Welcome to the Israel Military Forum. You are currently viewing our Israel Forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, Image Forum and access our other features. By joining our Israel Military Forum you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so
|Register||FAQ||Pictures||Members List||Calendar||Search||Today's Posts||Mark Forums Read|
||Thread Tools||Display Modes|
"Democracy, freedom, and human rights have no place" in Islam
Cleric in Iranian holy city of Qom:
"Democracy, freedom, and human rights have no place" in Islam
He said it. And Khomeini would add: no fun. "No place for democracy and human rights in Islam, says Qom theologian," from AsiaNews, September 8:
Tehran (AsiaNews) - As the world mobilises against the stoning of Sakineh, a 43-year-old woman convicted for adultery and killing her husband, Iranian police continue to threaten and arrest journalists and human rights lawyers. Dozens of university professors are fired and pro-reform students are beaten. The reason is simple. "Democracy, freedom, and human rights have no place" in Islam, said Mesbah Yazdi, who heads Shia Taliban, in a speech reprinted in Rooz, an online Iranian news website.
Speaking before members of paramilitary groups, soldiers and his followers, the cleric said that Iran "is not a place to back down for cultural reasons against people who promote corruption."
In a veiled reference to Sakineh and others, he added, "sexual or moral deviants or promoters of any other kind of corruption must be suppressed."
Mesbah Yadzi is a member of the Association of Teachers of Qom Theological Centre (Jame Modaresin Hoze Elmie Qom) and a great supporter of Ahmadinejad. In fact, "When the president received the supreme leader's confirmation, obeying him is like obeying God," he said.
A similar extremist vision explains recent events in Iran, where dozens of students, followers of pro-reform Ayatollah Dastgheib, who was against to Ahmadinejad's re-election, were beaten in Shiraz's Qoba Mosque.
Pro-democracy activists are also concerned about the firing of 40 professors from Tehran University since March. The activists have slammed the professors' removal, calling it a case of "political cleansing" of the faculties that led the Green Wave movement that came out against the results in last year's presidential election. Indeed, Science Minister Kamran Daneshjoo said repeatedly that the universities would not tolerate professors who are not "in tune with the Islamic Republic regime."
For Mesbah Yazdi, anyone who opposes the Islamic Republic of Iran and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is in fact an "enemy of God" (Mohareb).
Human rights activist Shiva Nazar Ahari (pictured), who is the editor of the Committee of Human Rights Reporters website, has recently found out what that means. Arrested on 14 July 2009, a month after Ahmadinejad's re-election, she was released on bail on 23 September of the same year. Re-arrested on 20 December and charged with a "mohareb", a very serious crime in Iran, she is still waiting to go to a trial, expected very soon.
Badrolssadat Mofidi, secretary general of the Iranian Journalists Association, is another prominent figure accused of being a "mohareb". He was recently sentenced to six years in prison and five years without the right to work as a journalist.The penalties for "waging war against Allah" and "striving after corruption in the land" are, per Qur'an 5:33: "execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land."
Both, of course, are awfully flexible accusations to level, made-to-order for a reign of terror through Sharia.
Islam: the Communism of Today
Islam: the Communism of Today
Why the communist habit of deceit and double-speak now haunts us all
by Geert Wilders
[Editor's note: the following is a speech Geert Wilders gave in Berlin on October 2, 2010.]
I am very happy to be here in Berlin today. As you know, the invitation which my friend René Stadtkewitz extended to me, has cost him his membership of the CDU group in the Berlin Parliament. René, however, did not give in to the pressure. He did not betray his convictions. His dismissal prompted René to start a new political party. I wish him all the best. As you may have heard, the past weeks were extremely busy for me. Earlier this week we succeeded in forging a minority government of the Liberals and the Christian-Democrats which will be supported by my party. This is an historic event for the Netherlands. I am very proud of having helped to achieve this. At this very moment the Christian-Democrat Party conference is deciding whether or not to approves this coalition. If they do, we will be able to rebuild our country, preserve our national identity and offer our children a better future.
Despite my busy schedule at home, however, I insisted on coming to Berlin, because Germany, too, needs a political movement to defend German identity and to oppose the Islamization of Germany. Chancellor Angela Merkel says that the Islamization of Germany is inevitable. She conveys the message that citizens have to be prepared for more changes as a result of immigration. She wants the Germans to adapt to this situation. The Christian-Democrat leader said: “More than before mosques will be an integral part of our cities.”
My friends, we should not accept the unacceptable as inevitable without trying to turn the tide. It is our duty as politicians to preserve our nations for our children. I hope that René’s movement will be as successful as my own Partij voor de Vrijheid, as Oskar Freysinger’s Schweizerische Volkspartei in Switzerland, as Pia Kjaersgaard’s Dansk Folkeparti in Denmark, and similar movements elsewhere.
My good friend Pia recently spoke in Sweden at the invitation of the Sverigedemokraterna. She said: “I have not come to mingle in Swedish domestic politics because that is for the Swedish people to be concerned with. No, I have come because in spite of certain differences the Swedish debate in many ways reminds me of the Danish debate 10-15 years ago. And I have come to Sweden because it is also a concern to Denmark. We cannot sit with our hands in our lap and be silent witnesses to the political development in Sweden.”
The same applies for me as a Dutchman with respect to Germany. I am here because Germany matters to the Netherlands and the rest of the world, and because we cannot establish an International Freedom Alliance without a strong German partner.
Dear friends, tomorrow is the Day of German Unity. Tomorrow exactly twenty years ago, your great nation was reunified after the collapse of the totalitarian Communist ideology. The Day of German Unity is an important day for the whole of Europe. Germany is the largest democracy in Europe. Germany is Europe’s economic powerhouse. The well-being and prosperity of Germany is a benefit to all of us, because the well-being and prosperity of Germany is a prerequisite for the well-being and prosperity of Europe.
Today I am here, however, to warn you for looming disunity. Germany’s national identity, its democracy and economic prosperity, is being threatened by the political ideology of Islam. In 1848, Karl Marx began his Communist Manifesto with the famous words: “A specter is haunting Europe – the specter of communism.” Today, another specter is haunting Europe. It is the specter of Islam. This danger, too, is political. Islam is not merely a religion, as many people seem to think: Islam is mainly a political ideology.
This insight is not new.
I quote from the bestselling book and BBC television series The Triumph of the West which the renowned Oxford historian J.M. Roberts wrote in 1985: “Although we carelessly speak of Islam as a ‘religion’; that word carries many overtones of the special history of western Europe. The Muslim is primarily a member of a community, the follower of a certain way, an adherent to a system of law, rather than someone holding particular theological views.” The Flemish Professor Urbain Vermeulen, the former president of the European Union of Arabists and Islamicists, too, points out that “Islam is primarily a legal system, a law,” rather than a religion.
The American political scientist Mark Alexander writes that “One of our greatest mistakes is to think of Islam as just another one of the world’s great religions. We shouldn’t. Islam is politics or it is nothing at all, but, of course, it is politics with a spiritual dimension, … which will stop at nothing until the West is no more, until the West has … been well and truly Islamized.”
These are not just statements by opponents of Islam. Islamic scholars say the same thing. There cannot be any doubt about the nature of Islam to those who have read the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith. Abul Ala Maududi, the influential 20th century Pakistani Islamic thinker, wrote – I quote, emphasizing that these are not my words but those of a leading Islamic scholar – “Islam is not merely a religious creed [but] a revolutionary ideology and jihad refers to that revolutionary struggle … to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth, which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam.”
Ali Sina, an Iranian Islamic apostate who lives in Canada, points out that there is one golden rule that lies at the heart of every religion – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. In Islam, this rule only applies to fellow believers, but not to Infidels. Ali Sina says “The reason I am against Islam is not because it is a religion, but because it is a political ideology of imperialism and domination in the guise of religion. Because Islam does not follow the Golden Rule, it attracts violent people.”
A dispassionate study of the beginnings of Islamic history reveals clearly that Muhammad’s objective was first to conquer his own people, the Arabs, and to unify them under his rule, and then to conquer and rule the world. That was the original cause; it was obviously political and was backed by military force. “I was ordered to fight all men until they say ‘There is no god but Allah,’” Muhammad said in his final address. He did so in accordance with the Koranic command in sura 8:39: “Fight them until there is no more dissension and the religion is entirely Allah’s.”
According to the mythology, Muhammad founded Islam in Mecca after the Angel Gabriel visited him for the first time in the year 610. The first twelve years of Islam, when Islam was religious rather than political, were not a success. In 622, Muhammad emigrated to Yathrib, a predominantly Jewish oasis, with his small band of 150 followers. There he established the first mosque in history, took over political power, gave Yathrib the name of Medina, which means the “City of the Prophet,” and began his career as a military and a political leader who conquered all of Arabia. Tellingly, the Islamic calendar starts with the hijra, the migration to Medina – the moment when Islam became a political movement.
After Muhammad’s death, based upon his words and deeds, Islam developed Sharia, an elaborate legal system which justified the repressive governance of the world by divine right – including rules for jihad and for the absolute control of believers and non-believers. Sharia is the law of Saudi Arabia and Iran, among other Islamic states. It is also central to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which in article 24 of its Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, proclaims that “all rights and freedoms are subject to the Islamic Sharia.” The OIC is not a religious institution; it is a political body. It constitutes the largest voting block in the United Nations and writes reports on so-called “Islamophobia” in Western Countries which accuse us of human rights violations. To speak in biblical terms: They look for a speck in our eye, but deny the beam in their own.
Under Sharia law people in the conquered territories have no legal rights, not even the right to life and to own property, unless they convert to Islam.
Before I continue, and in order to avoid any misunderstandings, I want to emphasize that I am talking about Islam, not about Muslims. I always make a clear distinction between the people and the ideology, between Muslims and Islam. There are many moderate Muslims, but the political ideology of Islam is not moderate and has global ambitions. It aims to impose Islamic law or Sharia upon the whole world. The way to achieve this is through jihad. The good news is that millions of Muslims around the world – including many in Germany and the Netherlands – do not follow the directives of Sharia, let alone engage in jihad. The bad news, however, is that those who do are prepared to use all available means to achieve their ideological, revolutionary goal.
In 1954, in his essay Communism and Islam, Professor Bernard Lewis spoke of “the totalitarianism, of the Islamic political tradition.” Professor Lewis said that “The traditional Islamic division of the world into the House of Islam and the House of War, … has obvious parallels in the Communist view of world affairs. … The aggressive fanaticism of the believer is the same.”
The American political scientist Mark Alexander states that the nature of Islam differs very little – and only in detail rather than style – from despicable and totalitarian political ideologies such as National-Socialism and Communism. He lists the following characteristics for these three ideologies.
* They use political purges to “cleanse” society of what they considere undesirable;
* They tolerate only a single political party. Where Islam allows more parties, it insists that all parties be Islamic ones;
* They coerce the people along the road that it must follow;
* They obliterate the liberal distinction between areas of private judgment and of public control;
* They turn the educational system into an apparatus for the purpose of universal indoctrination;
* They lay down rules for art, for literature, for science and for religion;
* They subdue people who are given second class status;
* They induce a frame of mind akin to fanaticism. Adjustment takes place by struggle and dominance;
* They are abusive to their opponents and regard any concession on their own part as a temporary expedient and on a rival’s part as a sign of weakness;
* They regard politics as an expression of power;
* They are anti-Semitic.
There is one more striking parallel, but this is not a characteristic of the three political ideologies, but one of the West. It is the apparent inability of the West to see the danger. The prerequisite to understanding political danger, is a willingness to see the truth, even if it is unpleasant.
Unfortunately, modern Western politicians seem to have lost this capacity. Our inability leads us to reject the logical and historical conclusions to be drawn from the facts, though we could, and should know better. What is wrong with modern Western man that we make the same mistake over and over again?
There is no better place to ponder this question than here in Berlin, the former capital of the evil empire of Nazi Germany and a city which was held captive by the so-called German “Democratic” Republic for over forty years.
When the citizens of Eastern Europe rejected Communism in 1989, they were inspired by dissidents such as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Václav Havel, Vladimir Bukovsky, and others, who told them that people have a right, but also an obligation, to “live within the truth.” Freedom requires eternal vigilance; so it is with truth. Solzhenitsyn added, however, that “truth is seldom sweet; it is almost invariably bitter.” Let us face the bitter truth: We have lost our capacity to see the danger and understand the truth because we no longer value freedom.
Politicians from almost all establishment politicians today are facilitating Islamization. They are cheering for every new Islamic school, Islamic bank, Islamic court. They regard Islam as being equal to our own culture. Islam or freedom? It does not really matter to them. But it does matter to us. The entire establisment elite – universities, churches, trade unions, the media, politicians – are putting our hard-earned liberties at risk. They talk about equality, but amazingly fail to see how in Islam women have fewer rights than men and infidels have fewer rights than adherents of Islam.
Are we about to repeat the fatal mistake of the Weimar Republic? Are we succumbing to Islam because our commitment to freedom is already dead? No, it will not happen. We are not like Frau Merkel. We do not accept Islamization as inevitable. We have to keep freedom alive. And, to the extent that we have already lost it, we must reclaim it in our democratic elections. That is why we need political parties that defend freedom. To support such parties I have established the International Freedom Alliance.
As you know, I am standing trial in the Netherlands. On Monday, I have to go to court again and I will have to spend most of the coming month there. I have been brought to court because of my opinions on Islam and because I have voiced these opinions in speeches, articles and in my documentary film Fitna. I live under constant police protection because Islamic extremists want to assassinate me, and I am in court because the Dutch establishment – most of them non-Muslims – wants to silence me.
I have been dragged to court because in my country freedom can no longer be fully enjoyed. Unlike America, we do not have a First Amendment which guarantees people the freedom to express their opinions and foster public debate by doing so. Unlike America, in Europe the national state, and increasingly the European Union, prescribes how citizens – including democratically elected politicians such as myself – should think and what we are allowed to say.
One of the things we are no longer allowed to say is that our culture is superior to certain other cultures. This is seen as a discriminatory statement – a statement of hatred even. We are indoctrinated on a daily basis, in the schools and through the media, with the message that all cultures are equal and that, if one culture is worse than all the rest, it is our own. We are inundated with feelings of guilt and shame about our own identity and what we stand for. We are exhorted to respect everyone and everything, except ourselves. That is the message of the Left and the politically-correct ruling establishment. They want us to feel so ashamed about our own identity that we refuse to fight for it.
The detrimental obsession of our cultural and political elites with Western guilt reinforces the view which Islam has of us. The Koran says that non-Muslims are kuffar (the plural of kafir), which literally means “rejecters” or “ingrates.” Hence, infidels are “guilty.” Islam teaches that in our natural state we have all been born as believers. Islam teaches that if we are not believers today this is by our own or by our forefathers’ fault. Subsequently, we are always kafir – guilty – because either we or our fathers are apostates. And, hence, according to some, we deserve subjugation.
Our contemporary leftist intellectuals are blind to the dangers of Islam.
Former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky argues that after the fall of communism, the West failed to expose those who had collaborated with the Communists by advocating policies of détente, improved relations, relaxation of international tension, peaceful coexistence. He points out that the Cold War was “a war we never won. We never even fought it. … Most of the time the West engaged in a policy of appeasement toward the Soviet bloc – and appeasers don’t win wars.”
Islam is the Communism of today. But, because of our failure to come clean with Communism, we are unable to deal with it, trapped as we are in the old Communist habit of deceit and double-speak that used to haunt the countries in the East and that now haunts all of us. Because of this failure, the same leftist people who turned a blind eye to Communism then, turn a blind eye to Islam today. They are using exactly the same arguments in favor of détente, improved relations, and appeasement as before. They argue that our enemy is as peace-loving as we are, that if we meet him half-way he will do the same, that he only asks respect and that if we respect him he will respect us. We even hear a repetition of the old moral equivalence mantra. They used to say that Western “imperialism” was as bad as Soviet imperialism; they are now saying that Western “imperialism” is as bad as Islamic terrorism.
In my speech near Ground Zero in New York on September 11, I emphasized that we must stop the “Blame the West, Blame America”-game which Islamic spokesmen are playing with us. And we must stop playing this game ourselves. I have the same message for you. It is an insult to tell us that we are guilty and deserve what is happening to us. We do not deserve becoming strangers in our own land. We should not accept such insults. First of all, Western civilization is the freest and most prosperous on earth, which is why so many immigrants are moving here, instead of Westerners moving there. And secondly, there is no such thing as collective guilt. Free individuals are free moral agents who are responsible for their own deeds only.
I am very happy to be here in Berlin today to give this message which is extremely important, especially in Germany. Whatever happened in your country in the past, the present generation is not responsible for it.
Whatever happened in the past, it is no excuse for punishing the Germans today. But it is also no excuse for you to refuse to fight for your own identity. Your only responsibility is to avoid the mistakes of the past. It is your duty to stand with those threatened by the ideology of Islam, such as the State of Israel and your Jewish compatriots. The Weimar Republic refused to fight for freedom and was overrun by a totalitarian ideology, with catastrophic consequences for Germany, the rest of Europe and the world. Do not fail to fight for your freedom today.
I am happy to be in your midst today because it seems that twenty years after German reunification, a new generation no longer feels guilty for being German. The current and very intense debate about Thilo Sarrazin’s recent book is an indication of the fact that Germany is coming to terms with itself.
I have not yet read Dr. Sarrazin’s book myself, but I understand that while the ruling politically-correct establishment is almost unanimously critical of his thesis and he lost his job, a large majority of Germans acknowledges that Dr. Sarrazin is addressing important and pressing issues. “Germany is abolishing itself,” warns Sarrazin, and he calls on the Germans to halt this process. The enormous impact of his book indicates that many Germans feel the same way. The people of Germany do not want Germany to be abolished, despite all the political indoctrination they have been subjected to. Germany is no longer ashamed to assert its national pride.
In these difficult times, where our national identity is under threat, we must stop feeling guilty about who we are. We are not “kafir,” we are not guilty. Like other peoples, Germans have the right to remain who they are. Germans must not become French, nor Dutch, nor Americans, nor Turks. They should remain Germans. When the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan visited your country in 2008, he told the Turks living here that they had to remain Turks. He literally said that “assimilation is a crime against humanity.” Erdogan would have been right if he had been addressing the Turks in Turkey. However, Germany is the land of the Germans. Hence, the Germans have a right to demand that those who come to live in Germany assimilate; they have the right – no they have a duty to their children – to demand that newcomers respect the German identity of the German nation and Germany’s right to preserve its identity.
We must realize that Islam expands in two ways. Since it is not a religion, conversion is only a marginal phenomenon. Historically, Islam expanded either by military conquest or by using the weapon of hijra, immigration. Muhammad conquered Medina through immigration. Hijra is also what we are experiencing today. The Islamization of Europe continues all the time. But the West has no strategy for dealing with the Islamic ideology, because our elites say that we must adapt to them rather than the other way round.
There is a lesson which we can learn in this regard from America, the freest nation on earth. Americans are proud of their nation, its achievements and its flag. We, too, should be proud of our nation. The United States has always been a nation of immigrants. U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt was very clear about the duty of immigrants. Here is what he said: “We should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else … But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American. … There can be no divided allegiance here. … We have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”
It is not up to me to define what Germany’s national identity consists of. That is entirely up to you. I do know, however, that German culture, like that of neighboring countries, such as my own, is rooted in judeo-christian and humanist values. Every responsible politician has a political obligation to preserve these values against ideologies which threaten them. A Germany full of mosques and veiled women is no longer the Germany of Goethe, Schiller and Heine, Bach and Mendelssohn. It will be a loss to us all. It is important that you cherish and preserve your roots as a nation. Otherwise you will not be able to safeguard your identity; you will be abolished as a people, and you will lose your freedom. And the rest of Europe will lose its freedom with you.
My friends, when Ronald Reagan came to a divided Berlin 23 years ago he uttered the historic words „Mister Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” President Reagan was not an appeaser, but a man who spoke the truth because he loved freedom. Today, we, too, must tear down a wall. It is not a wall of concrete, but of denial and ignorance about the real nature of Islam. The International Freedom Alliance aims to coordinate and stimulate these efforts.
Because we speak the truth, voters have given my party, the Partij voor de Vrijheid, and other parties, such as the Dansk Folkeparti and the Schweizerische Volkspartei, the power to influence the political decision process, whether that be in opposition or in government or by supporting a minority government – as we want to do in the Netherlands. President Reagan showed that by speaking the truth one can change the course of history. He showed that there is no need to despair. Never! Just do your duty. Be not afraid. Speak the truth. Defend Freedom. Together we can preserve freedom, together we must preserve freedom, and together, my friends, we will be able to preserve freedom.
Age of the Facebook Fatwah »
Age of the Facebook Fatwah
How powerful is the Internet in aiding Islamist death threats?
by Daniel Pipes
[This piece is reprinted from DanielPipes.org]
Reciprocal death sentences raging between Yemen and the United States offer a glimpse of warfare in the internet age.
The topic opens with South Park, an iconoclastic adult cartoon program on Comedy Central, which in April mocked the prohibition on depicting the Islamic prophet Muhammad. An obscure website, RevolutionMuslim.com (whose proprietor was subsequently arrested on terrorism-related charges), responded by threatening the show’s writers, Trey Parker and Matt Stone. Panicked, Comedy Central censored further mention of Muhammad.
Enter Molly Norris, a cartoonist at the Seattle Weekly, who showed solidarity with Parker and Stone by posting a facetious “Everyone Draw Muhammad Day” appeal on Facebook, hoping that a host of caricaturists would “counter Comedy Central’s message about feeling afraid.” To Norris’ surprise, dismay, and confusion, others took her idea seriously, prompting Facebook campaigns for and against her “day” and the Pakistani government temporarily to block Facebook. Norris disowned her initiative, apologized for it, and even befriended the local Council on American-Islamic Relations representative, to little avail.
Anwar al-Awlaki, an Islamist leader in Yemen, responded in July by issuing a death sentence on Norris, inaccurately but pungently called a fatwa. On consulting with the police, Norris in September not only went underground but “went ghost” and disappeared entirely, including her name and her profession.
Awlaki’s “fatwa” on Norris, however, is only half the story. The other half concerns a U.S. government “fatwa” on Awlaki.
Awlaki was born in New Mexico in 1971 to well-connected Muslim Yemeni parents. His father, Nasser, studied and worked in the United States until 1978, when the family returned to Yemen. Anwar went to the United States as a student in 1991 and spent the next decade in various degree programs (engineering, education), only to emerge as an Al-Qaeda-style Islamist figure, comparable to Osama bin Laden both in his ideological fanaticism and his operational involvement in terrorism. Arrested in connection with the 9/11 attacks, he was inexplicably released and allowed to move to a remote region of Yemen, beyond government control, where he currently lives.
U.S. law enforcement connects Awlaki to several violent attacks on Americans, including the Ft. Hood shootings, the attempted bombing of a Northwest flight approaching Detroit, and the Times Square bomber. Awlaki’s terrorist record earned him a unique distinction: in April, for the first time in the nearly 250-year history of the United States, the government placed him on a “kill list,” making him the only U.S. citizen to be condemned to death by his own government without benefit of a legal process. Both the military and the intelligence services are targeting him; as one unnamed official puts it, “he’s in everybody’s sights.”
This extraordinary trading of fatwas prompts several observations. In response, his father initiated in August, with help from the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights, a lawsuit against the U.S. government that challenges the targeting of Awlaki as illegal.
First, Norris and all Americans currently live under the “Rushdie Rules,” which punish whoever disrespects Islam, Muhammad, or the Koran. Make fun of Muhammad and you’re on your own. Local and national politicians had nothing to say about her plight. Journalists, usually keen to protect one of their own, went silent. No organization sprung up to raise money for her protection.
Second, the internet stands at the heart of this entire episode. It turned Norris’ jokey idea into an international incident, brought news of it to Awlaki in remote Yemen, and allowed him to direct his American operatives. A mere twenty years ago, none of this could have taken place.
Third, the internet and Islamism have together privatized war. At will, an American living in Yemen can disrupt the life of an American in Washington State. The U.S. government has declared war on a citizen.
Fourth, Awlaki is a plain terrorist, sowing death and disruption, whereas the U.S. government’s “kill list” is defensive. One is evil, the other is moral.
Fifth, why the inconsistency, whereby the U.S. government permits itself “targeted killings” but denies this tool to Israel?
Finally, Awlaki stands at an unprecedented crossroads of death declarations, with his targeting Norris even as the U.S. government targets him. This is as startling in an Islamic context as it is in an American one. The boundaries of warfare are being stretched in novel, strange, and frightening ways.
Muslim Brotherhood top dog: The U.S. is now experiencing the beginning of its end
Muslim Brotherhood top dog: "The U.S. is now experiencing the beginning of its end, and is heading towards its demise"
He said it. He must be a Misunderstander of Islam, also: he said that Muslims "need to understand that the improvement and change that the [Muslim] nation seeks can only be attained through jihad and sacrifice and by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death just as the enemies pursue life."
"Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide: 'The U.S. Is Now Experiencing the Beginning of Its End'; Improvement and Change in the Muslim World 'Can Only Be Attained Through Jihad and Sacrifice,'" from MEMRI, October 6:
In one of his recent weekly sermons, titled "How Islam Confronts the Oppression and Tyranny [against the Muslims]," Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Muhammad Badi' accused the Arab and Muslim regimes of employing tyranny against their peoples, of avoiding confrontation with the Muslims' real enemies - the Zionist entity and the U.S. - and of disregarding Allah's commandment to wage jihad against the infidels. [...] Following are excerpts from Badi's sermon, which was posted on the Muslim Brotherhood's official website:
Congressman Keith Ellison (D) likens resistance to Islamic supremacism to racism
Congressman Keith Ellison (D-Muslim Brotherhood) likens resistance to Islamic supremacism to racism
As I noted in December 2008, when it was first revealed that Ellison's Hajj was paid for with $13,350 from the Muslim American Society:
The Muslim Brotherhood "must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions." -- "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America," by Mohamed Akram, May 19, 1991.
What does that have to do with Congressman Ellison? Everything. The Muslim American Society paid for his Hajj. And what is the Muslim American Society? The Muslim Brotherhood.
"In recent years, the U.S. Brotherhood operated under the name Muslim American Society, according to documents and interviews. One of the nation's major Islamic groups, it was incorporated in Illinois in 1993 after a contentious debate among Brotherhood members." -- Chicago Tribune, 2004.
Imagine if a conservative Congressman had taken a trip that had been paid for by a Christian group that was, according to one of its own documents, dedicated to "eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house" so that Christian law would replace the U.S. Constitution. I expect we would hear more of an outcry than we ever heard about Ellison's Brotherhood-funded hajj.
Yet I am pretty much the only one calling attention to Ellison's having taken money from the Brotherhood. And so he duly smears me here in the Washington Post, saying that I am "well known, even famous, for spewing anti-Muslim hate," and likening me to David Duke. Well, first off, let's remember that David Duke is pro-jihad, as anyone who knows how viciously antisemitic and hateful the jihad ideology is will understand immediately. But also remember that the Muslim Brotherhood is a pro-Sharia group -- i.e., it opposes the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights before the law of women with men and non-Muslims with Muslims. I, on the other hand, am fighting to defend those rights against Islamic supremacists who would chip away at them. So who is really fronting for "hate," Congressman -- you or I? I'd say you.
An aside: several people have written to me asking why I was so quiet during the ABC "This Week" panel hosted by nakedly biased pseudo-journalist Christiane Amanpour. In fact, I wasn't: they taped two hours and only broadcast one, cutting out much of what I said. I also learned later that my microphone was off, such that I could be heard commenting in the background, being picked up faintly on other people's mics, but what I said was consequently too faint to be heard on the show itself. Par for the course for the mainstream media.
Oddly enough, Ellison is unhappy about the ABC show, even though it was a patent whitewash of the jihad and Islamic supremacism. "Should we fear Islam?," by Congressman Keith Ellison in the Washington Post, October 7:
At a time when our nation is seeing a rise in intolerant behavior, crossing every cultural line, whether based on race, religion or sexual orientation, we seem simultaneously stuck with a national news media that is preoccupied with conflict and controversy when we desperately need one that weighs facts and reports fairly. A recent national news program reinforced these concerns. Let me explain what I mean. Imagine a respected TV show or news magazine article with the title, "Should Americans Fear Black People?"...A nice dodge, but what race is Islam again?
Now replace black with Muslim, and that's just about how ABC News treated Islam and Muslims this past weekend, on 20/20 and This Week with Christiane Amanpour.Neither is Ellison shedding any light on this important topic when he sidesteps the real issues of the spread or prevalence of the Islamic jihad ideology among Muslims in America, and of the increase in jihad attacks in the U.S. in 2009 and 2010. Whining about the media and "Islamophobia" is a familiar and tired dodge -- it's just more of the usual finger-pointing and evasion of responsibility.
Throwing Apostates to the Wolves
Why do Islamic activists refuse to sign a petition repudiating Islamic laws condemning former Muslims to death?
by Nonie Darwish
Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of the Muslim Brotherhood founder, is lecturing all over the U.S. about how Muslims are the new “blacks” in America, victims of human rights violations equivalent to Jim Crow or worse. But while Muslims are demanding more and more special treatment, they seem to be conveniently ignoring what their religion is doing to apostates, Christians, and other minorities in 57 Muslim countries around the world.
The atmosphere in Egypt against Christians and Muslim apostates has recently reached a boiling point. Al Jazeerah TV recently broadcast a two-hour special attacking former Muslims, especially Naglaa El Imam, accusing them of proselytizing to Muslims. The program also described these individuals’ “horrific” sins against Allah as defined under Sharia. Al Jazeerah’s guest on that show was Islamist Dr. Selim el-Awah, former Secretary General of the World Council of Muslim Scholars. Without any evidence, El-Awah recklessly accused the Coptic Christian Church of stockpiling weapons and ammunition in monasteries in preparation for war against the Muslim majority in Egypt. He also accused the Church of concealing and aiding Muslim converts to Christianity — like a slave owner accusing a member of the underground railroad of harboring runaways. The degree of incitement against the Christian and former Muslim minority, who only constitute about 15% of the population, was highly intimidating. Rumors spread rapidly all over Egypt that by the end of the current Mubarak administration, Egyptian Copts and apostates will suffer a massive massacre.
Despite the highly tense situation, and for the first time in Islam’s recent history, former Muslims are openly defying Sharia’s death penalty for apostasy. Former Muslim Kamal Fahmi, who lives in Cairo, heads the group “Set My People Free” and has openly launched an appeal to the Arab League and the international community for the right of religious freedom. Currently, being a Muslim is decided by birth, and leaving Islam is against the law in Egypt and in the majority of Muslim countries. Fahmy, who is a member of FormerMuslimsUnited.org, recently wrote a letter to the Secretary General of the Arab League, Amre Moussa, demanding the right of Muslims to choose their religion. Here is Fahmy’s letter:
Mr. General Secretary of the League of Arab Stateshttp://frontpagemag.com/2010/10/12/t...to-the-wolves/
Muslim Brotherhood: They Are Taking Society Backward with a Desert Mindset
Egyptian Screenwriter Wahid Hamed Attacks the Muslim Brotherhood:
They Are Taking Society Backward with "Notions Stemming from a Desert Mindset"
View it all> http://www.memri.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/63/0/2634.htm
Islamic antisemitism: Fourteen Centuries of Hatred
Fourteen Centuries of Hatred
This book smashes a common historical myth: that Jews generally met with tolerance and friendliness in Islamic lands. Bat Ye'or's work on Islamic antisemitism in relation to dhimmitude has been groundbreaking, and stands as essential today even as academic poseurs and thieves pay backhanded tribute to it by stealing it and claiming credit for it. At the same time, however, there has not been any serious scholarly study focused wholly and exclusively on Islamic antisemitism as such; Martin Gilbert has now supplied this need with In Ishmael's House.
"Fourteen centuries of hatred," by Jonathan Kay in the National Post, October 12:
When Israeli planes smashed Egyptian airfields in the opening hours of the Six-Day War, announcers on Radio Cairo took to the airwaves, calling on Arabs in neighbouring countries to attack any Jews they could find. In the Libyan capital of Tripoli, then home to about 5,000 Jews, rioters responded with an orgy of murder, arson and looting that lasted three days. Even after the survivors had fled to Israel and the West, leaving Libya effectively judenrein, the anti-Semitic bloodlust remained unquenched. It was "the unavoidable duty of the city councils," opined one Libyan newspaper, "to remove [Jewish] cemeteries immediately, and throw the bodies of the dead, which even in their eternal rest soil our country, into the depths of the sea ... Only then can the hatred of the Libyan people toward the Jews be satiated."http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/10/is...of-hatred.html
One Nation Under Allah? »
One Nation Under Allah?
All religions are equal, but aren't some religions more equal than others?
by William Kilpatrick
President Eisenhower famously observed that “our form of government has no sense unless it is founded on a deeply felt religious faith, and I don’t care what it is.” Now that we are beginning to see the consequences when Muslims act on their deeply felt faith, it’s time to revisit Eisenhower’s statement. The question is, can we still afford to take an “I don’t care what it is” attitude toward religion? In short, does the content of a religion matter? Or are we to assume that all religions share the same essential truths, as Eisenhower seemed to assume?
It’s ironic that the part of Eisenhower’s statement which evoked criticism in the early 1950’s would pass almost unnoticed today, while the part that seemed unremarkable then would be challenged in many quarters today. When Eisenhower said, “our form of government has no sense unless it is founded on a deeply felt religious faith,” he was merely echoing a widespread belief. Even William O. Douglas, the most liberal member of the Supreme Court at the time, and not a particularly religious man, opined in a 1952 decision that “We are a religious people, whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.” Since then, however, we’ve grown accustomed to the notion that religion ought to have little or no influence on our government and institutions. More and more, religion is looked upon as something that should be confined to the private sphere. As a result, religion has been pushed steadily out of public life—one Christmas crèche, one school prayer, one court decision at a time. These days, most of our institutions, particularly the press, the courts, and the schools, seem to presume that secularism is the officially established belief.
Conversely, the part of Eisenhower’s statement that caused many to snicker in the 1950’s would strike most today as self-evidently true. Numerous priests, pastors, rabbis, and theologians took Eisenhower to task for adding, “and I don’t care what it is” to his endorsement of religion. Long before the threat of Islamization, thoughtful Americans realized that the content of a religion mattered very much. They protested that a vague “faith in faith” would not be enough to sustain our form of society in difficult times.
By contrast, after several decades of multicultural indoctrination we have now reached a pass where “I don’t care what it is” seems the height of enlightened wisdom. Our present society is so thoroughly invested in the doctrine of cultural equivalence that hardly anyone dares to publicly express a preference or partiality for one religion over another—except, of course, if the religion happens to be Islam. In that case the neutrality rule seems dispensable. For example, New York’s city fathers granted almost immediate approval to the Ground Zero mosque project, but after nine years, the plan to rebuild St. Nicholas Orthodox Church, which was destroyed by the 9/11 blast, has met with nothing but opposition. But, apart from the occasional favoritism shown to Islam, the notion that all religions are equally OK suits us just fine.
Still, the introduction of Islam into the American equation forces us to look more closely than we ever have before at the church/state question. Is the state supposed to ignore religion, or should it encourage it? Are some religions more conducive than others to a healthy social order?
Eisenhower’s famous statement provides a good starting point for framing some answers. “Ike” was right in saying our form of government doesn’t make sense without a religious foundation. The Declaration of Independence, for instance, has religion written all over it. No matter how you parse it, it’s difficult to read “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” “endowed by their Creator,” “appealing to the Divine Judge of the World,” and “a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence” as an endorsement of secularism. And the benefits of a religious foundation don’t end with the establishment of inalienable rights for individual citizens. Religion provides a service to the state, as well; a service that the state can’t perform for itself—at least, not very successfully. What is it? In brief, the sacred realm makes sense out of life. Religious faith imparts a conviction of ultimate meaning. And this, in turn, is good for the state because people with meaningful lives tend to be better behaved citizens.
“Ah, yes!” exclaims the half-educated leftist, “Religion—the opium of the people!” Not quite. Marx, who had a shallow understanding of religion, thought of religion as an escapist fantasy—an opium dream devised to keep people in a state of passivity. With their eyes focused on the next world, said Marx, believers wouldn’t work to change this one. But actual religious people aren’t like that. The more actively people practice their faith, the more likely they will be involved in trying to improve their community. That’s not just a theory, it’s been shown by a number of studies. Just as importantly, religious people feel a duty to improve themselves. Christians, for example, are supposed to try to conform their lives to Christ. The upshot is that people who take their religion seriously have strong incentives to practice virtue and avoid vice. All told, people who learn to govern themselves out of religious motives are better candidates for self-government than people who don’t practice self-restraint. This is what John Adams meant when he said “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”
Thus, a society that hopes to maintain a free and self-governing citizenry will want to do everything it can to encourage and foster religion. Just because the government shouldn’t be in the business of establishing a specific religion, doesn’t mean it should be neutral as between religion and irreligion. If, as Adams wrote, our Constitution would only work with a moral and religious people, then it makes sense for the state to do what it can to provide a favorable climate for religion—as it does, for example, by providing tax exempt status to churches. Joe Sobran once made the point that although the First Amendment right to a free press implies a right not to read, along with the right to read, no one ever suggests that the state should remain neutral as between reading and non-reading. Reading, like religion, has its dangers but, on the whole, literacy is good for the health of a society. Thus, for example, lessons in reading and writing are not optional for the elementary school set.
As President Eisenhower correctly noted, our form of government doesn’t make much sense apart from “deeply felt religious faith.” But exactly what religion are we talking about? Will any “deeply felt faith” do? Or were Eisenhower, Douglas, and the rest implicitly assuming a Judeo-Christian framework?
It’s the second part of Eisenhower’s statement that is problematic—the “and I don’t care what it is” part. The question is, are religions interchangeable? Will any religion provide a proper foundation for our form of government? Does every religion confer equal benefits to society and to individuals? Suppose Eisenhower had said “Our form of government has no sense unless it is founded on a deeply held religious faith such as Islam?” It would sound strange, to say the least. And it’s a good bet that Islam was pretty far from Eisenhower’s thoughts on the occasion of his speech. The man who named the war against the Nazis “the Crusade in Europe” was obviously thinking of another religion when he made his famous statement.
How about Justice William O. Douglas? When he said, “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being,” which Supreme Being did he have in mind? Considering that he was speaking about the American people and their institutions, it’s highly unlikely that he was thinking of Allah.
According to the Declaration of Independence, all men are created equal, but are all Supreme Beings equal? The Declaration states that men are “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights,” but which Creator is the Declaration referring to? It would make no sense to claim that Allah would qualify for the position, because in Islam all men are not created equal. Muslims, who are described in the Koran as “the best of people,” are considered to be decidedly superior to non-Muslims. For example, under Shariah law a Muslim who kills another Muslim may have to pay with his life, but a Muslim who kills a non-Muslim need only pay “blood money” to the murdered man’s relatives. Islamic charity isn’t dispensed equally, either. It’s only meant for other Muslims. During the recent flooding in Pakistan, police and local clerics refused aid and shelter to Christians and Hindus, despite the fact that the majority of relief money and supplies came from non-Muslim countries. “With charity toward all” is an alien concept in much of the Muslim world.
The Supreme Being as depicted in the Koran is an entirely different sort of being from the one depicted in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Although a lot of Christians like to say that “We all worship the same God,” the Koran explicitly rejects Christianity and the Christian notion of God. It does this on several occasions and in no uncertain terms. The Jesus of the Koran, for example, seems to have been introduced into it for the sole purpose of denying the claims of Jesus of Nazareth.
In any event, Muslims are not called to the imitation of the Muslim Jesus, but to the imitation of Muhammad. In Islamic tradition he is considered the perfect man, the supreme model of conduct. Just as Christians are supposed to conform their lives to Christ, Muslims are expected to conform their lives to Muhammad. Unfortunately, for those who think that religions are interchangeable, the imitation of Muhammad leads in a very different direction than the imitation of Christ. The imitation of Muhammad leads to unequal treatment of believers and non-believers, to child brides, polygamy, wife beating, stoning for adulterers, the murder of apostates, and various other, shall we say, un-American activities.
Granted, not every American feels called upon to follow Christ, but even lax Christians and non-Christian Americans are the heirs of a culture that was shaped by Christian beliefs. Not everyone practices Christian virtues or recognizes that our moral standards are derived from Jewish and Christian sources, but most Americans recognize that our society benefits when those standards are observed. On the other hand, the taken-for-granted nature of Judeo-Christian standards makes it easy to suppose that what is, in fact, a unique cultural and religious achievement is simply the normal condition of mankind. That’s why for many Americans it’s extremely difficult to imagine what life would be like under an Islamic moral code.
For a long time we’ve had the luxury of not having to think very deeply about the relationship between our form of government and our religious tradition. Now that mosques are popping up all over, it’s time to ask whether our institutions presuppose merely a generic religion or whether they are linked to a specific religious tradition. When John Adams said “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people,” what religion and what morality did he have in mind? Do we really have the luxury of saying “I don’t care what it is?”
A few months ago, Steve Chapman, a columnist for the Chicago Tribune, wrote a piece criticizing opponents of the Ground Zero mosque. In it, Chapman maintained that even if Islam were “inherently violent and totalitarian” it would still deserve the full protection of the First Amendment. Can that really be true? “I may disagree with your head-chopping policy, but I will defend to the death your right to exercise it?” Even Voltaire would have balked at that.
The profound ignorance and dysfunctionality of Islamic societies suggests that all religions are not equal in their capacity to benefit society. Just as it’s not wise for a society to maintain a strict neutrality between religion and irreligion, it’s equally unwise to pretend that the content of a religious tradition is a matter of complete indifference. They’ve tried that experiment in Europe and the results have been disastrous. Several years ago the framers of the European Constitution refused to acknowledge the Christian contribution to European civilization. Of course, that was just the confirmation of the post-Christian direction European elites had chosen decades before. And how is the new Christian-free Europe faring? Well, let’s see: you can’t teach the Holocaust or the Crusades in British schools, forced marriages are the norm in the Midlands, there are “no-go” zones in every French city, female genital mutilation is widely practiced, people who offend Islam go on trial, Jews are fleeing Sweden, and native Dutch and Britons are leaving their respective countries in droves. In short, the dysfunctional culture of the Middle East has set up branch offices in England and on the Continent. Thanks to the multicultural insistence on the moral equivalence of all cultures and religions, post-Christian Europe is rapidly becoming post-free Europe.
Can’t happen here? It can and it will unless we rid ourselves of the notion that religions are interchangeable. Nothing facilitates jihad like naivete. And one of our biggest blind spots is the failure to recognize that different religious beliefs can and do result in radically different cultures.
"The Koran gives Muslims the right to judge Christians and kill them with Jihad"
Syrian Catholic Patriarch of Antioch: "The Koran gives Muslims the right to judge Christians and kill them with Jihad"
He is right, of course, but the likely response, if he isn't ignored, will be calls for him to apologize for his intolerance. "Vatican: Koran encourages 'killing Christians,'" from AKI, October 22 (thanks to Weasel Zippers):
Vatican City, 22 Oct. (AKI) - The Koran is a text that encourages Islam to impose itself with force and permits the killing of Christians, said Lebanon's Catholic Patriarch of Antioch Archbishop Raboula Beylouni, addressing a Vatican meeting of Middle East bishops.
Radical Muslim Cleric Describes Violent Islamic Vision
Radical Muslim Cleric Describes Violent Islamic Vision
During an appearance on CNN’s Parker/Spitzer, Radical Muslim cleric Imam Anjem Choudary revealed a few unsettling details of Islamic extremists’ worldview, including the role of “moderate” Muslims in spreading Sharia law around the globe. Choudary says that spreading Sharia law is a “noble” goal as it represents a “superior way of life” compared to the “shackles of man-made law.”
According to Choudary, violent terrorist attacks are a “peaceful” warning to countries like the United States and Israel, whom he claims are occupying Muslim lands. He also admits to encouraging Muslims in the United States to carry out these kinds of attacks:
Last edited by Paparock; 10-30-2010 at 02:16 PM..
Kreeft/Spencer debate questions and answers
Kreeft/Spencer debate questions and answers
Several people have asked me about a couple of assertions I made during my debate with Peter Kreeft, which I have reposted above for your convenience. I received an email pointing me to a purported refutation of some of the things I said in the debate, taking issue with my saying -- in the words of the refutation, not my words -- that a "tenant of Islam is that the End Times can be hastened and brought quicker by killing Jews."
If that's the tenant, I wonder who is the landlord, but never mind. In any case, once again here the Muslim spokesmen misrepresent the facts. It is in a hadith from Sahih Muslim, a collection considered to be reliable by Muslims, that the End Times will not come until Muslims kill Jews. Muhammad said it:
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews. (Sahih Muslim 6985)The piece also took issue with my saying that "the theological word for marriage in Islam is not a word that people say in polite company." Here again, what I said was entirely correct. The word for marriage in Islam is nikaah. The Arabic root-word نكح (nakah) is, to put it mildly, an impolite word for sexual intercourse. But نكاح (nikaah) is, of course, used in Qur'anic Arabic to refer to marriage or the marriage contract. While Muslims use the word in normal conversation without any sense that it is a word that should not be said, Arabic-speaking Christians generally blush to hear the word, and especially verbal conjugations of it, and don't say it in polite company.
Accused Death Squad Leader Rears Ugly Face »
Accused Death Squad Leader Rears Ugly Face
Muslim extremist Ashrafuzzaman Khan makes public appearance, despite investigations into his background
by Joe Kaufman
This past September, Ashrafuzzaman Khan, an accused former leader of a South Asian death squad, joined a controversial group of American Muslim community leaders to speak out against what has been said to be the hatred of those who practice the religion of Islam. Was this very public showing indeed a sign of strength in opposition to a form of bigotry, or could it have been meant as a brazen message targeted at those who are convinced that Khan should receive justice for past unthinkable acts?
In 1971, as many as three million citizens of Bangladesh were systematically slaughtered at the hands of the Pakistani army in collaboration with Islamist groups linked to the international Muslim Brotherhood. The perpetrators included the paramilitary wing of Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), al-Badr.
At the time, al-Badr was led by Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojahid, the present Secretary General of JI Bangladesh. Mojahid, along with a number of other JI officials, was arrested this past June and is in prison facing charges stemming from his role in the 1971 massacres. According to the International Crimes Tribunal, the legal body that is handling the case, there is evidence which proves that Mojahid and his colleagues are guilty of “genocide and crimes against humanity.”
However, there are those beyond the arrestees that have been implicated in the same crimes. One of them currently resides in Queens, New York. His name: Mohammad Ashrafuzzaman Khan, a.k.a. Ashrafuz Zaman Khan, a.k.a. Ashraf-uz-Zaman Khan.
Khan is the President of the North American Imams Federation (NAIF), a group based in Arizona whose membership consists of the most radical Muslim religious leaders located throughout the United States. The alumni of the group include: Wagdi Ghoneim, a former representative of a Hamas charity who was arrested and deported from the U.S. in November 2004, and Mazen Mokhtar, an al-Qaeda web designer who has made clear statements in support of suicide bombings and Hamas.
Recently, Khan came out of his private dwellings to share the stage with some fellow Islamist leaders in speaking out against, of all things, “Islamophobia,” a term usually used by radical Muslims to squelch the speech of those who speak out against radical Muslims. They did so at the location of the newly planned Ground Zero Mosque, as the structure has encountered much opposition from the community as well as from segments of the media and government.
These leaders included: Nihad Awad, the National Executive Director of the Hamas-related Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR); Siraj Wahhaj, the National President of the Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA) and a U.S. government named “unindicted co-conspirator” of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; and Muzammil Siddiqi, the Chairman of the Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA) and an individual who has, in the past, advocated the “killing, enslavement [and] ransoming” of non-Muslim males.
As well as: Mohamad Magid, the National President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a group co-founded by Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) terrorist Sami al-Arian; Ahmed Elbendary and Mahdi Bray, the two national heads of the Muslim American Society (MAS), a group that has used the internet to spread violence against non-Muslims; and Zahid Bukhari, the National President of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), a group connected to the financing of Hamas; amongst others.
One would have to question the reason why Khan would wish to place himself in the spotlight alongside this seedy collection of reprobates, while discussions grow louder about his alleged disreputable history.
During the massacres of 1971, Khan was stationed in Bangladesh as a commander of al-Badr.
At the end of the war, following Bangladeshi liberation, Khan’s diary was recovered from his residence. In it was found a list of names and addresses of several prominent Bengalis targeted as victims in the war, including a number of professors from Dhaka University (DU), where hundreds of students were slain. Lists of individuals marked for death, such as the one discovered in Khan’s diary, were routinely kept by JI and its al-Badr operatives.
Soon, Khan was found guilty in absentia [as he fled the area] by a Bangladesh court for his role in the 1971 atrocities. According to reports, his driver, named Mofizuddin, testified that Khan had personally shot and murdered at least seven of the DU faculty, whose names were found in Khan’s book. This confession led to the recovery of the bodies of those whom Khan is said to have killed.
As stated in the Bangladesh International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973, Section 4, “Any commander or superior officer who orders, permits, acquiesces or participates in the commission of [crimes against humanity or genocide] or is connected with any plans and activities involving the commission of such crimes or who fails or omits to discharge his duty to maintain discipline, or to control or supervise the actions of the persons under his command or his subordinates, whereby such persons or subordinates or any of them commit any such crimes, or who fails to take necessary measures to prevent the commission of such crimes, is guilty of such crimes.”
Khan has been the subject of at least one U.S. investigation seeking to verify the allegations made against him. In a November 2009 article published in the Daily Sangbad of Bangladesh, it was reported that a letter was sent by the U.S. Justice Department to the Bangladesh Home Ministry requesting “all the documents and relevant information” relating to Khan and his participation in the 1971 killings. In the report, Khan is referred to as “chief executioner.”
Apparently none of this has deterred Khan from making his presence known in the United States. In fact, it seems he revels in the spotlight, as his likeness from the “Islamophobia” event was shown prominently on national television. The Islamic Circle of North America, of which Khan has served as both National Secretary General and National Vice President, placed on its website images from the event with him featured in them, and the Islamic Society of North America did the same in this month’s edition of its publication Horizons.
If Khan is trying to send a message by thrusting himself into the public’s eye, he is doing a great job of it.
And if his accusers are correct, and Ashrafuzzaman Khan was the death squad leader they claim he was, then maybe it’s a job that will finally bring him to justice – behind bars or under the needle.
Joe Kaufman is the Chairman of Americans Against Hate and the founder of CAIR Watch. He has been responsible for the closure of at least one terror-related charity and has convinced a number of government officials to shun the Hamas front group, CAIR. In June 2009, he won a lawsuit brought against him by seven Dallas-area radical Muslim organizations.
Beila Rabinowitz, Director of Militant Islam Monitor assisted with this report.
Spencer at Texas A&M on "Is Islam a religion of peace?"
Spencer at Texas A&M on "Is Islam a religion of peace?"http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/11/sp...-of-peace.html
Last week in Texas
A fairly good and reasonably accurate summary -- great by the lights of most journalism today -- of my talk at Texas A&M last Thursday. "Jihad Watch director discusses the 'religion of peace' argument," by Meagan O'Toole-Pitts for The Battalion, the Texas A&M student newspaper, November 14:
American liberty is in danger, said Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch and author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam."
Egyptian Journalist 'Ata Abd Al-Aal: "The US Will Be Transformed into an Islamic Repu
Egyptian Journalist 'Ata Abd Al-Aal:
"The US Will Be Transformed into an Islamic Republic"
View it all here> http://www.memri.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/2735.htm
The Third Jihad: Radical Islam's Vision For America
Watch all parts from the links below:
Last edited by Paparock; 03-15-2011 at 02:24 PM..
Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West
Radical Islam's War Against the West
Islamic cleric misunderstands Islam, issues fatwa against democracy
Islamic cleric misunderstands Islam, issues fatwa against democracy
Shaikh Abdul Malek Ramdani must be some kind of Islamophobe. "Cleric issues 48-page fatwa against democracy," from Reuters, March 16 (thanks to Twostellas):
Algiers: The spiritual leader of Algeria's influential Salafist movement has issued a 48-page fatwa, or religious decree, urging Muslims to ignore calls for change because he says that democracy goes against Islam.
New Study on Hate Crimes Debunks the Myth of a Growing Trend in Muslim Victimization
New Study on Hate Crimes Debunks the Myth of a Growing Trend in Muslim Victimization
Center for Security Policy | Mar 29, 2011
The Center for Security Policy today released a revised edition of their groundbreaking longitudinal study, Religious Bias Crimes 2000-2009: Muslim, Jewish and Christian Victims - Debunking the Myth of a Growing Trend in Muslim Victimization, based on FBI statistics reported annually in the Uniform Crime Reporting Program. The Center's study contradicts the assertions that religious bias crimes against Muslims have increased, and that the alleged cause is widespread “Islamophobia” in America. In fact, the study shows that religious bias crimes - also known as hate crimes - against Muslim Americans, measured by the categories of incidents, offenses or victims, have remained relatively low with a downward trend since 2001, and are significantly less than the numbers of bias crimes against Jewish victims.
The Center's study also contradicts the assumption of increased hate crimes against Muslims which has been asserted by Senator Richard Durbin's (D-IL) Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, and is the topic of hearings being held today. Printed copies of the study were delivered to each member of the U.S. Senate early this morning.
According to the Center's analysis, in 2009, Jewish victims of hate crimes outnumbered Muslim victims by more than 8 to 1 (1,132 Jewish victims to 132 Muslim victims). From 2000 through 2009, for every one hate crime incident against a Muslim, there were six hate crime incidents against Jewish victims (1,580 Muslim incidents versus 9,692 Jewish incidents). Even in 2001 when religious bias crimes against Muslims increased briefly for a nine-week period, total anti-Muslim incidents, offenses and victims remained approximately half of the corresponding anti-Jewish totals.
The study provides hard data that disproves the counterfactual statements made by a small number of highly vocal Muslim lobbying groups, many linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as leftwing activists. Citing these false assumptions concerning America’s alleged “Islamophobia” and a supposed rising trend in hate crimes against Muslim Americans, these organizations argued against holding the March 10, 2011 House Committee on Homeland Security hearings on Muslim American radicalization, and have argued for today's hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution. The study shows that these arguments against the March 10 hearings, and for today's March 29 hearings, are not based on facts but rather on a political agenda.
Frank Gaffney, President of Center for Security Policy remarked:
This report is important because it exposes a false belief perpetuated by a few vocal groups that religious bias crimes against Muslims are on the upswing. The truth is quite the opposite. These arguments, unsubstantiated by hard factual data, are corrosive to community relationships at every level of American society, and a potential threat to national security.
Note: This Center for Security Policy Occasional Paper is available as a PDF, or is reprinted below.
Religious Bias Crimes (2000-2009): Muslim, Christian & Jewish Victims - Debunking the Myth of a Growing Trend in Muslim Victimization
Clare M. Lopez, Roland Peer & Christine Brim
Misperceptions about religious bias hate crimes in America are widespread. This study is a longitudinal comparison of religious bias hate crimes, as reported by the FBI, from the pre-9/11 year of 2000 through 2009, the most recent year for which statistics were available. The assertion that religious bias hate crimes against one group in particular, Muslims in America, have proliferated in the years since the attacks of September 11, 2001 has gained acceptance within media and government, thanks to a steady drumbeat of assertions to this effect from a small but vocal group of advocacy organizations.
Internationally, the most aggressive of these is the 57 member state Organization of the Islamic Conference, with its so-called "Islamophobia Observatory." In the U.S., the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) have taken the lead in issuing claims that discrimination and religious bias hate crimes against Muslims are increasing. These organizations have also asserted that "Islamophobia" and statements critical of Islam, Shariah law, or political Islamist organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood may be linked to the alleged rise in hate crimes. Alternatively, counterterrorism expert Steve Emerson has suggested "In advancing the notion that government policy has resulted in an undeserved backlash against ordinary Muslims, CAIR seeks to muster opposition to the anti-terror laws it finds objectionable."
To inform this public debate about religious bias hate crimes in America, the Center for Security Policy analyzed data from 2000 through 2009 for three FBI-identified victim groups: Jews, Muslims, and Christians (a combined statistic for the purposes of this whitepaper, combining separate FBI data for Catholics and Protestants). The source of all the religion bias crimes information cited in the following report is the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Program, which collects crime statistics on an annual basis and presents them online. Appendices B-T at the end of this report present those official FBI statistics in tables and charts showing the comparative incidence of religious hate crimes for Christians, Jews, and Muslims from 2000-2009.
The results may prove surprising to those who took CAIR or MPAC spokesmen at their word. For example, in 2009, in totals for a combined five categories of hate crime, from Simple Assault to Crimes Against Property, Jewish victims of hate crimes by religion outnumbered Muslim victims by more than 8 to 1 (1,132 Jewish victims to 132 Muslim victims). Nor is 2009 an anomalous year in terms of these numbers. Across the decade, from 2000 through 2009, Jewish victims of hate crimes by religion outnumbered their Christian and Muslim counterparts, with the exception of a nine-week period following the 9/11 terrorist acts for two categories of bias crimes: simple and aggravated assaults statistics. From 2000 through 2009, for every one hate crime incident against a Muslim, there were six hate crime incidents against Jewish victims (1,580 Muslim incidents versus 9,692 Jewish incidents).
The Center for Security Policy presents this study to inform the dialogue surrounding religious bias crimes in the U.S. and to provide a fact-based resource that analysts, researchers, and citizens can use for a reality check.
Although a number of European academics and institutes (particularly the British) have produced studies on the general topic of "Islamophobia" in the years since the attacks of September 11, 2001, few Americans have tackled "hate crimes" from the objective perspective of a neutral academic and empirical study based on the available FBI statistics. Two studies are representative, though unlike our study, neither is a longitudinal study encompassing a ten-year period.
Jeffrey Kaplan, an Associate Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh authored a report entitled, "Islamophobia in America?: September 11 and Islamophobic Hate Crime." Although this report does reference FBI hate crime statistics, it does so only for the period from 2000-2002, as Kaplan's study focus is that period of time just after the September 11 attacks on the U.S. He concludes that "The intense phase of these attacks comprised approximately nine weeks, after which the number of hate crimes fell sharply" due, he writes, to national leadership from the U.S. president, decisive law enforcement intervention, grassroots outreach to Muslim communities across the country, and a "rapid dissolution of American moral certainty about the War on Terror."
In other research, Steven George Salaita produced a study for the New Centennial Review in the Fall of 2006 which set out to "summarize the evolution of the Arab image in American media since Ronald Stockton's seminal 1994 analysis, with emphasis on the role of 9/11, and advance the usage of the term anti-Arab racism as a more accurate replacement for the traditional descriptors Orientalism and Islamophobia in relation to the negative portrayal of Arabs in the United States." Unlike our study, the author approached the topic with a non-empirical framework.
Scholarly research in the area of hate crimes is increasingly a popular area for specialization, as witnessed by the Journal of Hate Studies, celebrating its 8th Volume in 2010. A useful short review of the field's scope - though unfortunately not addressing a longitudinal analysis nor the FBI data - can be found in Barbara Perry's essay, "The more things change...post-9/11 trends in hate crime scholarship," a summary of the various disciplines' research addressing the issue of hate.
Methodology and Findings
The "Religious Bias Crimes in America" study is a longitudinal look at the instances of religious bias crimes, also known as hate crimes, against Muslims, Christians, and Jews in the United States from 2000 to 2009. The use of the term "Hate Crime" is defined by the FBI in its 1996 Training Guide for Hate Crime Data Collection as well as in its Uniform Crime Reporting Program, which find their authorization in the April 23, 1990 "Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990." This legislation requires the U.S. Department of Justice to compile and publish an annual summary of data about crimes that "manifest prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity." This study focuses on those hate crimes that clearly demonstrate prejudice based on bias against Christians (Catholics and Protestants combined), Jews and Muslims, as identified by the FBI. Three other categories of religious bias crime for which the FBI collects statistics, but which were not included in this study because they are less specific for purposes of comparison are: anti-other religion, anti-multi-religious group, and anti-atheism-agnosticism.
The Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines define a bias crime:
A criminal offense committed against a person or property which is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin; also known as Hate Crime.Definitions of the various offenses against person and property are also provided in the Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines.
Three broad categories of religious hate crimes are included in this study: incidents, offenses, and victims. A single incident may include more than one offense (for example, intimidation and robbery). An offense may have more than one victim. A victim may be the target of more than one offense. Data categories for offenses and victims are sub-divided between crimes against persons, and crimes against property. Each of these sub-categories is further broken down by specific types of crimes. For example, crimes against persons include 1) murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, 2) forcible rape, 3) simple assault, 4) aggravated assault, 5) intimidation (by far the largest crimes against persons category), and 6) other. Crimes against property include 1) robbery, 2) burglary, 3) larceny/theft, 4) motor vehicle theft, 5) arson, 6) destruction/damage/vandalism (by far the largest crimes against property category), and 7) other. A third category, crimes against society, (at the same hierarchical level as crimes against persons, and crimes against property) presented only insignificant numbers for all three religions in the study (19 victims for all three religious groups from all ten years combined - see Appendix C, Table 2).
While there has been a slight variation through the years, anti-Jewish hate crimes have hovered around 70% of total anti-religious hate crime, while anti-Muslim violence has accounted for around 10%, and anti-Christian hate crime has totaled slightly less than 10%. Jewish and Muslim populations in America, as noted previously, each are estimated at 6 million persons (with an alternate estimate by Pew for the Muslim population). There was an increase in anti-Muslim violence in 2001 (exceeding both Jewish and Christian rates for simple and aggravated assault), which decreased to the 10% range in 2002, where it has remained (a temporary smaller spike was seen in 2006 against both Jewish and Muslim victims). Even in the anomalous year of 2001, total anti-Muslim incidents, offenses, and number of victims were approximately half of the corresponding anti-Jewish totals (Muslim Incidents - 481, Victims - 546, Offenses - 554; Jewish Incidents - 1043, Victims - 1117, Offenses - 1196). That the terrorist attacks occurred relatively late in the year - in September of 2001 - suggests that the increase in anti-Muslim violence occurred over a period of a few weeks, or more specifically nine weeks as noted in Kaplan's study. Looking at total numbers of victims over the 2000-2009 period, for every Muslim victim from 2000 to 2009, there have been over six (6.13) Jewish incidents of hate crimes. As noted previously, in 2009 the ratio increased: for every Muslim victim, there were even more - over 8 - Jewish victims.
Most anti-religious hate crimes in the United States are not of a violent nature against persons. Aggregating anti-Christian, anti-Muslim, and anti-Jewish hate crimes against persons and property from 2000 to 2009, demonstrates that 64% of total hate crimes are crimes against property, and of these, 92% are cases of destruction/damage/vandalism, and the majority of the remaining 8% are burglary and larceny/theft. There have been 38 robbery offenses, or 0.3% of total hate crimes and of these, 23 were anti-Jewish. The rate of arson is very small, accounting for slightly more than 1% of total crimes against property.
Of the remaining 36% of total cases that are crimes against persons, most (77%) are classified as intimidation. Virtually all of the other 23% are simple or aggravated assault. There were no rape cases and only one murder, of a Jewish victim. There was an increase in 2006 in anti-Muslim aggravated assault (24 offenses), compared to 22 anti-Jewish offenses, and in 2009 (11 vs. 9). There were no similar spikes in cases of simple assault, and in other years, anti-Jewish aggravated and simple assault cases are double that of anti-Muslim assault cases. While cases of anti-Jewish aggravated assault decreased between 2008 and 2009 from 25 to 9, anti-Jewish simple assault cases increased sharply from 58 to 82. When compared to the overall population of over 300 million people, anti-religious hate crimes are not highly prevalent in the United States for any religious group. Bias-motivated crime is simply not that common for any religious group in the U.S.
Comparing the prevalence of anti-religious hate crimes by religion requires measuring the number of incidents against the overall population of Christians, Muslims, and Jews in the United States. Self-identified Christians accounted in 2008 for 76% of the adult American population, or 173,402,000 persons, significantly higher than for Muslims or Jews, and therefore the relative prevalence of anti-Christian crimes is by far the lowest of the three. Muslim groups in the U.S. such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), with an interest in presenting the U.S. Muslim population as equivalent to the Jewish one, repeatedly have declared the number of Muslims in the U.S. to be about 6 million persons, , Within the same range, Chicago Imam Abdul Malik Mujahid, the 2010 Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions' Board of Trustees Chairman, has cited 2001 estimates of 5.8 million and 6.7 million Muslims in America. On February 3, 2011, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) similarly cited "the reality of 6 million Muslims." A lower estimate was published by the Pew Research Center in January 2011, when it put the Muslim population of the U.S. at 2.6 million. The 2010 US Census estimates the Jewish population in the United States to be 6.5 million, or 2.1% of the total population in 2009, and this includes those who self-define as Jewish either by religion, ethnicity, or culture.  This broad definition thus can be seen as defining an upper boundary for the U.S. Jewish population, given that the FBI hate crime statistics define Judaism as a religion.
The Facts Contradict the Myths
These findings seem to contradict the popular perception that Muslims face more discrimination than Jews in the United States. For example, a Pew poll conducted in 2009 found that 58% of Americans believe there is "a lot of discrimination against" Muslims, opposed to 35% who thought the same for Jews.  FBI statistics do show a lower percentage of anti-Jewish hate crimes have identified offenders, which may contribute to the misperception that anti-Jewish hate crimes in the United States are not as prevalent as they really are. Of total known offenders from the period of 2000 to 2009, 56% committed anti-Jewish hate crimes; the number rises to 67% when unknown offenders are included.
The process of local law enforcement data collection and categorization is inconsistent and both over-reporting and under-reporting may occur. The goal of our analysis is to show the relative frequency of hate crimes, by religion and by type.
We have looked at primarily at some summary statistics for this report. In addition, we include the tables here as appendices along with a selection of charts. The spreadsheet data tables and charts are available for download in excel format at securefreedom.org.
Hate Crime Rhetoric
Concerns about a backlash against Muslims in America arose in the aftermath of 9/11 and were given added impetus by books, studies, and other publications and statements by various organizations and Muslim leadership figures and groups. The November 2002 report by Human Rights Watch, "We Are Not the Enemy: Hate Crimes Against Arabs, Muslims, and Those Perceived to be Arab or Muslim after September 11" is representative of the genre. Citing a "severe wave of backlash violence" involving "more than two thousand September 11-related backlash incidents" against Arabs and Muslims in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks, the report claims such people were targeted "solely because they shared or were perceived as sharing the national background or religion of the hijackers and al-Qaeda members deemed responsible for attacking the World Trade Center and the Pentagon." Although the report goes on to claim that "comprehensive and reliable national statistics are not available," this study cites the readily-available official FBI statistics that indeed do show a spike from 28 to 481 total hate crimes against Muslims between the years 2000 and 2001; however, according to the FBI figures, even that high mark is exceeded by a factor of two for the typical annual total of hate crimes against Jews in America.
The January 6, 2010 report, "Anti-Terror Lessons of Muslim Americans," produced with funding from the Department of Justice, also cites an "increased anti-Muslim bias" in the years since the 9/11 attacks. This paper's three authors, David Schanzer and Ebrahim Moosa of Duke University and Charles Kurzman from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, assert that Muslim-Americans bear the brunt of government counterterrorism initiatives, some of which they consider discriminatory.
Then there is the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which styles itself an organization "that challenges stereotypes of Islam and Muslims" and a "Washington-based Islamic advocacy group" dedicated to challenging "anti-Muslim discrimination nationwide." The CAIR website includes an extensive section on "Islamophobia," a term reportedly coined by the Muslim Brotherhood front group, the International Islamic Institute of Thought (IIIT), in an effort to find a concept useful in beating back critics of Islamic law (shariah) and jihad.
CAIR traces the phenomenon of "Islamophobia" to writing by Samuel Huntington in the 1990s that posited a coming "clash of civilizations" between Islam and the West. CAIR claims that "when 9/11 happened," those already prejudiced against Islam were influenced by "right wing outlets" and "pro-Israeli commentators such as Daniel Pipes, Steven Emerson, Judith Miller, and Bernard Lewis" to amplify an atmosphere of "extreme prejudice, suspicion, and fear against Muslims." Deftly sidestepping the historical record of decades of international terror attacks perpetrated by Muslim jihadis well before 9/11, in addition to centuries of shariah-inspired jihad that preceded the current one, CAIR's Islamophobia page cites a number of surveys conducted in the years following 2001 that indicate Americans believe Islam encourages violence, does not teach respect for the beliefs of non-Muslims, or that mosques ought to be monitored by U.S. law enforcement officials. Americans' entirely rational concerns about jihadist attacks and the encroachment of shariah on American society are then described not only as the font of "discrimination, exclusion, and violence" against Muslims (without citing any official statistics to substantiate the accusation), but the naturally-to-be-expected source of Muslims' own "disillusionment, social disorder, and....irrational violence." [Emphasis added]
Slander, Blasphemy, and Insult to Islam in Shariah
It is imperative that western societies like ours understand the serious implications within Islamic law for accusations of insult to Islam, Islamic doctrine, or Muslims. Under shariah, the offense of slander is defined very differently than in U.S. law. According to the ‘Umdat al-Salik (or Reliance of the Traveller), a book of Islamic law that carries the imprimatur of Cairo's Al-Azhar University, the global seat of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence, Slander "means to mention anything concerning a person [a Muslim] that he would dislike..." Several pages later, a further explanation is provided: "A person should not speak of anything he notices about people besides that which benefits a Muslim to relate or prevents disobedience." Under Islamic law, truth is no defense against an accusation of slander and the offense is held to be a Hudud crime, one deserving the harshest punishment.
Even more serious than Slander under Islamic law is the offense of Blasphemy. The Muslim authorities hold Blasphemy to be insulting or abusing that which is held sacred in Islam. This can include anything from cursing Allah or the prophet Muhammad to irreverent behavior towards Islamic religious beliefs or customs. Even expressing opinions about Islam considered at variance with normative beliefs can be construed as blasphemy under this extremely subjective definition. Not only Muslims traditionally have been held accountable under the Islamic blasphemy laws, but also non-Muslims, especially dhimmis (conquered, subjugated People of the Book, i.e., Christians and Jews). "Reviling Muslims" or "Harming the Friends of Allah Most High" are considered serious sins, termed "Enormities". Such offenses are described in Islamic law as those that entail either a threat of punishment in the hereafter, a prescribed Hadd punishment, or being accursed by Allah or the prophet Muhammad.
Islamic laws on Blasphemy and Slander should not be considered outmoded or an irrelevant remnant of the 7th century: they remain very much in effect in modern times, as the following excerpt from the authoritative Malaysian scholar Mohammad Hashim Kamali's 1997 essay, "Freedom of Expression in Islam", makes clear:
"However, a general observation which should be made here is that in matters which pertain to the dogma of Islam, or those which are regulated by the direct authority of the Qur'an or Sunnah, criticism, either from Muslims or non-Muslims, will not be entertained, as personal or public opinion does not command authority in such matters. Islam is basically a religion of authority, and the values of good and evil, or rights and duties are not determined by reference to public opinion, or popular vote..." [Emphasis added]It might be added that Dr. Kamali, who was a Professor of Islamic Law and Jurisprudence at the International Islamic University Malaysia and also Dean of the International Institute of Islamic Thought & Civilization (ISTAC) from 1985 - 2007, and is currently Chairman and CEO of the International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies, Malaysia, is considered not only a leading international academic authority on Islam, but a "moderate Muslim." He was on the advisory group for Imam Feisal Rauf's "Shariah Index Project" and is a listed expert at the purportedly moderate organization World Organization for Resource Development and Education (WORDE).
The deadly intent of the shariah laws on Blasphemy and Slander repeatedly has been demonstrated in recent times: among examples which could be cited are the Ayatollah Khomeini's 1989 fatwa against the novelist Salman Rushdie, the 2004 murder of the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, and Anwar al-Awlaki's 2010 fatwa against the Washington state journalist Molly Norris (who was forced into permanent hiding for jesting online about an "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day"). The consequences, therefore, of being accused by a Muslim of offending Islamic beliefs, customs, or laws should not be underestimated. The developing concept of "Islamophobia" obviously is heading in this direction.
Here is a final example. Given the centrality of this doctrine to Islam, the 21 February 2011 demand by CAIR for Fox News program host and former Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee, to apologize for "inaccurate and offensive" comments about Islam and to meet with Muslim leaders to discuss growing Islamophobia in American society" needs to be taken very seriously. CAIR's leadership knows exactly what such an accusation implies under Islamic law; it is to be hoped that the Governor does, too.
There is one more aspect of the Islamic laws on Slander that needs to be mentioned in this regard. Our jihadi enemy does not want the non-Muslim infidel world (and especially our national security leadership) to understand the true character and intentions of those shariah adherents who are dedicated to "eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within." Specifically, the enemy reserves the right to employ taqiyya (deceit and dissimulation) as well as the Islamic laws on obligatory lying to keep such information from those whose knowledge of it could lead to effective defensive measures against shariah. Attempted enforcement of this legally sanctioned code of silence about the genuine nature and objectives of the jihadist enemy is one of the key usages of the Slander and Blasphemy laws in the west.
"Islamophobia" and Defensive Jihad
To carry through the Islamic legal principles inherent in the Slander and Blasphemy laws to their logical end point, it is useful to refer to classical as well as modern pronouncements on the elements that Muslim scholars hold necessary to justify and declare defensive jihad. For, in fact, this justification is where accusations of "Islamophobia", religious "hate crimes," and insult to Islam plausibly lead. In fact, in numerous cases, hate crime violence or intimidating threats of violence against persons and property in response to perceived "blasphemy" has been a response in the last decade in Muslim-majority countries, and also in Canada, Europe, and the U.S. The examples in Muslim-majority countries are too numerous to list, but a sample of U.S. cases include the jihad threats against Molly Norris, creator of "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day", the South Park cartoon producers, and publications that republished the Danish "Muhammed Cartoons."
Classical scholars of Islam, such as Al-Shaybani (8th-9th century disciple of the Hanafi school of jurisprudence and a jurist in his own right) and Ibn Rushd (12th century legal scholar known as Averroes in the West) have written extensively and assertively on the obligatory nature of offensive jihad according to shariah, simply for the purpose of establishing Islam in the world. It was understood both explicitly and implicitly that defensive jihad was obligatory as well. Among the Qur'anic verses commonly cited as justification is the following:
"Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is Allah's entirely." -- (Q 8:39)Turning to the modern Islamic scholars, Louay Safi is a Muslim author and scholar who has served at the top ranks of Muslim Brotherhood affiliates in the U.S. He formerly was the Executive Director of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)'s Leadership Development Center, Executive Director and Director of Research for the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), editor of the Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, and President of the Association of Muslim Social Scientists (AMSS) (1999-2003). ISNA, IIIT, and the AMSS all appear on the Muslim Brotherhood's own list of "our organizations and the organizations of our friends." Safi currently serves as Common Word Fellow at the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim Christian Understanding at GeorgetownUniversity. His credentials, in other words, would seem impeccable to speak to Islamic rulings on defensive warfare.
The slim 2001 paperback book, "Peace and the Limits of War," was authored by Safi and published by the IIIT in response to the post-9/11 surge in public awareness of Islam and jihad. While Safi attempts to distance himself from the classical Islamic scholars on the topic of mandatory offensive jihad, he has no such compunctions when it comes to "War in defense of Muslim individuals and property." He writes:
"When wrong is inflicted on a Muslim individual by a member, or members, of another political community....the Islamic state is obligated to make sure the individual, or his family, is compensated for his suffering, and that his rights are upheld...it suffices to say that the Islamic state should ensure that justice has been done to the wronged Muslim, even if that take a declaration of war..."
Perceptions about the prevalence of hate crimes against Muslims matter, especially when considered in the context of Islamic law (shariah), which criminalizes insults to Islam as "slander" or even "blasphemy." A false belief, perpetuated by a few vocal groups, that deliberate religious bias crimes against Muslims are increasing regardless of the lack of support by hard factual data, is corrosive to community relationships at every level of American society, and a potential threat to First Amendment free speech rights and national security. Efforts at the international level, especially by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), to define any questioning of Islamic doctrine as "hate speech" leading to "hate crimes", such as "Islamophobia" and as a "human rights violation" by way of official resolutions at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), directly create the premise for criminalization of free speech. Further, although non-binding at this time, such UNHRC resolutions conceivably could legitimize an eventual casus belli, by which an appropriate fatwa could declare justification for violent defensive jihad by the forces of Islam. As recently as March 7 2011, James Zogby of the Arab American Institute, formerly with the Democratic National Committee, wrote of critics of the Shariah law and Islamic terrorism in America, that:
If these ‘professional bigots" have provided the grist, the mill itself was run by the vast network of rightwing talk radio and TV shows and websites and prominent preachers, who have combined to amplify the anti-Muslim message nationwide. Their efforts have done real damage. They have tormented descent [sic] public servants, created protests that have shuttered legitimate institutions, fomented hate crimes and produced fear in the Muslim community.
This data presented in this study demonstrate that common perceptions about the incidence of "hate crimes" in America that are directed at individuals or groups on the grounds of religious identification often mistakenly ascribe the majority of such offenses to anti-Muslim sentiment. To the contrary, the 2000-2009 FBI crime statistics data used in this study indicate that the majority of U.S. "hate crimes" in fact are perpetrated against Jews. The spike in anti-Muslim hate crimes following 9-11 did not last longer than nine weeks according to prior research. The most important conclusion may be that total religious bias crimes are few in a country of over 300 million persons. In fact, the U.S. is a model as a tolerant country, with a significantly low (and in some cases falling) number of hate crimes, in which most Muslim Americans are fully integrated and accepted, as well as economically and socially successful, fellow citizens.
The persistence, scope, and sophistication of the campaign to portray Muslims in America inaccurately, as making up the majority of "hate crime" victims, points to an organized effort whose potential implications derive from Islamic law (shariah). Insult towards Islam, Islamic doctrine, and individual Muslims, especially by non-Muslim infidels, can carry serious penalties under Shariah law. Further, because the "crimes" of insult, slander, and blasphemy are so subjectively defined in shariah, the doorway is wide open for those with an agenda of victimology to lay a foundation that not inconceivably could lead ultimately to a declaration of "defensive jihad" against persons, property or the broader community. "Homegrown" jihadist terrorism can find its motivation as part of the radicalization process in this heightened, and counter-factual, sense of victimization that justifies organized or "lone wolf" acts of jihad that are rationalized as defensive.
Charts & Data
Charts and data for this Occasional Paper are available in the PDF, or as Microsoft Excel files below:
 The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) presents itself as an Islamic advocacy group and America's largest Muslim civil liberties advocacy organization. CAIR was included on the Department of Justice's published list of unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation HAMAS terror funding case of 2007-2008. Its Internet home page may be found at http://www.cair.com/Home.aspx . See CAIR's reports on bias from 2007 (http://www.cair.com/Portals/0/pdf/2007-Civil-Rights-Report.pdf)
and 2008 (http://www.cair.com/Portals/0/pdf/civilrights2008.pdf ).
 The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) calls itself a "Public service agency working for the civil rights of American Muslims". According to the counterterrorism think tank The Investigative Project, "MPAC's public advocacy often involves defending accused terror financiers and opposing law enforcement efforts to root out terrorists and their enablers. In nearly every case, MPAC has responded to investigations by the FBI and the U.S. Treasury Department with complaints that authorities have not proven their allegations, and variations on the constant themes that enforcement actions unfairly single out Muslim groups and ‘bear strong signs of politicization.' At the same time, MPAC has been equally diligent in defending individual terrorists uncovered by federal investigations." http://www.investigativeproject.org/profile/181,accessed February 28, 2011.
 "Behind CAIR's Hate Crimes Report," Daniel Skinner, The Weekly Standard, may 6, 2004, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/054aycfi.asp; "CAIR's Hate Crime Nonsense," Daniel Pipes and Sharon Chadha, May 18, 2005, http://www.danielpipes.org/2627/cairs-hate-crimes-nonsense; "Fudging the Numbers on Hate Crimes," Mike Pesca, NPR, may 23, 2005, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4662915; all accessed February 28, 2011.
 "CAIR Pushes Phony Charges of Anti-Muslim Hysteria, Hate Crimes," Investigative Project, April 4, 2008. http://www.steveemerson.com/2008/04/cair-pushes-phony-charges-of accessed February 28, 2011.
 The FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program and its annual Crime in the United States reports are described online at http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr
 2009 is the most recent year for which full data are available. See the FBI Hate Crime Statistics for 2009 at http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2009/victims.html, accessed 12 February 2011.
 Simple Assaults by Victim by Religion for 2001 (Muslim 66, Jewish 45, Christian 3); Aggravated Assaults by Victim by Religion for 2001 (Muslim 27, Jewish 13, Christian 1)
 Neil Chakraborti, editor, Hate Crime: Concepts, policy, future directions, Willan Publishing, 2010.
 Kaplan, Jeffrey, "Islamophobia in America?: September 11 and Islamophobic Hate Crime," Journal of Terrorism and Political Violence, Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group. Accessed 20 February 2011 at http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a737727150
 Salaita, Steven George, "Beyond Orientalism and Islamophobia: 9/11, Anti-Arab Racism, and the Mythos of National Pride," CR: The New Centennial Review, Michigan State University Press, Volume 6, Number 2, Fall 2006, pp. 245-266. Accessed online 21 February 2011 at http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/new_centennial_review/v006/6.2salaita.html
 Journal of Hate Studies, Volume 8 (No. 1), 2010, http://journals.gonzaga.edu/index.php/johs/issue/archive accessed February 28, 2011. The Journal's authors defend a wide spectrum of beliefs, ranging from a positive review for the anti-jihad movie "Obsession" (Vol 5, #1) to numerous articles from a more conventional perspedctive.
Perry, Hate Crime: Concepts, Policy, Future Directions, p. 17
 Accessed online 21 February 2011 at http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/trainguidedc99.pdf
 The FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program and its annual Crime in the United States reports are described online at http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr
 28 U.S.C. § 534. See Appendix C for the full text of this legislation.
 Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines, p. 24, http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/hcguidelinesdc99.pdf accessed February 28, 2011.
 This does not include the negligible number (19) of "crimes against society) from 2000-2009 for all three religious groups.
 "Self-described Religious Identification of Adult Population: 1990 - 2008," U.S. Census, http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0075.pdf, accessed February 28, 2011.
 Ihsan Bagby, Ph.D., Paul M. Perl, Ph.D., Bryan T. Froehle, Ph.D., The Mosque in America: A National Portrait, Council on American Islamic Relations, April 26, 2001, p.6: "Estimates of a total Muslim population of 6-7 million in America seem reasonable..."
 Abdul Malik Mujahid, "Muslims In America: Profile 2001," Soundvision, http://www.soundvision.com/info/yearinreview/2001/profile.asp , accessed February 28, 2011.
 "Background Information on Radicalization Hearings," Muslim Public Affairs Council, February 3, 2011. http://www.mpac.org/programs/government-relations/background-information-on-radicalization-hearings.php# accessed February 28, 2011.
 The Future of the Global Muslim Population, Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, Jan. 27, 2011. http://pewforum.org/The-Future-of-the-Global-Muslim-Population.aspx. Accessed 7 March 2011 at http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1872/muslim-population-projections-worldwide-fast-growth.
 Table 77, Christian Church Adherents, 2000, and Jewish Population, 2009 - States. 2010 US Census. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0077.pdf.
 Muslims Widely Seen as Facing Discrimination. Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, Sept. 9, 2009. http://pewforum.org/Muslim/Muslims-Widely-Seen-As-Facing-Discrimination.aspx.
 "FBI Report Notes Rise in Hate Crimes," Deborah Tedford, NPR, November 23, 2009, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120715771 , accessed February 28, 2011.
 Available in PDF format and accessed 21 February 2011 at http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2002/11/14/we-are-not-enemy
 "We Are Not the Enemy: Hate Crimes Against Arabs, Muslims, and Those Perceived to be Arab or Muslim after September 11," Human Rights Watch, NOVEMBER 2002 VOL. 14, NO. 6 (G) (p. 4).
 See Appendix D, "Hate Crime Trends: 2000-2007"
 Schanzer, David, Charles Kurzman, and Ebrahim Moosa, "Anti-Terror Lessons of Muslim-Americans," January 6, 2010. Accessed online 21 February 2011 at http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/229868.pdf
 The official CAIR website is at http://www.cair.com/Home.aspx. CAIR's foundational organization, The International Association for Palestine, was included on a list of organizations called "our organizations and the organizations of our friends" in a 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document called "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America."
 "Islamophobia," http://www.cair.com/Issues/Islamophobia/Islamophobia.aspx accessed February 28 2011.
 The website of the Herndon, Virginia-based International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) is at http://www.iiit.org/Home/tabid/36/Default.aspx The IIIT, like CAIR, is on the Muslim Brotherhood list of its friends and organizations of friends; also like CAIR, the IIIT was included in a list of unindicted co-conspirators in the 2007-2008 Holy Land Foundation HAMAS terror funding trial.
 Muhammad, Abdur-Rahman, "Whether or not Ground Zero mosque is built, U.S. Muslims have access to the American dream," The New York Daily News as cited by The Investigative Project on Terrorism, September 5, 2010. Accessed online 21 February 2010 at http://www.investigativeproject.org/2164/whether-or-not-ground-zero-mosque-is-built-us. Muhammad is a former member of the IIIT, whose by-line states that he "now works to combat Islamic extremism in the American Muslim community."
 CAIR "Islamophobia" page; accessed 21 February 2011 at http://www.cair.com/Issues/Islamophobia/Islamophobia.aspx
 "List of Islamic Terror Attacks Against America Before 9/11," http://factreal.wordpress.com/2010/01/30/list-of-islamic-attacks-against-america/ , accessed February 28, 2011.
 Andrew Bostom and Ibn Warraq, The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims, Prometheus Books, 2008.
 "Islamophobia," http://www.cair.com/Issues/Islamophobia/Islamophobia.aspx
 ‘Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller), A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law. Section r2.0: Slander (p. 730).
 Ibid, Section r3.0 (p. 741).
 Ibid, Section p50.0 (Hurting or Reviling Muslims) and p51.0 (Harming the Friends of Allah Most High) (pp. 686-688.
 Ibid, The Author's Introduction, Section p0.0 (pp. 651-2).
 Kamali, Mohammad Hashim, "Freedom of Expression in Islam," Islamic Text Society, 1997. From chapter IX. Freedom of Religion (Al-Hurriyyah al-Diniyyah). Accessed online 22 February 2011 at www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/.../freedom/kamali_freedom.doc
 "Mohammad Hashim Kamali, Biographical Highlights," http://worde.org/specialists/ProfessorMohammadHashimKamali.php accessed February 28, 2011.
 "Dissemblers At Council On American Islamic Relations - CAIR - Whip Up The Discredited Bogeyman Of Islamophobia," PipelineNews.org, February 21, 2011. Accessed 22 February 2011 at http://www.pipelinenews.org/index.cfm?page=cair2212011102.htm
 "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America," a 5/22/91 Muslim Brotherhood document entered into evidence in the 2007-2008 U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation HAMAS terror funding trial.
 ‘Umdat al-Salik, Section r8.0, Lying (beginning on p. 744).
 "Shariah: The Threat to America," Center for Security Policy, October 2010 (pp. 103-106).
 See "The Islamic Law of Nations: Shaybani's Siyar" by Majid Khadduri and Ibn Rushd's magnum opus, "Bidayat al-Mudtahid wa-Nihayat al-Muqtasid" for their authoritative treatments of jihad.
 "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America," 1991. ISNA also appeared on the U.S. Department of Justice list of unindicted co-conspirators in the 2007-2008 Holy Land Foundation HAMAS terror funding trial.
 Safi, Louay M, "Peace and the Limits of War." International Institute of Islamic Thought, Herndon, VA.
 See "Slander (Ghiba)" in Section r2.0 of the ‘Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller), A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law (pg. 730). For a thorough discussion of Slander and Blasphemy in Islamic law, see also the Center for Security Policy study, "Shariah: The Threat to America," September 22, 2010. Available online at http://www.amazon.com/Shariah-America-Exercise-Competitive-Analysis/dp/098229476X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1297556949&sr=1-1
 Organization of the Islamic Conference: http://www.oicun.org/9/20100727101615770.html
 "Islamophobia can create radicalization," James Zogby, March 7, 2011, The Nation, http://nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Columns/07-Mar-2011/Islamophobia-can-create-radicalisation/1 accessed March 8, 2011.
Last edited by Paparock; 03-30-2011 at 02:55 PM..