Purported al-Awlaki message calls for jihad against U.S.," by Paula Newton for CNN, March 17:

London, England (CNN) -- American-born Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki is calling for jihad against America, claiming "America is evil" in a new audio message obtained exclusively by CNN.

"With the American invasion of Iraq and continued U.S. aggression against Muslims, I could not reconcile between living in the U.S and being a Muslim, and I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad against America is binding upon myself just as it is binding on every other Muslim," he says in the recording that runs more than 12 minutes.

Al-Awlaki is believed to be hiding out in hills of southern Yemen with the protection of his very powerful family tribe.

CNN could not authenticate the recording as being by al-Awlaki, but sources have told CNN that they believe the voice on the recording is him and that the recording is genuine.

Al-Awlaki's voice in the recording is measured and clear as he takes on the cadence of a preacher. He singles out Muslim Americans for a provocative message:

"To the Muslims in America, I have this to say: How can your conscience allow you to live in peaceful co-existence with a nation that is responsible for the tyranny and crimes committed against your own brother and sisters? How can you have your loyalty to a government that is leading the war against Islam and Muslims?" [...]

But as Pamela Geller says: "They can cut a thousand, a million tongues, but you can't cut out the truth about Islamic jihad."

Attackers kill 12 in latest Nigeria fighting," by Jon Gambrell for Associated Press, March 17 (thanks to Pamela):

LAGOS, Nigeria - Attackers killed 12 people Wednesday morning in a small Christian village in central Nigeria, officials said, cutting out most of the victims' tongues in the latest violence in a region where religious fighting already has killed hundreds this year.

The attack almost mirrored the tactics used by those who carried out similar massacres in Christian villages last week when more than 200 people were slaughtered.

Under the cover of darkness and a driving rain, raiders with machetes entered the village of Byie early Wednesday, setting fire to homes and firing gunshots into the air to drive frightened villagers into the night, witness Linus Vwi said.

"It was raining. They took that advantage," Vwi said.

Vwi said he and about 20 neighbors rushed into the surrounding wilderness, cowering in bushes as they listened to screams.

He said the attackers spoke Fulani, a language used mostly by Muslim cattle herders in the region. Officials and witnesses blamed Fulani herders for the killings last week.

Fulani community leader Sale Bayari denied that Fulanis took part in those killings, though he said the community suffered a similar massacre recently.

Six people were wounded in the overnight raid and taken to a local hospital, said Mark Lipdo, leader of a regional Christian nonprofit group. He said attackers burned down 15 homes during the violence.

The dead included seven women, four children and one man, Lipdo said. Attackers removed the tongues of most of the victims, witnesses said.

It was unclear why attackers took the victims' tongues. In Nigeria, killers sometimes take body parts of their victims for black magic or "juju" rituals, later using them as charms.

Attacks this month come after more than 300 people -- mostly Muslim -- were killed in January violence in the nearby city of Jos and its surrounding villages....

Much as AP would like to portray this as an outbreak of ethnic or religious violence in which both sides are equally at fault, in reality the Muslims have been the aggressors all along. The last paragraph quoted above is simply a lagniappe about retaliatory violence, inserted so as to avoid appearances of "Islamophobia."

In Pakistan, jihadists are folk heroes. And so is Adolf Hitler, for largely the same reasons: genocidal Jew-hatred, militarism, etc. Yet the execrable libelblogger Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs had the mendacious temerity to smear anti-jihadists as neo-Nazis. "The Führer Cult: Germans Cringe at Hitler's Popularity in Pakistan," by Hasnain Kazim in Spiegel, March 17 (thanks to C. Cantoni):

Germans are popular in India and Pakistan, but not always for the right reasons. Many in South Asia have nothing but admiration for Adolf Hitler and still associate Germany with the Third Reich. Everyday encounters with the love of all things Nazi makes German visitors cringe.

Pakistan is the opposite of Germany. The mountains are in the north, the sea is in the south, the economic problems are in the west and the east is doing well. It's not hard for a German living in Pakistan to get used to these differences, but one contrast is hard to stomach: Most people like Hitler.

I was recently at the hairdresser, an elderly man who doesn't resort to electric clippers. All he has is creaky pair of scissors, a comb, an aerosol with water. He did a neat job but I wasn't entirely happy.

I said: "I look like Hitler."

He looked at me in the mirror, gave a satisfied smile and said: "Yes, yes, very nice." [...]

Sometimes it's better to keep quiet about one's German origins. It's embarrassing because people here think they're doing you a favor by expressing their admiration for the Nazi leader. I suspect most Indians and Pakistanis have no idea what this man did. They see him as the bold Führer who took on the British and Americans.

More likely, they love him because he murdered Jews, the worst enemies of the Muslims (cf. Qur'an 5:82).

In the Islamic world, not just in Pakistan but right across from Iran to northern Africa, anti-Semitic sentiment of course plays a role. Conversations with German visitors rapidly turn to the injustice being suffered by the Palestinians who were robbed of their land. [...]

A few days ago a white Mercedes built in the 1970s was driving ahead of me in the center of Islamabad carrying a family of seven. On the back was a sticker bearing a black swastika in a white circle. Underneath it read: "I like Nazi." [...]

English editions of Hitler's "Mein Kampf" can be found in bookshops even in the most remote parts of India. And Indian schoolbooks have been known to celebrate Hitler as a great leader.

Once my wife and I visited the cafe in the beautiful Hotel Imperial in New Delhi. It has a garden lined with palms, excellent tea and friendly waiters in uniforms that recall the colonial era. A young man served us. The name tag on his uniform attracted my interest so I asked him why he had this rather unusual name for an Indian man. "Oh, my parents named me after a great historic person," he explained.

The name, in black letters on a golden plate, read: Adolf.

Will the Islamophobia never end? "Iraq: Christian killed in northern city of Mosul," from AKI, March 17 (thanks to C. Cantoni):

Baghdad, 17 March (AKI) - Masked gunmen on Wednesday shot dead an Iraqi Christian in the northern city of Mosul, the Assyrian Christian website Ankawa.com reported. The city has been at the centre of a number of attacks targeting Christians in recent months.

Yaqub Adam, a 54-year-old father was hit by a hail of bullets fired from a pistol with a silencer. He was murdered near the shop where he worked as a glassmaker.

It was the first Christian killing since Iraq's national elections on 7 March and came less than a week after 122 Christian families returned to Mosul, the capital of Nineveh province.

Around 800 families had left their homes in Mosul in the past few months to seek safety in villages in the surrounding province, Mosul's bishop Monsignor Emil Shimoun Nona, told Adnkronos International (AKI).

Over 40 Christians have been killed in Mosul in the past three months in bomb and gun attacks in a resurgence of the violence which killed 40 Christians and caused more than 12,000 to flee in 2008....

The Turks are irked.
The Turks are irked.
Who would dare to irk the Turks?
One who smirks, "You're genocidal jerks!"

And so now, in a move reminiscent of those who say in effect, "Say that Islam is a religion of peace or we'll kill you," the Turks are saying, "Say we didn't commit genocide against the Armenians or we will start persecuting the Armenians." And remember, the Armenian genocide itself started with mass expulsion orders. Hrayr Karapetyan, an Armenian MP, certainly sees Erdogan's statement as heralding another genocide: "The statement once again proves that there is an Armenian genocide threat in present Turkey."

"Turkey threatens to expel 100,000 Armenians over 'genocide' row," by Damien McElroy for the Telegraph, March 17 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Turkey has threatened to expel 100,000 Armenians from the country in response to the US branding the First World War killings of Armenians by Ottoman Turks as "genocide". [...]

Tensions with Armenia have recently escalated as a well-organised worldwide campaign has persuaded the American Congress and Swedish parliament to adopt resolutions condemning the incidents as "genocide".

An Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day Bill has also been put before the House of Commons and Mr Erdogan has warned Gordon Brown that relations would suffer if parliament passes it.

Turkish law already makes discussion of genocide an offence punishable by imprisonment.

"There are currently 170,000 Armenians living in our country. Only 70,000 of them are Turkish citizens, but we are tolerating the remaining 100,000," said Mr Erdogan.

"If necessary, I may have to tell these 100,000 to go back to their country because they are not my citizens. I don't have to keep them in my country." [...]

Mr Erdogan said its neighbour should distance itself from the overseas community leading the lobbying.

He said: "Armenia has an important decision to make. It should free itself from its attachment to the diaspora. Any country which cares for Armenia, namely the US, France and Russia, should primarily help Armenia to free itself from the influence of the diaspora."

But yesterday there was uproar in Armenai [sic] over the suggestion of deportations. Hrayr Karapetyan, an Armenian MP, condemned Mr Erdogan's remarks as blackmail.

"The statement once again proves that there is an Armenian genocide threat in present Turkey, thus world community should pressurise Ankara to recognise [the] genocide," he said....

Patrick Sookhdeo's book Global Jihad: The Future in the Face of Militant Islam came out in 2007, and no book before or since has rivaled it as a single-volume resource for Islamic teachings on jihad. That makes this book truly essential reading for anyone who is tired of the politically correct fog of misinformation that envelops us everywhere about the threat we are facing, and who wants to know the truth.

The scope and range of this book is unique. Sookhdeo, who has won justified renown in Britain for his stands in defense of human rights against Islamic supremacism, opens the book with an evaluation of some of the fashionable explanations for Islamic jihad terrorism: the legacy of colonialism, poverty, demographic pressures, local political conflicts, Israel and the Palestinians, a loss of identity among alienated and marginalized youth, honor and shame, the Western invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and the war on terror and other issues relating to Western foreign policy, the corrupt secular West and its polluting impact, and many others. Then he reproduces a question that a Muslim journalist in the U.K. asked after the July 7, 2005 jihad bombings in London: "Why was it four Muslims who blew themselves up? Why have other marginalised communities not produced suicide bombers?"

Then Sookhdeo answers the question: "The answer to this question lies in the legitimacy that the Muslim source texts, classical Islamic theology, and paradigmatic early Muslim history give to violence against non-Muslims and to the ways in which modern Islamists, drawing on these sources, have formed ideologies which justify violence in a modern context."

Global Jihad then supplies key extracts from the Qur'an and Hadith, as well as from the teachings of early Islamic scholars and jurists from the various Sunni and Shi'ite madhahib -- and they teach, with a remarkable unanimity, the necessity for Muslims to wage war against unbelievers and subjugate them under the rule of Islamic law. Sookhdeo also explains key Islamic doctrines related to that of jihad, including the dar al-Islam/dar al-harb division and the idea that the whole world belongs to Muslims and is only rightly ruled by an Islamic state. He traces the historical development of the theology of jihad, delineates the types of jihad and their objectives, and relates the jihad doctrine to both Sunni and Shi'ite eschatology. This book even contains expositions of Islamic theology regarding matters attendant to jihad, such as the treatment of prisoners and the acceptability of beheading. There are also illuminating sections on the doctrine of taqiyya, the sufferings of dhimmi populations subjugated within the Islamic state, and the Islamic justification for suicide bombing.

But this is much more than simply a book of illuminating Islamic theological and legal texts, however useful these are. Sookhdeo surveys the contemporary Muslim debate on the nature of jihad, profiles modern-day reformers (and some who claimed the title with less than convincing justification for doing so), and explores various responses to modern-day jihad activity.

So this book is a uniquely useful resource for anyone who wants to understand what we are up against, right? Right. So it was no surprise when Sookhdeo began to be attacked by those who want to make sure that non-Muslim Westerners do not come to a clear understanding of the threat we face. The venomous antisemite and historical revisionist Ben White attacked the book in an odd review that noted correctly that Sookhdeo contended that "the primary motivation of terrorists and suicide bombers is theological" and then purported to refute that contention not by showing that Sookhdeo had misrepresented Islamic theology, but that jihadists cited political issues in their communiques -- thus demonstrating only that Ben White has no clue whatsoever about the inherently political character of Islamic theology.

This was enough, however, for the Islamic supremacist blogger Yusuf Smith (Indigo Jo), who showed up here a few years back in a most illuminating exchange (read the comments), to dub Sookhdeo "the Sookhdevil" -- resulting in Sookhdeo being threatened with death by some of Indigo Jo's coreligionists. Yusuf did not, of course, call them devils.

It was all par for the course -- and showed in a particularly vivid manner that Global Jihad, as meticulously researched and exhaustively documented as it is, is right on the mark.

"Good women are obedient....As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them." -- Qur'an 4:34

But...but...doesn't Qaher Sharif know that Islam protects women's rights? He must be some kind of Islamophobe!

"Algeria: Prison for Violent Husbands Is Against Koran, Mufti," from ANSAmed, March 15 (thanks to Block Ness):

(ANSAmed) - ALGIERS, MARCH 15 - The proposal to introduce prison terms for men who beat their wives goes against the Koran and the teachings of the prophet Mohamed, according to the head of Algeriàs Superior Islamic Council. Qaher Sharif fiercely criticised the bill presented to the head of state Abdelaziz Bouteflikàs by the head of the Consultative Council on Human Rights Farouk Qustantiti. "This man's aim is to violate a law of the Koran and of the Sunnah, and he meddles in subjects that are beyond his competence", Sharif said in an interview with the Arab-language edition of the daily newspaper El Khabar. "Hés done it before with the death penalty, and now with beatings," he added, asking "what difference can it make to him what goes on between a man and his wife?" The President of the Islamic Council said that he was stunned by Qustantinìs proposal, because "God has already pointed out precisely the way that a husband must behave towards his wife". He quoted verses 34 and 35 of the Surah on women, in which men are advised to "admonish women, confine them to their bed and beat them" should they commit "nushooz", a term signifying both infidelity and a refusal of sexual intercourse. Sharif pointed out that the text is so precise that it indicates the method of punishment to be used against the wife, and that this should be neither "too insistent, nor provoke disfigurement".

But the protests, the cries of racism and "Islamophobia," are sure to come -- and then Quebec authorities are likely to cave. "Muslims seeking female clerk can 'line up again,'" by Graeme Hamilton for the National Post, March 17 (thanks to all who sent this in):

MONTREAL -- In recent years, the few fully veiled Muslim women who had dealings with Quebec's health-insurance board could choose to be served by a woman to avoid exposing their faces to a man outside their family.

But in the latest example of the province's growing resistance to the accommodation of minority religious practices, the insurance board on Tuesday announced the end of the policy after the provincial human rights commission said it has no duty to acquiesce.

"From now on, for a woman who is veiled with a niqab or a burka and comes to our office asking to be photographed by a woman, the answer is no," said Marc Lortie, spokesman for the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec. "Line up again, or come back another day." [...]

"If you want to integrate into Quebec society, here are our values," Immigration Minister Yolande James told reporters last week. "We want to see your face." Ms. Ahmed has filed a complaint with the Quebec Human Rights Commission. [...]

"Generally speaking, staff at Ontario service centres are very aware of cultural requirements and diversity and we do our best to accommodate individual situations," said Alan Cairns, a spokesman for the Ministry of Government Services.

The furor over the still rarely seen niqab is a clear sign that Quebec's debate over the "reasonable accommodation" of religious and ethnic minorities has returned with full force....

Yep. And it's going to keep on returning.

They have tried to defend themselves by saying they only were waging jihad, and jihad is not illegal in Pakistan. "Pakistani court charges 5 Americans with terrorism," by Zarar Khan for Associated Press, March 17 (thanks to Visvas):

ISLAMABAD - A Pakistani court charged five young Americans on Wednesday with planning terrorist attacks in the South Asian country and conspiring to wage war against nations allied with Pakistan, their defense lawyer said.

The men -- all Muslims from the Washington, D.C., area -- pleaded not guilty to a total of five charges, the most severe of which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison, defense lawyer Hasan Dastagir told The Associated Press....

The men, aged 19 to 25, were charged by an anti-terrorism court inside a prison in Sargodha, the city in Punjab province where they were arrested in December. They were reported missing by their families in November after one left behind a farewell video showing scenes of war and casualties and saying Muslims must be defended.

Their lawyer has said they were heading to Afghanistan and had no plans to stage attacks inside Pakistan.

The court also charged the men with planning attacks on Afghan and U.S. territory, said Dastagir. The charges did not specify what was meant by U.S. territory but could be a reference to American bases or diplomatic outposts in Afghanistan.

The men also were charged with contributing cash to banned organizations to be used for terrorism and with directing each other to commit terrorist acts.

"This last charge carries life in prison while the rest of the charges have lesser punishments," Dastagir said....

"Malcolm Moss, national chair of the Prison Officers' Association, said: "We are seeing more and more Muslim gangs in our prisons. Often Muslims who go to prison are forced into gangs for their own protection. And that culture takes over a wing, takes over an area of the prison. We see it as a real danger, now and for the future of prisons." -- from an article here

Notice how Malcolm Moss, though he is not one of those denying the problem of the takeover of British prisons by Muslim prisoners, can't quite state head-on what the real worry is.

For example, these Muslims who take over in prisons constitute a "real danger" -- but not just, as Moss states, "now and for the future of prisons." They constitute a danger, much more importantly, for all of British and, indeed, for the Western societies within which, as holders of British passports, they can now freely move and operate . After all, eventually most prisoners are released. And those who were Muslim to begin with, but perhaps did not take Islam quite to heart, have had a chance in prison to take it quite to heart. And what is more disturbing is that those who entered prison as non-Muslims, but accepted Islam in order to avoid being treated brutally by Muslim fellow prisoners, may -- rather than simply slough it off as they would their prison garb, once they are again out in the world -- come out as True Believers. Often what begins as an act of protective coloration ends up transforming the person who started out thinking he was merely making a temporary compromise in order to stay alive -- and that means he, and others like him, will emerge as Muslims, but Muslims who even when they were non-Muslims were at war with society and its norms.

Comments by David G. Littman, NGO Representative to the United Nations in Geneva: Association for World Education (AWE) and the World Union for Progressive Judaism (WUPJ) :

The following joint statement was drafted & delivered by DGL for WUPJ on 16 March:

* * * * *

WORLD UNION FOR PROGRESSIVE JUDAISM

United Nations Human Rights Council -13th session (1-26 March 2010)
Statement by David G. Littman - Tuesday (am) 16 March 2010 (22nd meeting)
President (Chair): Ambassador Alex Van Meeuwen (Belgium)
Item 4: Human Rights situations that require the Council's attention

Sir, there is a serious human rights principle that requires the Council's urgent attention now.

We would remind all delegates of that fateful period of appeasement in the 1930s when the League of Nations closed down soon after the new grandiose Palais des Nations had opened. While fear stalked the streets of Europe, on the stage of history, a mad leader (Führer) was allowed to run amok.

One man was not blinded by duplicity or fear and he spoke out for freedom at that moment of truth. In a 28 June 1939 speech [Carlton Club, London], Winston Churchill used a metaphoric image that is pertinent today when related to a controversial president who constantly reiterates - while seeking nuclear power - that another Member State should be "wiped off the map". And there is another OIC leader-for-life who has called for our host country to be split into pieces - and then went further with a ghoulish call for a Jihad against Switzerland - and all this in defiance of the UN Charter - article 2:4

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or in any manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Who knows how many demented Jihadist bombers might be tempted by these religious-sounding calls to seek 'martyrdom' - and an irresistible heavenly reward - by trying to blow up the UN corridors of power. Churchill's words on Hitler relate to this mania which requires the Council's urgent attention:

Is he going to blow up the world or not? The world is a very heavy thing to blow up! An extraordinary man at a pinnacle of power may create a great explosion, and yet the civilised world may remain unshaken. The enormous fragments and splinters may clatter down upon his own head and destroy him...but the world will go on.

As threats against Member States are also an attack on the human right to life, the Human Rights Council has a sacred duty to condemn such unacceptable calls to Jihad, which are in total violation of the Purposes of the UN Charter and of the International Bill of Human Rights. They should be severely reprimanded by this Council and by other UN bodies and persons.

Silence here & now would make of us all the accomplices of terrorism and tyranny.

Thank you Mr President.

As always, what's standing in the way here is Muhammad's own example -- a "beautiful pattern of conduct," per Qur'an 33:21. Muhammad married Aisha when she was six, and consummated the marriage when she was nine. For this cleric, condemning child marriage would thus run the risk of implying Muhammad did something wrong, or that his example is less relevant for Muslims in modern times. In a land where churches are firebombed over the use of the word "Allah," one can imagine there being some fallout over that.

In any event, keeping the status quo on child marriage laws lets the Sharia-inclined have it both ways: there is a symbolic law on the books for the sake of appearances, but a religious loophole to get around it in practice.

"Malaysian minister rejects child marriage reform," from Agence France-Presse, March 16:

KUALA LUMPUR -- Malaysia's religion minister on Tuesday defended Islamic laws that allow girls under 16 to marry, amid a controversy over two youngsters who were married off to middle-aged men.

The issue has flared in Malaysia after reports that two girls aged 10 and 11 were wed in the conservative northern state of Kelantan last month. They have now been removed from their husbands.

Rights groups have called for the reform of Islamic laws that allow marriage under the age of 16 if religious officials give their consent. Sharia law runs in parallel with civil law in multi-ethnic Malaysia.

"There is no need to amend the law," Jamil Khir Baharom, a cabinet minister in charge of religious affairs, told reporters.

"The law already exists... marrying someone aged 16 and below requires the consent of the court. The court does not simply grant the consent," he said.

"Maturity is a subjective question. It depends on the development of the person. Maturity is not based on age solely."

But 11 years old is 11 years old.

Pressure group Sisters in Islam has called for an end to child marriages, saying the practice was "unacceptable" but continued in Malaysia because of a "belief that Muslim girls can be married off once they reach puberty".

"The minimum age of marriage for Muslim girls must be raised to 18 to be in compliance with the Child Act which defines children as those below the age of 18," it said in a statement.

Other citizens in the multicultural country -- where the population is dominated by Muslim Malays -- are not permitted to marry before the age of 18.

Malaysian authorities are investigating the case of the two girls in Kelantan, both linked to a man who is accused of leading an Islamic cult.

He is accused of marrying the 11-year-old girl and giving away his 10-year-old daughter to a family friend.

Sharia court officials told the New Straits Times Tuesday the 11-year-old's marriage was not approved in court.

But if it had been, a grown man's marriage to an eleven-year-old could have been quite alright under the law.

The girl was found outside a mosque in the nation's capital over the weekend and is now being treated in hospital.

Women, family and community development minister Shahrizat Abdul Jalil has spoken out against the practice.

"A child of that age does not have the choice or capacity to give her full consent and, as such, child marriage is viewed within the context of force and coercion," she said in a statement to AFP.

Hamas calls for a new intifada and the Obama team continues to act as if Israel were the obstacle to peace.

What planet are these people on?

(Planet jihad, apparently.)

"Clinton: Israel must prove commitment to peace," by Matthew Lee for Associated Press, March 16 (thanks to Mark):

WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday said Israel must prove it is committed to the Mideast peace process with actions. But she brushed aside suggestions that relations with the main U.S. ally in the Mideast are in crisis over Israeli plans to build new Jewish housing in east Jerusalem.

Clinton said Israel must back up verbal pledges to talk peace with the Palestinians and improve an atmosphere poisoned by last week's housing announcement if stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks are to be relaunched. She stressed that the U.S. remains committed to Israel's security despite current tensions.

Resolving what has become the most serious spat between the two countries in decades has become a top priority for the Obama administration as it strives to restart the moribund peace process with indirect, shuttle diplomacy by special Mideast envoy George Mitchell. Yet Clinton made clear that Israeli steps were needed first.

"We are engaged in very active consultations with the Israelis over steps that we think would demonstrate the requisite commitment to the process," Clinton said....

Do the Palestinians have to abandon jihad? End the genocidal children's shows? Stop teaching Jew-hatred? Nope. None of the above. They don't have to do anything at all.

Trying to put an end to the courtroom jihad against free speech. "Denmark wants Brussels to stop UK Mohammed cartoon lawsuit," by Leigh Phillips for the EUObserver, March 16 (thanks to John):

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - The Danish minister of justice has called on the European Commission to put a stop to a lawsuit by a Saudi lawyer who is using the UK's famously libel-happy courts to go after Danish newspapers for their publication of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed.

"It's fundamentally reasonable that judgments in the EU can often be exercised across borders," the minister, Lars Barfoed, said according to the Berlingske Tidende newspaper.

"But it would be taking it to the extreme if a UK court could rule against the Danish media and then require compensation and court costs to be paid." [...]

And there is that small matter of free speech:

The British government for its part recognises there is a problem.

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: "The government is concerned about any potential chilling effect that our libel laws are having on freedom of speech. In response to the concerns that have been expressed, the justice secretary has set up a working group to examine a range of issues around the substantive law on libel."

In addition, three weeks ago the country's Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee published the report of its inquiry into libel, which criticised the current situation.

"The government is considering this report and the recommendations that it makes very carefully," the spokesperson said.

Comments by David G. Littman, NGO Representative to the United Nations in Geneva: Association for World Education (AWE) and the World Union for Progressive Judaism (WUPJ)

The following joint statement was delivered on behalf of the three NGOs named (AWE /IHEU /WUPJ) and the text was prepared by their representatives.

* * * * *

ASSOCIATION FOR WORLD EDUCATION

INTERNATIONAL HUMANIST AND ETHICAL UNION

WORLD UNION FOR PROGRESSIVE JUDAISM

United Nations Human Rights Council -13th session (1-26 March 2010)
Joint Statement by David G. Littman - Friday (15:45pm) 12 March 2010 (21st meeting)
President (Chair): Ambassador Alex Van Meeuwen (Belgium)
Item 3: Promotion and Protection of all human rights: Freedom of religion or belief
[The words in brackets and smaller type were not spoken in the 2 ¾ minutes allowed]

Minarets and Murder

We thank Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief Asma Jahangir for her
Report and outstanding work. We are dismayed however by the increasingly strident attacks on freedom of expression in this Council, made in the name of religious freedom by the OIC, and in particular the gross exaggeration of issues such as the recent Swiss vote to ban the construction of new minarets, while the Council is failing to address many real issues of religious freedom, such as the murder of Christians in Egypt and Pakistan, the very recent massacre of over 500 Christians in the Plateau State, Nigeria, and the ongoing ethnic cleansing of Christians of Iraq.

Our Christmas Day joint Appeal requested the OHCHR "to take the necessary measures" to save the ancient Christian and other non-Muslim ethnic-religious of Iraq, being systematically cleansed from their homeland.

Sir, minarets are not central to Islam, any more than spires are to Christianity. Banning the construction of new minarets does not impede in any way the ability of Muslims to practise freely their religion, so why the uproar about a democratic Swiss vote when the OIC allows so much human rights abuse in Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere to go unchallenged?

And why have we heard no condemnation from the OIC and the Council of the call by Libya for a 'Jihad'- a Holy War against Switzerland? This is a "threat" against a Member State, forbidden by the UN Charter (Art.2:4): ["All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the UN."]

And how to stop the ongoing persecution of Christians, Mandeans and other minorities in Iraq; of Bahais in Iran and now in Egypt; of Copts in Egypt; and of Ahmadis and Christians in Pakistan? How does the OIC propose stopping the constant attacks on churches and the murder or arrest of priests, pastors and worshipers in several of these countries? The OIC condemns Islamophobia on the slightest grounds, but makes no effort to do the same for Christianophobia, and rampant Judeophobia in the media in their own countries.

Surely, Mr President, these are the questions the Council should be asking under the heading of freedom of religion.

[Sir, after the Swiss vote the High Commissioner stated on 1 December 2009: "I hesitate to condemn a democratic vote", but added, in regard to Switzerland with its exemplary democratic system - "I urge people everywhere to take this issue of discrimination extremely seriously." A day before Ms. Jahangir stated:

"This vote reminds us that no societies are immune to religious intolerance" If this be "religious intolerance" then democracy is truly doomed.]

To conclude, Mr President, the Swiss people have given a coherent example of true democracy in reminding us all of article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the "right to freedom of opinion and expression," and article 21:3 on genuine elections. ["The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by a secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures."]

In the words of that great American President, Abraham Lincoln 150 years ago [1858]: "The ballot is stronger than the bullet."

* * * * *

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission seems to think so. "The price of separatist schools," a New York Post editorial, March 16:

Does a radical Muslim have a right to head a New York City public school? The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission seems to think so.

That panel ruled last week that city officials discriminated against Debbie Almontaser when they forced her out as principal of the taxpayer-funded madrassa she helped found.

Yet the Khalil Gibran International Academy, which is billed as an Arabic-themed public school, was a bad idea from the start -- and Almontaser was an even worse choice to lead it.

As The Post reported in 2007, Almontaser served as spokesman for an organization that shared office space with an Arab group that hawked T-shirts bearing the slogan "Intifada NYC" -- an apparent reference to the bloody Palestinian terror campaign against Israeli civilians.

Incredibly, Almontaser defended the shirts, claiming that "intifada" was really just an Arabic word for "shaking off."

Never mind, as The Post also reported, that the group's co-founders were members of an outfit that advocates the elimination of the Jewish state.

At best, in other words, Almontaser -- a self-styled "moderate" -- was willfully blind to the reality of Islamic terror and has no business teaching city schoolkids for that reason alone.

More likely, she played the folks at the Education Department for fools....

No doubt about that. Read it all.

In "Obama Libels Israel, MSM Continues to Lie, Snooze" at Big Journalism, March 16, Pamela Geller discusses the Obama Administration's double standard on Israel and the Palestinians -- and some noteworthy historical antecedents to current events:

U.S.-Israeli relations have hit a 35-year low over the contentious east Jerusalem building project. Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren said: "Israel's ties with the United States are in their worst crisis since 1975...a crisis of historic proportions." This is because, according to Barack Obama, Jewish homes in the Jewish homeland "hinder peace" with Muslims. According to the Associated Press:

Israel's already strained relationship with the U.S. hit a new low last week when it announced the construction plans during a visit by Vice President Joe Biden. The timing of the announcement deeply embarrassed the Obama administration and put plans for indirect peace talks with the Palestinians in jeopardy.

What about the timing of the Palestinian Authority's "honoring" of a mass-murdering female genocidal bomber, for whom the Palestinians are naming a square in Ramallah? The Jerusalem Post reported: "The ceremony was scheduled to take place on the 32nd anniversary of the attack, the worst terrorist incident in Israel's history, in which terrorists commandeered a bus and murdered 37 people, including 10 children." It too was scheduled to take place during Biden's visit, but was postponed for a week after Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu asked Obama's Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, to get the Palestinians to cancel it.

"The announcement of the settlements on the very day that the vice president was there was insulting," said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Obama adviser David Axelrod also said: "This was an affront, it was an insult, but most importantly, it undermined this very fragile effort to bring peace to that region. For this announcement to come at that time was very, very destructive."

Neither Clinton nor Axelrod mentioned anything about the honoring of the jihad terrorist being insulting. And it will still take place, just a week late. Yet Obama is pressuring Israel, not the Palestinians. Jews living in their holiest city is unacceptable, but senior Palestinian Authority officials joining the Fatah youth movement in a "popular inauguration" ceremony for a square named for a terrorist is just fine. The stalkers of the Jews are no hindrance to peace.

What is insulting is America's abandonment of our most loyal and trusted ally in a region that can only be described as a hot mess, full of backward, oppressive, and brutal hellholes -- save for Israel.

America is profoundly pro-Israel; yet Barack Obama is taking on our best friend and most strategic ally in the Middle East and creating an environment, a free zone, for rampant anti-Semitism.

It is no coincidence that as all this unfolded, Palestinian Arabs were rioting every day in Jerusalem and elsewhere, because of their false charge that Israel is trying to destroy Islamic holy sites. And instead of working to calm the situation, the "moderate" Palestinian Authority is trying to make things worse by fabricating yet another libel against the Jews: now they're saying that Israel tried to burn down Al-Aqsa Mosque in 1969.

This is eerily reminiscent of many of the blood libels spread by Muslim leaders against the Jews throughout history, specifically the ones that the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, spread in the Muslim world before he co-conspired with Hitler to exterminate the Jews during the Holocaust.

On April 4, 1920, there was carnage in Jerusalem. Muslims spent four days massacring Jews and burning down buildings in the Jewish quarter. The future Mufti was arrested and charged with incitement to violence. Historian Maurice Pearlman in his 1947 book The Mufti of Jerusalem explains that the riots were touched off by al-Husseini's "inflammatory articles in the newspaper, Suriyahal Janubiyah." Pearlman adds: "In the weeks preceding the attack faked pictures had been disseminated among the Arabs showing the Mosque Omar in ruins. The caption beneath declared that it had been destroyed by Jewish infidels who were now seeking to build on its site the Jewish Temple."...

Read it all. And read more about Obama's hardline anti-Israel stance in our forthcoming book The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War On America, coming this July from Threshold Editions/Simon & Schuster. Pre-order here.

The late Michael Radu's new book, published posthumously, alas, by Encounter Books, discusses, clearly and forthrightly, the Islamization of Europe.

And it contains a Foreword written by...me.

"Michael Radu, with characteristic incisiveness, cuts through the mindless multicultural relativism of modern liberalism to demolish the illusions of well-meaning but ignorant appeasers of Islamic radicalism. The crux of his argument: tolerance of intolerant Muslims in Europe threatens the civil liberties and individual rights that European culture has so brilliantly advanced over centuries of struggle." -- Nils H. Wessell, former Director, Foreign Policy Research Institute

"Michael Radu has written a most interesting and comprehensive book about the important issues of Muslim immigration and Islamism in contemporary Europe. No matter what readers viewpoints might be they will learn an enormous amount." -- Barry Rubin, author of The Tragedy of the Middle East and Global Survey of Islamism

Don't these Nigerian Islamophobes know that jihad is an interior spiritual struggle? "Internet Video: Muslims Must Rise Up in Nigeria," from AP, March 16 (thanks to all who sent this in):

LAGOS, Nigeria (AP) -- A video posted on a militant Web site calls for Muslims in Nigeria to use ''the sword and the spear'' to rise up against Christians in Africa's most populous nation, according to a translation released Tuesday by a U.S. group that monitors militant sites.

The video on the Ansar al-Mujahideen forum, a Web site sympathetic to al-Qaida, comes in the wake of a series of religious massacres and riots in central Nigeria.

The video shows television news footage and graphic images of those killed as a narrator tells viewers ''the solution is jihad in the cause of Allah,'' according to a translation provided by the SITE Intelligence Group.

''Negotiations, dialogues and protests will not stop the advancement of the enemies and their massacres,'' the narrator says. ''Nothing will stop them but the sword and the spear.''

The narrator also says the ''crusader West'' is interested in Nigeria for its abundant oil reserves. He refers to President Umaru Yar'Adua, a Muslim from northern Nigeria, as a ''tyrant'' who allowed the killing of a sect leader whose group's attacks on police stations and rioting left more than 700 people dead in July....

Further weakening the great myth of a moderate Islam, the slick and self-proclaimed moderate Muslim Tarek Fatah has now exposed himself as an enemy of those who are truly interested in defending human rights against the global jihad and Islamic supremacism. He did so by savaging the courageous freedom fighter Wafa Sultan in a National Post article here.

Luckily, the Post was decent enough to publish this magnificent response: "Counterpoint: In defence of Wafa Sultan," by Joanne Hill in the National Post, March 12 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Tarek Fatah has used the National Post to present a one-sided, inaccurate and potentially dangerous editorial about statements made by Dr. Wafa Sultan during her March 3rd debate in Toronto with Dr. Daniel Pipes.

Mr. Fatah's article is not an unbiased report: it is an opinion piece full of loaded terms such as slur, attack, hateful, anguish, Islam haters and vitriol. He misquotes Dr. Sultan and presents as fact a conclusion that is not supported by any of her statements: a conclusion that I believe puts her life in danger.

I am a freelance reporter; I covered the debate between Dr. Pipes and Dr. Sultan for the Jewish Tribune. I have an audio recording of the entire event, including the Question and Answer period, so I can state with complete accuracy what was and was not said by Dr. Sultan.

Mr. Fatah assumes the authority of a mind-reader to reveal what he claims is Dr. Sultan's hidden intention. Given his first-hand experience of the eagerness of some Muslims (or "Islamists" if he would prefer) to issue death threats against anyone who is perceived as threatening Muslims, there are three reasons why I find it disturbing that he would attribute to Dr. Sultan this motivation: "Perhaps the answer she had in mind was too outrageous even by her own standards: Force Muslims to convert or die."

This is disturbing, first of all, because Dr. Sultan said nothing that would lead the listener to come to this conclusion. When asked during the Q&A, "How do you get Muslims to reform? Do you expect them to convert to another religion?" Dr. Sultan replied:

"Give them the freedom to choose: that's all I'm asking for. Give them the freedom to search, to ask, to be exposed to different sides, different values, different lifestyles. I can tell you from my very own experience, what has helped me to reform myself is being exposed to Western values and being free to express my conclusion. I always compare between my life under Islamic Sharia and my life as a free woman in America and I write about that on my website in Arabic. So when you expose people to different [sic], and you give them the freedom to choose, that's all we need in the Islamic world. I'm not asking [them] to convert to a different religion; I'm asking to grant them the freedom to choose, the freedom to be, to follow whatever path they want to follow. That's all."

Second, this is what Dr. Sultan said at the conclusion of the Q & A:

"I'm not speaking up against Islam to please anyone but my conscience. We suffer a lot under Islamic Sharia. It is not fair. Enough is enough. We need to live our lives as human beings. I want you to know I'm not here to incite anyone against Muslims. Muslims are my family: my Mom, my brother, my sister. You know, I cannot peel off my own skin. I feel sorry for them because they are victims of a very hateful ideology. Really, if you take a look at any Islamic country, what do you see? Nothing but miserable situations, especially women who are living in this society. So I am speaking up to save them, looking for a better future for them. And believe it or not, when it comes to my readers in the Arab world, I feel it is easier for me to address my thoughts than to penetrate the Western mind. People in the West live by the Western ethical code which doesn't allow them to judge people based on their religion - and there's nothing wrong with that-but they need to know that Islam is not merely a religion: it is also a political ideology and that's what I am fighting. That's what I am speaking up against. And I hope one day, the future for our generation in the Muslim world will be much better than the life I lived under Islamic Sharia in Syria."

And third, the terrible, secret motivation which Mr. Fatah attributes to Dr. Sultan is in fact a commandment made by Mohammed to his followers regarding non-Muslims:

"Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war... When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them." (Source: Sahih Muslim Book 19, Hadith #4294.)

There is more.

Contrary to what Mr. Fatah writes, Dr. Sultan did not say: "Muhammed was a child rapist."

Rather, she said: "As a married man, Mohammed raped Aisha when she was nine; he was 54."

If Mr. Fatah is hurt by this statement, perhaps he should consider the source: Islamic doctrine. I challenge Mr. Fatah to deny this....

Oh, you can bet he did. Read it all, and read the comments at the National Post piece also. And then consult the Islamic source here.

The formidable Ali Sina weighs in here.

Ready...Set...Lie
by D. C. Watson

What do Islamic organization representatives have to say? Depends on who's listening. Their statements are ones of convenience. On radio or television, where the American public might be tuned in, they struggle through their lack of personality, attempting to appear harmless, and just wanting to belong. In front of their fellow believers, they take a different tone.

Edina Lekovic, Muslim Public Affairs Council: "Nobody has fought--working harder to fight terrorism and extremism than the Muslim American community. We work with all levels of law enforcement, we work with our communities."

vs.

Edina Lekovic, MPAC: From the July 1999 edition of Al-Talib, the Muslim News magazine at UCLA, when Lekovic was one of the managing editors: "When we hear someone refer to the great mujahid Osama bin Laden as a 'terrorist', we should defend our brother and refer to him as a freedom fighter..."

Salam Al Marayati, Executive Director, MPAC: "Yes we all need to be more vigilant and support our law enforcement in protecting our country..."

vs.

Salam Al Marayati, MPAC, while speaking to fellow Muslims in Dallas, TX about Muslim informants being used by the FBI in a California terrorism investigation: "Counter-terrorism and counter-violence should be defined by us."..."So, number one, we reject any effort, notion, suggestion that Muslims should start spying on one another."

Mahdi Bray, Muslim American Society, on the Muhammad cartoons: "As a Muslim, I can understand the emotional intensity of the issue, however, responding through violence does not uphold the dignity of our faith."

vs.

Mahdi Bray, MAS: At a Washington, D.C. rally, he played the tambourine while one of the speakers sang "let's all go into jihad, and throw stones at the face of the Jews."

Ibrahim Hooper, Council on American Islamic Relations: "We love the First Amendment ... we uphold it every day."

vs.

Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR, on a decades-old book entitled "The Life and Religion of Mohammed", which was made available for purchase by National Review, and can still be purchased from various vendors: "The National Review must clarify its position on Islamophobic hate speech and offer a public apology for promoting a book that so viciously attacks the faith of one-fifth of the world's population."

Mazhar Rishi, CAIR: In a column that was authored by Rishi, he recites the First Amendment, pretty much word for word.

vs.

Mazhar Rishi, CAIR: During a panel to discuss the Muhammad cartoons, Rishi stated: "The right to free speech is not absolute; it does not give a right to defame Prophet Muhammad or any other religious figure."

None of what this CAIR representative said about free speech is written in the First Amendment, and neither is the name "Prophet Muhammad."

Apparently, Speech Patrolman Rishi agrees to disagree... with himself.

"My CAIR-Inspired Firing," by Michael Graham: "The First Amendment and I have been evicted from ABC Radio in Washington, DC. On July 25th, (2005) the Council on American-Islamic Relations demanded that I be "punished" for my on-air statements regarding Islam and its tragic connections to terrorism..."

CAIR attempted in 2007 to stop a speech by author and Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer from taking place.

These are just two of the many examples of their attempts to ice free speech in the land that made it famous.

Exception: These organizations do seem to find the First Amendment useful, if it can possibly benefit some of their more uncouth co-religionists, such as the ones recently arrested for disturbing a public event, shouting down a discussion at U.C. Irvine by the Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren.

Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR: "It is well known, particularly in this holiday season, that Christians follow the teachings of Jesus. What is less well understood is that Muslims also love and revere Jesus as one of God's greatest messengers to mankind."

And to prove it, when a Muslim family in Minnesota visited a Long John Silver's restaurant and ordered a children's meal for their three-year-old son, which happened to come with a toy that included a small notepad with the phrase "Build with Jesus" written at the top, CAIR demanded that Yum! Brands, parent company of Long John Silver's:

• Investigate the incident.
• Offer the Muslim family a formal written apology.
• Review the toy distribution policy for all restaurants and ensure that such incidents would not be repeated.
• Participate in CAIR's sensitivity and diversity training.
* So, CAIR officials, which is it? Are you anti-Jesus, or just trying to pick a fight with Fish n' Chips and Chicken Planks?

This organization has also showcased its "love" and "reverence" for Jesus in the Rifqa Bary case:

Here is a statement from Nihad Awad, Council on American Islamic Relations, from his written testimony sent to Senator John Kyl, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security (dated 9/9/2003). Under the heading "The Truth About CAIR":

Myth: "In a recent congressional hearing, Mr. (Steve) Emerson proclaimed that, "... (CAIR) received some of its initial seed money from the Holy Land Foundation: for Relief and Development (HLFRD)..."

Fact: "This is an outright lie. Our organization did not receive any seed money from HLFRD."

Maybe Jihad Nihad never saw, or just forgot about this.

The Council on American Islamic Relations has provided a section on its website entitled "Dispelling Rumors about CAIR."

In this section, "Top Internet Disinformation #5" addresses Nihad Awad publicly declaring his support for Hamas in 1994.

CAIR's response (excerpt): "This statement was made in March 1994, before CAIR was formed. Hamas did not commit its first suicide bombing until October 1994. The United States subsequently identified Hamas as a specially designated terrorist in January 1995. Thus, Awad's remarks came seven months prior to Hamas' first suicide bombings..."

Wrong answer. According to documented timelines, Awad's remarks came just weeks, not months before Hamas carried out bombings in two Israeli cities... a car bombing that killed eight people in Afula on April 6, 1994, followed by a suicide bombing on April 13, 1994 in Hadera, which killed five.

Regardless of when Hamas perpetrated its first suicide bombing, this gang was murdering Israelis since the late 1980s, and was designated as a terrorist organization by Israel in 1989, five years before Awad's statement.

Moving ahead, these double-dealers should keep a few things in mind...

• If Nihad Awad feels that when he speaks with "the American", he speaks "with someone who doesn't know anything," he and his associates can clear their calendars, and we can all assemble in a public forum, address this "Jekyll and Hyde" routine of theirs, and see who knows what.

• They can stop telling us that not all Muslims are terrorists, or support the Islamic jihad ideology. The Council on American Islamic Relations reportedly losing 90% of its membership is a good indication of this.

• While they've managed to dupe some of the old media as well as certain politicians in this country, outside of moving to a nation governed by Islamic law, the smartest move they could make would be to stop betting against the American people.

The restoration of this one synagogue connected to Maimonides, once court physician to the Fatimids, was not prompted by some sudden deep realization of the need, culturally and politically, to recognize, at least by allowing this one synagogue to be rebuilt, that for thousands of years Egypt had had Jews living in the land, that the last of them had been finally expelled or driven out by unspeakable insecurity, their lives made intolerable, by Nasser. But let's be fair, for the attacks on Jews in 1941 whipped up by Hasan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood and the grandfather of Tariq Ramadan, were not just on Jews alone, but also on Copts. And to continue the fairness theme, when Egyptians attacked non-Muslims in 1952, killing dozens of them, including eleven British citizens, Jews were not singled out.

And to be fair, after the Colonels' coup that toppled fat Farouk and the ancien regime, and then Nasser rid himself of Colonel Naguib and the others and became the Supreme Leader, and decided to seize the property of the many different "non-Egyptian" Egyptians, some of whom were the descendants of families that had lived in Egypt and contributed, for centuries, to the economy, it wasn't only Jews who suffered, but Greeks, and Italians (few may recall that the poets Cavafy and Ungaretti were both born in Alexandria), and others too of those sometimes described in old books as "Levantines" of indeterminate origin. The Egyptian government seized the property of all of these hundreds of thousands of people, accumulated in some cases over the centuries. We can all see how the Egyptian economy started to flourish as soon as those awful "foreigners" were out of the way.

Over at the NewsReal blog they've been arguing for several days, while I was flying through the air in a tin can, giving a talk, flying elsewhere in another tin can, etc., over whether or not I am right about the non-existence of moderate Islam. And so now it is time for a Marshall McLuhan moment. If you don't know what I mean by that, watch the clip above.

Here's the latest: "David Swindle's Complaint is a Diversion," by John R. Guardiano at NewsReal, March 15. In it, Guardiano takes issue with Swindle, a fellow NewsReal Blog writer, for saying that he "'viciously' and 'harshly' attacked Robert Spencer" by apparently calling me "ignorant," "caricaturing," and "right-wing." And Guardiano says:

The bottom line is this: Robert Spencer is a big boy and an accomplished scholar. Surely, he can handle a little mild-mannered criticism. I certainly have nothing against him.

In fact, I respect Mr. Spencer and his work, even if I think (as I do) that he is ultimately and profoundly wrong or mistaken about Islam and the war against radical Islam.

And he adds: "My hope is that we can discuss substantive issues without all this Sturm und Drang over hurt and bruised feelings."

Absolutely, Mr. Guardiano. My feelings are not now and never have been hurt. I appreciate David Swindle's defense of my work, but I don't care what anyone calls me, and I've been called far worse than anything John Guardiano has said here. If such things bothered me, I would never have lasted so long doing this work publicly, especially given the viciousness, dishonesty, and taste for ad hominems of the Leftist/jihadist attack machine.

Anyway, to the point: does a moderate Islam -- by which I mean a version of Islam that does not teach that believers must make war against unbelievers and subjugate them under the rule of Islamic law -- exist at all?

Perhaps Mr. Guardiano would take issue with that definition of moderate Islam. He says here:

But the idea that Islam is inherently threatening and irredeemable also isn't true. This charge, in fact, is a dangerous and malicious lie. In reality, as Dinesh D'Souza observes in his excellent (albeit much misunderstood) book, The Enemy at Home: the Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11:

The Koran, like the Old Testament, has a number of passages recommending peace and others celebrating the massacre of the enemies of God.

D'Souza doesn't mention, of course, and probably doesn't know, that the Qur'an's violent passages are presented as open-ended commands for believers to wage war against unbelievers, while the Old Testament's violent passages are specific to particular individuals and situations, and are never presented as open-ended commands to all believers.

Nor does D'Souza ever manifest any awareness of the fact that the Qur'an is not simply a book containing passages with different emphases that are more or less up for grabs as to how believers interpret them. In reality, in stark contrast to the Jewish and Christian traditions that have worked to spiritualize in various ways the violent passages of the Bible, the literal understanding of the violent Qur'anic passages has always held sway in Islamic theology -- and they have been considered binding. They are also considered to take precedence over the Qur'an's more tolerant passages.

Don't take my word for it. Let's see what Muslim authorities say.

1. Muhammad's earliest biographer, a pious Muslim named Ibn Ishaq, explains the progression of Qur'anic revelation about warfare. First, he explains, Allah allowed Muslims to wage defensive warfare. But that was not Allah's last word on the circumstances in which Muslims should fight. Ibn Ishaq explains offensive jihad by invoking a Qur'anic verse: "Then God sent down to him: 'Fight them so that there be no more seduction,' i.e. until no believer is seduced from his religion. 'And the religion is God's', i.e. Until God alone is worshipped."

The Qur'an verse Ibn Ishaq quotes here (2:193) commands much more than defensive warfare: Muslims must fight until "the religion is God's" - that is, until Allah alone is worshipped. Ibn Ishaq gives no hint that that command died with the seventh century.

Question for John Guardiano: I take it you believe that Ibn Ishaq was wrong, and misunderstood the true, peaceful teachings of the Qur'an and Muhammad?

2. According to a 20th century Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh 'Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, "at first 'the fighting' was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory." He also distinguishes two groups Muslims must fight: "(1) against them who start 'the fighting' against you (Muslims) . . . (2) and against all those who worship others along with Allah . . . as mentioned in Surat Al-Baqarah (II), Al-Imran (III) and At-Taubah (IX) . . . and other Surahs (Chapters of the Qur'an)."

Question for John Guardiano: I take it you believe that the Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia also was wrong in thinking that warfare against unbelievers was obligatory, and that he misunderstood the Qur'an?

3. The great medieval scholar Ibn Qayyim (1292-1350) outlines the stages of the Muhammad's prophetic career: "For thirteen years after the beginning of his Messengership, he called people to God through preaching, without fighting or Jizyah, and was commanded to restrain himself and to practice patience and forbearance. Then he was commanded to migrate, and later permission was given to fight. Then he was commanded to fight those who fought him, and to restrain himself from those who did not make war with him. Later he was commanded to fight the polytheists until God's religion was fully established."

The idea that one must fight the "polytheists" until "God's religion was fully established" was understood throughout Islamic history as referring to a responsibility Muslims had as an umma to wage war against unbelievers until Sharia was established over them. This was the impetus for the jihadist incursions into North Africa, Europe, Persia, India and elsewhere. Question for John Guardiano: I take it you think that all that was wrong, and was based on a mistaken understanding of the Qur'an and Islam?

4. Al-Suyuti says that the Verse of the Sword (9:5) abrogates no less than 124 more peaceful and tolerant verses of the Qur'an. Tafsir al-Jalalayn asserts that the Qur'an's ninth sura "was sent down when security was removed by the sword." Ibn Kathir declares that Qur'an 9:5 "abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term....No idolater had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah [the ninth sura] was revealed." Ibn Juzayy agrees: the Verse of the Sword's purpose is "abrogating every peace treaty in the Qur'an."

None of them say that the Verse of the Sword applies only to the seventh century.

Question for John Guardiano: I take it that you believe that all these Islamic scholars misunderstood the Qur'an and formulated Islamic teaching incorrectly as a result?

5. A Shafi'i manual of Islamic law that in 1991 was certified by the highest authority in Sunni Islam, Cairo's Al-Azhar University, as conforming "to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community." This manual, 'Umdat al-Salik (available in English as Reliance of the Traveller), spends a considerable amount of time explaining jihad as "war against non-Muslims." It spells out the nature of this warfare in quite specific terms: "the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians . . . until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax." It adds a comment by a Jordanian jurist that corresponds to Muhammad's instructions to call the unbelievers to Islam before fighting them: the caliph wages this war only "provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya) . . . while remaining in their ancestral religions." Also, it says if there is no caliph, Muslims must still wage jihad.

Question for John Guardiano: I take it you believe that the imams of Al-Azhar were wrong and misunderstood Islam when they certified this book as a reliable guide to the true teachings of Sunni Islam?

But perhaps Mr. Guardiano will dislike those questions, for he goes on to say this:

This is not to say that Islam is a religion of peace. Rather it is to say that Islam is far more rich and complicated than the simple caricature of Islam created by vehement right-wing critics like Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch, Andrew McCarthy at National Review Online, and yes, my colleague here at NewsReal Blog, John L. Work. [...]

A better approach would be to follow the counsel of Islamic scholar Daniel Pipes. Pipes urges Western leaders to encourage and promote moderate Islamic thinking and scholarship. This to help promote a moderate reformation of Islam.

But to follow this approach, you first have to believe that Islam has an inherent truth which is worth explicating and developing. I believe that it does; my right-wing critics believe otherwise; and therein lies the crux of our dispute.

Islam has an "inherent truth"? I can't see anyone but a believer in Islam affirming that, so Mr. Guardiano and I do indeed part company on that one. But in any case, he seems to be saying that Islam is not a religion of peace, but that he thinks it can change, and that I think it cannot change. Actually, I have never said that it cannot change, but any realistic appraisal of the prospects for Islamic reform has to take into account such impediments to change as the content of the Qur'an and Sunnah, its traditional interpretation by the schools of Islamic jurisprudence, the death penalty for those who engage in heresy or innovation, and the closure of the gate of ijtihad.

For example, Guardiano quotes Daniel Pipes invoking the Sudanese reformer Mahmud Muhammad Taha, but fails to add that Taha was executed for heresy. In fact, all of the quotations he uses from Pipes show Pipes arguing that moderate Islam can exist, not that it exists now. Guardiano also apparently doesn't know that Pipes has said: "Robert Spencer and I have discussed the perceived differences in our view of Islam. He and I concluded that, although we have different emphases - he deals more with scriptures, I more with history - we have no disagreements."

Anyway, I hope Mr. Guardiano can handle a little mild-mannered criticism, and look forward to his substantive response to these points.

Here's the latest in the Jihad Jane/Jihad Jamie case. "In Ireland, a Hearing on a Plot to Kill a Swedish Cartoonist," by Eamon Quinn and John F. Burns for the New York Times, March 15 (thanks to Bill):

WATERFORD, Ireland -- A late-night court hearing Monday in this quiet Irish town gave new glimpses into the case that American and Irish prosecutors are pursuing against a group of Muslims on both sides of the Atlantic suspected of plotting to kill a Swedish cartoonist who depicted the Prophet Muhammad atop the body of a dog.

Five of the seven people arrested in Ireland a week ago have been released, the last of them shortly before Monday's hearing. But two others, an Algerian man and a Libyan man, were formally charged with relatively minor offenses that lawyers involved in the case said could keep them in custody while more serious charges, including conspiracy to murder, are weighed by Irish prosecutors. The lawyers said charges against the five others were also possible.

The Algerian who appeared in the Waterford court, named as Ali Charaf Damache, 45, was said by police officials to be suspected of being the group's leader. Mr. Damache, a 10-year resident of Ireland, was charged with sending a threatening computer message to another Muslim in Waterford. The Libyan, named as Abdul Salam al Jahani, 32, was charged with using a false name to obtain asylum status in Ireland in 2001. Both were ordered held without bail while an investigation continued.

No reference was made in the 15-minute hearing to the wider circumstances of the case, which has centered in the United States on a 46-year-old Pennsylvania woman, Colleen R. LaRose, a Muslim convert who adopted the pseudonym of JihadJane on the Internet, and has been in custody in Philadelphia since the fall on charges of linking up with militants overseas in a plot to carry out a murder, apparently that of the Swedish cartoonist, Lars Vilks.

The arrests in Ireland drew a second American woman into the case: Jamie Paulin-Ramirez, 31, from Leadville, Colo.. A Muslim convert like Ms. LaRose, Ms. Paulin-Ramirez is the wife of Mr. Damache, the Algerian charged in the Monday's hearing, according to a Waterford lawyer involved in the case, and is several months pregnant. She was one of the seven arrested last Tuesday, but was released on the weekend. [...]

Ms. Paulin-Ramirez's mother, Christine Mott, 59, said in an interview last week in Colorado that her daughter announced her conversion to Islam last Easter and became increasingly estranged from her family....

Hmmm. Now, why is that?

Worth murdering for, they thought

The jihad against free speech, free expression, and free thought continues. "2 charged in 'plot to kill Swedish cartoonist,'" from CNN, March 16:

(CNN) -- Irish authorities said Tuesday they have charged two men who were reportedly part of an international plot to kill a controversial Swedish cartoonist.

The two men appeared in Waterford District Court on Monday night, the Courts Service of Ireland said. While the service refused to confirm whether their case is related to the alleged plot, Irish and British media outlets including The Irish Times reported the connection.

The first man, Ali Charaf Damache, was charged with making a menacing call to an individual.

The other man, Abdul Salem Monsour Khalil al Jahani, was charged with failure to produce a valid passport or other valid document to establish his identity, contrary to the Immigration Act 2004....

An American woman who called herself "Jihad Jane," Colleen LaRose, was indicted in the United States earlier this month for allegedly conspiring to support terrorists and kill a person in a foreign country, namely a resident of Sweden. The U.S. official identified the target to CNN as Lars Vilks, a cartoonist who outraged some with a drawing of the prophet Mohammed.

The indictment against LaRose says she worked with at least five co-conspirators. The U.S. official said the people arrested in Ireland were directly related to the same plot to which LaRose was allegedly connected....

How did they do that? By allegedly dancing and drinking alcohol inside the synagogue -- which sounds as if it could have been an ordinary and reasonable celebration under the circumstances. But Egyptian officials preferred to portray it as the dhimmis getting out of line. After all, how would it look to be rededicating a synagogue in Cairo while their Palestinian brothers are ratcheting up their jihad against Israel?

"Egypt scraps synagogue ceremony after 'provocative' acts," from AFP, March 14 (thanks to all who sent this in):

CAIRO (AFP) - Egypt cancelled the formal opening Sunday of a renovated 19th-century synagogue in Cairo to protest what antiquities chief Zahi Hawass said were "provocative" Jewish and Israeli action.

Hawass and Culture Minister Faruq Hosni were due to attend the event, a week after 150 people, including rabbis and the US and Israeli ambassadors, attended the rededication of the Maimonides synagogue.

Hawass, citing press reports, said in a statement that the cancellation comes after "provocative" acts during the March 7 ceremony in Cairo's ancient Jewish quarters by the Jewish community.

He referred to "dancing and drinking alcohol in the synagogue, as reported by several newspapers" and said these acts "were seen to provoke the feelings of millions of Muslims in Egypt and across the world."

The decision was also taken at "a time when Muslim holy sites in occupied Palestine face assaults from Israeli occupation forces and settlers," Hawass said.

He was referring to clashes at Jerusalem's Al-Aqsa Mosque compound and plans to include two contested West Bank holy shrines on a list of Israeli heritage sites. Hawass said this was also a "provocation."

The synagogue of Maimonides, known in Egypt by its Arabic name of Musa bin Maymun, is named after the 12th century Jewish scholar, philosopher and physician.

Egypt began restoration of its Jewish sites several years ago....