Brigitte Gabriel is a New York Times bestselling author and internationally renowned expert on global terrorism.
As a survivor of Islamic terror, who lost her native country of Lebanon to the hegemony of radical Islam, Brigitte works tirelessly to make sure her adopted country of America never falls to the same fate.
Her timely message is pertinent to the imperative mission of the Thomas More Law Center, namely the defense of America's Christian heritage and moral values -- in particular the safeguarding of religious freedom for Christians in America, the protection of traditional family values, and the defense of the sanctity of life.
In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: who lost Europe?
Geert Wilders (VILL-ders) is a Member of Parliament in The Netherlands, and the Chairman of the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands. Here is one of his speeches at the Four Seasons, New York, introducing an Alliance of Patriots and announcing the Facing Jihad Conference in Jerusalem.
Thank you very much for inviting me.
I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe.
First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe. Then, I will say a few things about Islam. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem.
The Europe you know is changing.
You have probably seen the landmarks. But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration.
All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighborhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It's the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corners. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighborhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe. These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe, street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood, city by city.
There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe. With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.
Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam, Marseille and Malmo in Sweden. In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighborhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities.
In some elementary schools in Amsterdam, the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims.
Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam. gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear 'whore, whore'. Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin.
In France, school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin. The history of the Holocaust can no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity.
In England, sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighborhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week, a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels, because he was drinking during the Ramadan.
Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel. I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.
A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe. San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.
Now, these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France. One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favor of a worldwide caliphate. Muslims demand what they call 'respect'. And this is how we give them respect. We have Muslim official state holidays.
The Christian-Democratic Attorney General is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey.
Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behavior, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. I call the perpetrators 'settlers'. Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies; they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.
Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighborhoods, their cities, their countries. Moreover, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.
The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behavior is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages - at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad.
Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means 'submission'. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism; these are all totalitarian ideologies.
Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam 'the most retrograde force in the world', and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel. First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz; second, because it is a democracy, and third, because Israel is our first line of defense.
This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam's territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.
The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.
Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel, they can get everything. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a 'right-wing extremists' or 'racists'. In my country, the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat. Yet there is a danger greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America - as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem.
Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom; it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe, American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe 's children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.
We have to take the necessary action now to stop this Islamic stupidity from destroying the free world that we know.
A new documentary film, Homegrown Jihad: The Terrorist Camps Around U.S., premieres at 7:30PM on Wednesday, February 11, at the Landmark Theater in Washington, DC. Watch the trailer below and read an interview with one of the film’s creators here.
From the CAN press release:
The American public was never supposed to know. The 2006 Justice Department document that exposes 35 terrorist training compounds in the U.S. was marked “Dissemination Restricted to Law Enforcement.” All the copies of Sheik Muburak Gilani’s terrorist training video, “Soldiers of Allah,” had been confiscated and sealed—all of them, that is, except one—that Christian Action Network now reveals in the documentary Homegrown Jihad: The Terrorist Camps Around the U.S.
It seems unfathomable—nearly three dozen terrorist training compounds in the U.S. and the FBI, Homeland Security, and State Department are no help at all? But the evidence is irrefutable: as Jamaat ul-Fuqra (known in the U.S. as Muslims of America) leader Sheik Muburak Gilani professes on the Soldiers of Allah video, “We are fighting to destroy the enemy. We are dealing with evil at its roots and its roots are America.” The Soldiers of Allah training video teaches American students how to operate AK-47 rifles, rocket launchers, and machine guns; how to kidnap Americans and then kill them; how to conduct sabotage and subversive operations; and how to use mortars and explosives.
With almost 50 terrorist attacks on American soil linked to Jamaat ul-Fuqra—ranging from bombings to murder to plots to blowing up American landmarks—what will it take for the government to protect its citizens from self-professed enemies of Americans?
They hide across 35 American cities as innocuous-sounding as Hancock, NY; Red House, VA; and Seattle, WA. The allegations are serious, which is why Christian Action Network took more than two years to research Muslims of America—going inside the compounds with their video cameras and questions to confront violence and confirm the truth. Their mission? To make Americans aware of the threats and have Jamaat ul-Fuqra placed on the State Department’s Foreign Terrorist Organization Watch List, thereby shutting down the camps in the U.S. run by ul-Fuqra’s front group, Muslims of America.
The State Department issued a statement on January 31, 2002, regarding why the group was no longer recognized as a terrorist organization: “Jamaat ul-Fuqra has never been designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. It was included in several recent annual terrorism reports under ‘other terrorist groups,’ i.e., groups that had carried out acts of terrorism but that were not formally designated by the Secretary of State. However, because of the group’s inactivity during 2000, it was not included in the most recent terrorism report covering that calendar year.”
The effect of being removed from terrorist reports? In January 2002 Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and later beheaded while attempting to attend an interview with Jamaat ul-Fuqra leader Sheikh Mubarak Gilani. Was this an isolated incident? Hardly. In March 2003, Fuqra and al Qaeda member Iyman Faris pled guilty in federal court to a plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge, and the list goes on. According to a 2006 Department of Justice report, “Today, Jamaat ul-Fuqra has more than 35 suspected communes and more than 3,000 members spread across the United States, all in support of one goal: the purification of Islam through violence.”
In 2005, The Department of Homeland Security predicted that Muslims of America will continue to strike in the United States-yet they are still not listed on the State Department’s Foreign Terrorist Organization Watch List. “Other predicted possible sponsors of attacks include Jamaat ul-Fuqra, a Pakistani-based group that has been linked to Muslims of America.”
*** What we are witnessing here is kind of a brand-new form of terrorism. These home-grown terrorists can prove to be as dangerous as any known group, if not more so. —Special Agent Jody Weis, FBI
We must also work to protect our country against the next attack—terrorism spawned right here among us. —Senator Joseph Lieberman
These home-grown terrorists may prove to be as dangerous as groups like al Qaeda, if not more so. —Former FBI Director Robert Mueller
Homegrown Jihad: Terrorist Camps Around the U.S. New English Review The Iconoclast 19 January 2009 Homegrown Jihad: Terrorist Camps Around the U.S.
The Christian Action Network (CAN:http://www.christianaction.org/) has produced an important new film about the 35 para-military training camps in 22 states in the U.S. and Canada. These camps are sponsored by the terrorist group Jamaat ul-Fuqra (JF) or “community of the impoverished” and its notorious Pakistani founder, Sheik Mubarak Ali Gilani. The film is entitled: “Homegrown Jihad: Terrorist Camps Around the U.S.” This is an important documentary on a subject I've written about in the New English Review ( http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/17855/sec_id/17855 ),” Jamaat ul-Fuqra: The best positioned group to help al-Qaeda launch an attack in the US.”
I noted the following in the NER article on JF: The group here in the US has committed attacks and robberies, acquired contraband arms, engaging in counterfeiting activities, and proselytized effectively among Afro-American prison inmates. JF members participated in the 1993 terror bombing of the World Trade Center. JF seeks to “purify Islam” through violence.
What is of great concern is that federal and state law enforcement authorities have investigated and monitored JF and its front group Muslims of the Americas (MoA) and delisted the group as a terrorist organization. Nor has the IRS taken away MoA’s charitable tax exempt status.
Last summer an investigator with homeland security training contacted me after reading my JF piece about experiences at the JF/MoA compound in Dover, Tennessee. The Dover compound is problematic as it lies near the US Army's Fort Campbell, home of the 101st Airborne, "Screaming Eagles", Fort Donelson and a number of TVA power dams. The investigator noted in an email to me the threats to facilities in the region: 9 miles to Ft. Donelson 60 miles to Kentucky Lake Dam and a smaller dam 68 miles to Milan Army Ammunition Plant 20 miles to power plant 18 miles to the back entrance to Ft. Campbell
It was apparent from even the Goggle Earth satellite pictures that JF/MoA was expanding the facility. Armed guards were posted at the entrance to the Dover JF compound and the investigator was warned away from entering.
I was sent a preliminary version of this documentary by CAN to review. The premiere of the full length one hour and five minute version of “Homegrown Jihad" is scheduled for February 11th in Washington D.C. The documentary chronicles JF and Sheik Mubarek Ali Gilani's MoA terrorist training camps in the US. It exposes their vast criminal activities involving murder, assassinations, weapons smuggling, counterfeiting, drug trafficking and terrorist exploits over nearly three decades.
Especially informative was a segment in the film based on interviews with Sue Fenger, former chief investigator for the State of Colorado. She discussed JF terrorist exploits, firebombing of Hindu religious centers, secreting of bomb making materials and weapons in storage facilities near several US Air Force, Army and National Guard facilities in Colorado. Fenger, who doesn't appear on camera for security reasons, describes the decision of former Colorado Governor Romer to set up a state counter terrorism team, and the studied indifference of the FBI. This is an eerie prelude to what happened to the FBI in the run up to 9/11.
JF was acknowledged to be a foreign designated terrorist organization and Gilani its mastermind. The obvious question is, why didn't the State Department renew JF's terrorist designation in 2002 just after the tragic kidnapping and 'slaughter' of valiant Wall Street Journal investigator Daniel Pearl? Pearl was on his way to interview Gilani in Pakistan when he was abducted. The film notes that Gilani alleges that Pearl was setting him up for an assassination hit! The CAN film is dedicated to the memory of Pearl.
The CAN team used light aircraft to overfly several of the JF/MoA compound locations in the US coupled with effective ground reconnaissance of several JF/MoA compounds. The CAN film producers use the the Gilani video ("Soldiers of Allah") to demonstrate terrorist training, from his camps in Pakistan. He dedicates the video to his MoA followers here in America. Gilani is caught on video exhorting his recruits to be “like lions and tigers” and attack the Kafirs-the infidels. He warns them not to make copies of the video to prevent it from falling into the wrong hands. The CAN team uses the video to confront JF/MoA para-military camp leaders in Jessup and Commerce Georgia, York South Carolina, Red House, Virginia and Islamberg near Hancock, New York. The film depicts varying reactions to the CAN offer to show the Gilani video. They range from denial to outright violence by the JF/MoA compound leaders.
In Red house, Virginia the film depicts a protest by local citizens requesting the county council remove a street sign near the JF/MoA compound, "Sheik Marburak Gilani Lane” to no avail. The county council in Virginia was alleged by the film's producers to be fearful of Muslim reprisals.
There is a tussle at one compound including an attempt by a JF/MoA compound "Mayor" to seize the CAN team camera. Then there is the 80 MPH chase of the CAN film crew by an outraged JF/MoA compound leader in South Carolina who wants them 'off their lands'. County law officials counsel the inflamed JF/MoA leader that the CAN film team were not on the compound property and were within their Constitutional rights to conduct filming.
There are interviews with neighbors of several JF/MoA compounds who discuss reports of rifle firing and explosions, as well as intimidation of the local populace.
Through a tip, the CAN film team discover a previously undocumented JF/MoA compound in Wayne County, Pennsylvania.
Among some of the talking heads expressing concern about these JF/MoA paramilitary compounds in the US are Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC), Frank Gaffney of Center for Security Policy , Dr. Peter Leitner of the Higgins Counter-terrorism Institute and the aforementioned Susan Fenger. The CAN producers note that several JF/MoA members were involved in the 1993 Twin Towers bombing and were planning for several simultaneous mid-air bombings of US commercial aircraft. There is a report about one JF/MoA member tried for a triple murder in the State of Washington. The film cites "Jamaat ul-Fuqra: Gilani Followers Conducting Paramilitary Training" published by the in U.S. Regional Organized Crime Information Center in reference to JF's terrorist actions and the dangers posed by the more than 35 JF/MoA paramilitary training camps in 22 States and Canada.
Why did the FBI refuse to get involved? We believe it is infiltration by Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the US at both the regional and national levels, ignorance about Islamic Sharia Law war doctrine and fear of being sued for discrimination. The CAN team has produced a heart pounding, riveting and engrossing production.
We understand from the CAN film producers they have made an abbreviated version for possible viewing by national cable TV news outlets like FoxNews. Given what we saw in this preliminary version, we hope that the CAN documentary on “Homegrown Jihad” is viewed by Members of Congress concerned about homeland security and given a wide public viewing. Closing down the JF/MoA compounds and taking away the MoA IRS tax exemption should be priorities for counter terrorism actions by federal agencies. That is, if they are not intimidated by threats from Muslim Brotherhood front groups and free speech advocacy groups.
Who are we? We are a group of Muslim apostates who have left Islam out of our own conviction when we discovered that Islam is not a religion at all. Most of us took a prolong period of time to study, evaluate, reflect and contemplate on this religion of our birth. Having meticulously scrutinized Islam, we concluded that it is not a religion of peace at all, as touted by smooth-talking, self-serving Muslims and their apologists from non-Muslim from backgrounds. The core of Islam—that is, the Qur'an, Hadis and Sharia—is filled with unbounded hatred for the unbelievers, unbelievably intolerant toward them and extremely cruel and merciless to Muslims, who dare to deviate an iota from its doctrine. We realized that Islam is beyond alteration, because Muslims—who attempt to modernize and reform its unremitting bigotry, irrational rituals and its cruel and draconian punitive measures—are targeted for annihilation. Our verdict was that the only way to escape from the tyranny of Islam is to leave it altogether. We have, therefore, discarded Islam from our lives so that we can be free to enjoy a normal, pleasant and humane life in complete harmony with all peoples on earth, irrespective of their religion, race or creed.
Having thoroughly understood—through our meticulous investigation of Islam, lasting years to decades—that Islam was nothing but a lie, most of us have left Islam silently because of the fear for our lives. As Islamic terrorism and violence overwhelms the world, particularly in the post-9/11 years, we felt that it's a responsibility upon us to make world's 1.4 billion Muslims aware of the falsity of their religion and its cruel nature so that they can make informed choice and leave Islam to live with love, respect and harmony with rest of humanity.
We also felt it incumbent upon us to make the non-Muslim world aware of the reality of Islam and take timely precautionary measures against this religion of terror, hate and mayhem. We tell the world that the ongoing terrorism, unleashed by Islamic militants, is not an aberration from the so-called 'peaceful religion of Islam'; instead, it is the real Islam preached and practiced by its founder, Prophet Muhammad. A thorough study of the Qur'an and prophetic tradition (Hadith, Sunnah) makes it clear.
We, therefore, have launched this website to expose the real Islam—the Islam that is determined to replace the modern civilization with the 7th-century Arab Bedouin barbarism, peddled as the true Islamic Civilization. Let the world watch Islam through http://www.islam-watch.org/index.html and be warned.
'Islam Watch' is founded by a few Muslim apostates. Hailing mainly from South Asia, some of us left Islam after the 9/11; others have been apostates since prior to that. We aim to establish that Islam is false. We feel that it needs to be emasculated, marginalized or eliminated altogether, if the Muslim world wants to come out of its current backwardness and quagmire, characterized by poverty, corruption, illiteracy, violence, misrule and tyranny, in which they have been thrown in due to Islamic indoctrination.
To learn more about why some of us have left Islam, please read these testimonies:
The Ground Zero Mosque controversy has stirred up a lot of discussion and debate about what is a “moderate” Muslim and whether or not the Ground Zero Mosque imam is a “moderate.” We are convinced he is not, and in the next few days we will email an extensive dossier on Imam Rauf.
Below, our friend and colleague Dr. Tawfik Hamid, himself a Muslim, has provided us answers to the question, “what is a moderate Muslim?”
After the problem of Ground Zero Mosque has escalated it becomes an urgent necessity to distinguish 'Moderate' from 'Radical' Islam. Without making such a distinction the US and the rest of the world will remain divided regarding this issue. Debates about the issue can be endless unless we define the words 'radical' and 'moderate'.
Mosque leaders, Islamic scholars, and organizations who want to be considered Moderates MUST clearly and unambiguously declare the following declaration in their media outlets and on their websites.
I suggest that you send this declaration to Mosque leaders and the Islamic organizations inside the US and worldwide to see if they are ready to accept such a declaration or not.
Please feel free to circulate this newsletter so that we can start a process that allows us to distinguish radical from moderate Islam.
Declaration of Beliefs of Muslim Moderates -
I (We) are Muslims who want contemporary understandings of Islam to replace currently predominant harsh and radical (Salafi/Wahabbi) interpretations of our religion. We therefore declare that:
1- Redda Law, the Sharia Law that allows the killing of Muslims who convert to other faiths, must be banned in Islamic teachings and in Sharia legal doctrine. Islamic countries that practice Sharia must stop the practice of this law and must admit that Freedom of belief and the right to convert to other faith or believe is a basic right that must be given to all Muslims.
2- Current mainstream Sharia doctrines justify the use of violence against women. They encourage men to beat their wives to discipline them. They allow women accused of adultery to be stoned to death. These doctrines are barbarically inhumane, non-egalitarian, and teach Muslim children to be violent. These teachings must be ended by reinterpreting the Islamic text that justifies such violence.
3- Traditional Sharia doctrines teach Muslims that they must engage in war so that Islam will dominate the world. When Islam becomes dominant, Non-Muslims are offered three options: to convert to Islam, to pay Jizzia (a humiliating tax), or to be killed. These doctrines run contrary to modern respect for diversity and for personal freedom of speech and belief. This understanding of Jihad that seeks domination of Islam over other peoples must no longer be regarded as an Islamic value and its teaching as a duty for Muslims must end.
The early Islamic wars known as "Futohaat Islameia" were fought to implement this doctrine of Jihad. These wars therefore should now be regarded as un-Islamic and un-justifiable.
4- Jews are individuals who deserve the same respect accorded to all individuals. They should not be called "pigs and monkeys." The Islamic teaching that Muslims must fight and kill all Jews before the end of days is totally incorrect and unacceptable as it does not exist in the Quran. All teachings that encourage anti-Semitic attitudes, violence or disrespect toward Jews must be declared un-Islamic.
5- Slavery is a crime against humanity. All Sharia laws that justify slavery in our modern times must not be taught any more. Muslim scholars must have a clear and loud voice against slavery.
6- Islamic Sharia laws currently permit the killing homosexuals. These laws also are advocating a crime against our fellow human beings. They must be declared un-Islamic and their implementation must be considered criminal.
Dr. Tawfik Hamid
The above violent teachings, which currently are taught in mainstream Islamic books in America, are implemented in countries that allow governance according to Sharia Law. Future Muslim generations must be protected from these destructive doctrines, interpretations and customs.
These violent Sharia doctrines must be replaced with clear and unconditional explanations of why they no longer are valid.
Anything short of a fully clear and unequivocal stand against these doctrines indicates passive approval. Therefore, all Islamic leaders who genuinely consider themselves to be Muslim moderates must post these principles in English and in Arabic in full public view on their websites and declare them in their media outlets.
Failure to publically post and support these principles should be interpreted as clear evidence that a leader's mosque or Islamic organization must be considered radical.
Interesting Email from Moderate Muslims Calling for Peaceful Co-Existence
From: S.A.Rehman [email@example.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 4:48 AM Subject: Sub:Important Message For Muslims Dt: 15/12/2009 R4
AN OPEN LETTER TO MUSLIMS ONLY
Dear Muslim Brothers and Sisters,
God forbid if any one of our near one and dear one is killed then the killer is evil, a beast and what not and should get penalty but if one among us kills anybody then he is not evil and we start lying, denying or even justifying the killing.... double standards?
Being Muslims, many of our brothers and sisters are not working for peace. They are misguided, mistaken and spreading the virus of hatred and revenge through telling deliberate lies, disinformation and false accusations, which is resulting in death and miseries for number of innocent people living around the world at the hands of merciless KILLER MUSLIMS and also bringing bad name to Mohammed (PBUH) who never killed anyone in his life time.
Instead of teaching about Good & Evil, certain Radical Muslim Clerics are only "Trading in Religion". They teach us about accusing, abusing and killing the non-Muslims. They try to hypnotize us to Hate and Kill the non-Muslims and brethren of other sects or be killed and without using any common sense, we readily believe in whatever is being said by these Hate Mongers. Actually, they are "Agents of Satan" who is paying them heavily and in return they are cutting at the very roots of the Ummah. Instead of "Mourning" most of the Muslims are rejoicing on the brutal killings of the non-combatant innocent civilians and "The Murderers" have always been "Our Great Heroes".
Before it is too late and the Curse Of God falls upon us, we should use common sense, find out the TRUTH and must change ourselves to save Muslims from becoming the most "Hated, Isolated, Discredited and Suspicious" people in the world. We must start working for promoting "Sectarian Harmony and Religious Tolerance" in the society and should prove to the WORLD through our deeds that Islam is not a religion of Zero Tolerance and Mohammed (PBUH) teaches "Love & Peace" and not Gangsterism, Terrorism, Barbarism, Extremism, Sectarianism, Cruelty, Inhumanity and "Hatred & Killing" of the innocent civilians.
Islam is a religion of peace. Islam teaches respect and love for all even the animals. But many narrow-minded Muslims have so far failed to learn anything good from the teachings of Mohammed (PBUH) who preaches love for the peoples of all religions. We are far away from the basic principle of Islam i.e. "Enjoining the people to do Good and forbidding them from Doing Evil" and thus, possess no quality of the civilized society. Unfortunately, many of us show Zero Tolerance towards others and have wrongly learnt few thing to be called as good Muslims and those are "hate" the non-Muslims and "Accusing, Abusing and Cursing" the non-Muslims. ...act of madness?
The killing of others in the name of religion is a Sin. Can a FATHER (Abraham) ever teach his Children (Ishmael and Isaac) to be the permanent Enemies of each other?
The time has come for us to stop readily believing in whatever is being said, read and written by the LIARS / Hate Mongers. Unfortunately, some misguided-Muslims believe that the Holy Koran and Holy Prophet (PBUH) both have instructed Muslims that the opponents be KILLED and that they are simply following the orders. We should use our own common sense and only believe which is logical, convincing and in the best interest of the humanity.
Why do we hate others so much, may be they are better humans then what we are. My feeling is that the Muslims should unite to discredit and deactivate the fringe mullahs (Preachers of Hate) who promise a quick trip to paradise to people who have little and sacrifice themselves with bombs strapped to their bodies. If the mullahs (THE LIARS) thought that it really was a way to paradise they would be strapping bombs to themselves! Their followers are kept too ignorant to see this for themselves and enlightened Muslims should educate them. We must promote understanding and peace. We are all watched by the same God and need to help one another, not Hate and Hurt.
Our contention is that the WORLD should resolve the conflicts facing the Muslim World to stop the terrorism. Unfortunately, all the disputes facing the Muslim World are our self created. The root causes of all the disputes are based on the Muslim Philosophy of Hate against the non-Muslims. The Muslim literature, teachings and preaching are spreading and injecting this hatred in hearts and minds of the Muslims. Our intolerant behavior is further proved by the root causes of all the pending conflicts that we (Muslims) cannot live side by side in peace with the non-Muslims. All the disputes facing Muslim World can be resolved easily, only if we (the Muslims) are able to condemn the "Philosophy of Hate" created in us by our past and present elders who have divided the peoples of the world in the name of "Religion, Cast and Creed".
Fellow Muslims! if God is one and he loves mankind, we should value each others life and strive to protect each other than thinking that if we kill we shall have reward. God looks at human beings not as belonging to different religions, that is why the rain falls to all, the sun shines to all and we all breathe the air freely. We are all created or given life in the very same way- whether Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Jew etc. Let us learn to love each other sincerely.
The change of heart and mind is possible to achieve if we keep up our relentless efforts for a violence free and peaceful world. We need to preach love, kindness and humanity with extremist devotion and mission. The mullahs (THE LIARS) and the preachers of HATE must be excommunicated at every level and we should stop giving them donations as it is our money which is being used by them to spread HATRED for killing of the innocents.
We must also stop dividing the World into Muslim and non-Muslim blocks. Our political leaders and religious teachers must offer positive ideas. Without the ability to imagine a better world, we cannot build anything together. Tolerance of the beliefs of other peoples in the world, warmth and friendship across racial cultures MUST be the objective of all peace loving people worldwide. What is being offered today through religion is "Death, Destruction and Sufferings".
MY PRAYER FOR PEACE:
Merciful God, please give to peoples of the world, the required wisdom and determination, to Forgive and Forget the bitterness of the past and learn to live in peace like brothers and sisters, by condemning the divisions and hatreds created in us by our past and present elders. (Amen)
Please Read And Circulate this Message For Peace. Thank you.
Yes, They Can Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. Monday, November 10, 2008
Senator Barack Obama became President-elect on the uplifting, if inexact, slogan, "Yes, we can." This week, there is growing evidence that people who have in mind doing away with the presidency of the United States -- and all other aspects of our secular, democratic and constitutional form of government -- are similarly convinced of their inevitable success. Judging by the sheer audacity of their agenda, "Yes, they can" would appear an apt description of the prospects for the Saudis and other champions of the totalitarian program they call Shariah.
In the run-up to an emergency summit outgoing President George Bush has called to address the now-global financial crisis, the oil-rich Islamists of the Persian Gulf led by Saudi Arabia have not only established that their petrodollars are indispensable to any solution. They also seem to have secured the Bush Administration's acquiescence to the sinister strings attached to any bail-out of the West in which they might participate.
Specifically, the Saudis and their friends want the United States to join those, particularly in Europe, who have accommodated themselves to Shariah. No, we are assured, they aren't taking about the brutal theo-political-legal code that features such barbaric practices as beheadings, floggings, stonings, amputations, female genital mutilation and misogyny more generally.
All they want, those in the know insist, is for Washington to encourage Wall Street -- more and more of which is owned by the U.S. government -- to embrace Shariah-Compliant Finance (SCF). A Treasury Department seminar convened last week depicted SCF as nothing more than a kind of socially responsible investing vehicle that respects Muslim religious beliefs by eschewing interest-bearing transactions and those involving pork and "sin" stocks. So, what's the big deal? The Catholics, Methodists and Jews have their funds, why not the Muslims?
What makes the Shariah-Compliant Finance gambit both a big and troublesome "deal" is that, unlike these other religious traditions, Shariah's adherents are pursuing a global theocracy. They believe they must impose their agenda on everybody else, religious and secular alike, using violence if necessary. And SCF is explicitly described by leading practitioners as a complement to violent holy war: "financial jihad" and "jihad with money."
In other words, there is no such thing as free-standing Shariah-Compliant Finance. According to all of the recognized authorities and institutions of Islam, Shariah is a unified, indivisible program to which all faithful Muslims must adhere comprehensively.
Not surprisingly, therefore, the Saudis & Co. are not simply seeking to insinuate Shariah-Compliant Finance into our capital markets. They are also advancing the creation of a parallel Shariah-governed society through various other means.
One of these techniques will be in evidence when the Saudi monarch himself convenes a meeting in New York City in the hope of imposing Shariah blasphemy laws worldwide. In light of the stated, and seemingly benign, purpose of the so-called "Culture of Peace" event hosted by King Abdullah at the United Nations -- namely, promoting interfaith understanding and tolerance, numerous world leaders, including President Bush, will be present. Never mind that Saudi Arabia is arguably the most intolerant nation on earth, a fact even some in the Bush administration have acknowledged.
The real reason attendance at the King's séance is going to be impressive, of course, has more to do with the hope that petro-largesse will flow to those who ingratiate themselves to the House of Saud. Abdullah appears confidently to have signaled that, if the West plays ball on the "Culture of Peace" agenda, the Saudis and their fellow Islamists will be constructive at what might be called the subsequent "Culture of Money" meeting in Washington.
What will the answer be when the Islamists insist that free speech must not allow the slander, libel or defamation of Shariah, or other aspects of their faith? If the European Union and the United Nations Human Rights Council have already accommodated themselves to this demand, why should we object? So what if, by so doing, we would effectively thereby be precluded from talking about -- or even understanding -- the Islamist threat we face, to say nothing of eviscerating the First Amendment? As the Treasury Department can attest, we need the money.
Unfortunately, this is no time for us to be diminishing awareness throughout the Free World of the various, grave dangers we face from adherents to Shariah's seditious program. London's Sunday Telegraph reported this weekend that a classified British government assessment has concluded that there are "some thousands of extremists in the U.K. committed to supporting Jihadi activities, either in the U.K. or abroad."
Such extremists are said to be engaged in attack planning in the United Kingdom "either under the direction of al-Qaeda, or inspired by al-Qaeda's ideology of global Jihad" (read, Shariah). They may inflict "mass casualties" and constitute a "severe" threat to the Government Security Zone (including the Houses of Parliament and key executive offices) in the heart of London.
At such a moment, a federal judge in Oregon has held the law criminalizing material support for terror is unconstitutionally "vague." Taken together with the other manifestations of our capitulation, is it any wonder the champions of Shariah are convinced that "yes, they can" have their way with us? Who will disabuse them of this terrifying notion? We can, but will President-elect Obama lead the way?
The Face of Radical Islam — Their Aim Destroy the United States www.thomasmore.org Monday, March 31, 2008
The new Dutch video released last week caused international controversy for its shocking exposition of Radical Islam and the Quran. Sadly, as a result of threats to the filmmaker’s staff, the video was withdrawn from several websites over the weekend.
However, TMLC and others, not to be intimidated by such threats, continued to show the video on their sites — we still have free speech here.
Near the end of this video you will see adherents to Radical Islam specifically announce their aim to destroy the United States. Although the video is graphically violent, it is a testament to the true mission of Radical Islam. The video is available for you to watch here at the TMLC website.
This video has caused international controversy for exposing the work and goals of Radical Islam as well as it's interpretation of the Quran. Watch and learn why TMLC has taken such an active role in cases where we can fight the influence of Radical Islam in Amercia.
*WARNING: This video is very violent and graphic.*
TMLC is currently involved in several cases opposing Radical Islam in the United States, particularly its effort to indoctrinate American children in the public schools, and influence many of our large universities and colleges with multimillion dollar donations from Saudi Arabian donors.
Please forward and share this Alert with your family and friends. They must be informed of the danger of Radical Islam to America.
To learn more about our work in this area, please visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.
If you believe that Radical Islam poses a real threat to the United States, please consider contributing to help our attorneys' work in these cases.
Peace-loving Muslims By Walter E. Williams Wednesday, March 19, 2008
All of us should give some serious thought to some of the ideas contained in an article circulating the blogsphere titled "Why a Peaceful Majority is Irrelevant." So often our political leaders, "experts" and talking heads tell us that Islam is a peaceful religion and most Muslims are not out to destroy the West. We're told it's only that 1 percent, out of 1.2 billion Muslims, who are fanatical jihadists who believe America is the Great Satan, cause of all evil, and should be attacked and destroyed. In terms of national policy, it's irrelevant whether Islam is a peaceful religion and most Muslims are peaceful.
Think back to the 1930s when the Japanese murdered an estimated 3 million to 10 million people in China, Indonesia, Korea, Philippines and Indochina; and on December 7, 1941 when they attacked Pearl Harbor, killing over 2,400 Americans. I'm betting that most of Japan's at-the-time 60 million population were peace-loving people and would have wanted nothing to do with the brutal slaughter in China and the attack on the U.S. In formulating our response to the attack, should President Roosevelt have taken into account the fact that most Japanese are peace-loving people ruled by fanatics? Should our military have only gone after the Japanese pilots and their naval armada? I'd also wager that most Germans were peace-loving people and not part of the Nazi sadists wanting to wage war on their neighbors and exterminate the Jews. Again, should Roosevelt and Churchill have taken that into account in their response to German militarism? My answer is no and thank God it was their answer as well. Whether most Germans, Italians or Japanese were peace-loving or not was entirely irrelevant in formulating the Allied response to their militarism.
Horrible acts can be committed in countries where most of the people are peace-loving and simply want to be left alone to attend to their affairs. I imagine that described most of the people in the former Soviet Union; however, that did not stop the killing of an estimated 62 million people between 1917 and 1987. The same can be said of the Chinese people, but it didn't stop the killing of 35 million of their countrymen during Mao Zedong's reign. Whether most people of a country are peace-loving or not is not nearly as important as who's calling the shots.
At this particular time, fanatical jihadists are calling the terrorism shots in many Muslim countries. Their success in committing terrorist acts is in no small part the result of the actions by the millions of peace-loving fellow Muslims. First, there is not enough condemnation of their terrorist acts by the Muslim community. More important is the direct or indirect assistance terrorists receive through the silence of their fellow Muslims. There is no way terrorists can carry on their operations, obtain explosive materials, run terrorist training camps, raise money without the knowledge of other Muslims, whether they're government officials, bankers, family members, friends or neighbors. Because those millions of peace-loving Muslims do not speak out and expose terrorists and don't more fully cooperate with domestic and international authorities trying to stop terrorists, they become enemies of the West just as the peace-loving people in Germany, Italy and Japan became enemies of the Allied powers during World War II. Like them, Muslims should be prepared to suffer the full might of the West in its efforts to fight terrorism. I'm hoping that the millions of peaceful Muslims take the proper action to avoid such an outcome. I'm not that optimistic. We're involved in a clash with a culture that has little regard for the Western values that hold the sanctity of human life and liberty dear.
Why the Peaceful Majority is Irrelevant 19 March 08 by Paul E. Marek
I used to know a man whose family were German aristocracy prior to World War II. They owned a number of large industries and estates. I asked him how many German people were true Nazis, and the answer he gave has stuck with me and guided my attitude toward fanaticism ever since.
“Very few people were true Nazis,” he said, “but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.”
We are told again and again by experts and talking heads that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unquantified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars world wide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or execute honor killings. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard, quantifiable fact is that the “peaceful majority” is the “silent majority,” and it is cowed and extraneous.
Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China’s huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people. The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a war-mongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across Southeast Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians - most killed by sword, shovel and bayonet. And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery? Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were “peace loving”?
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt; yet, for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by the fanatics. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because, like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Bosnians, Afghanis, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians and many others, have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us, watching it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts: the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
"Islam is Peace" Says President (Bush) -Remarks by the President at Islamic Center of Washington, D.C. This is a misconception of the meaning of the word Islam: the Arabic term Islam is defined as "submission", rather than "peace", and comes from the term aslama, which means "to surrender" or "resign oneself".
(Note: the Muslim religion has never undergone a reformation, unlike other modern religions that used to advocate killing "infidels" or non-believers but no longer do. We have chosen to call the Muslims who strictly adhere to the Muslim holy book, the Qur'an/Koran, "terrorists" in order to be politically correct, but we fail to recognize that the Qur'an still, even today, advocates the killing of non-Muslims and confiscating the land that the infidels previously "desecrated" by merely existing, or of making them slaves and having them pay their muslim masters for the right to exist. A big difference between the Koran and the holy books of other religions is that the Bible and other books preach "Thou shalt not kill", while the Koran not only condones it, it says that it is necessary and will be rewarded even! Any so-called "religion" that advocates murder should be outlawed! Some Muslims are moderate, such as those in Turkey and other countries, but they are moderate despite the teachings of the Qur'an -- just as there are non-practicing Catholics. It's important that we understand this distinction.
Unfortunately, there is a “blame America first” crowd that dominates America’s universities, with the professors indoctrinating college student's minds with dogma, including telling them that we are to blame for the Muslims wanting to kill or enslave us. Tell me how this is possible when the Qur'an has been advocating killing non-Muslims for thousands of years -- long before the U.S. was even formed, much less had a "foreign policy" that supposedly is to blame for everything. It's no wonder that our liberal universities, such as Columbia, have given Iran's president an open forum to influence impressionable college students' minds recently, as they did previously invited Nazi Germany's ambassador to the United States, Hans Luther, to speak on campus, and also hosted a reception for him, and Yale invited an ambassador of the Taliban to speak on campus. Some universities have even had terrorists on their faculty (for example, there faculty ties to Islamic Jihad found at the U. of S. Florida).
Abraham's illegitimate son, Ishmael, was cast out of Abraham's house and rejected as Abraham's heir. His descendants and followers turned that into an Westerner- and Israeli-hating religion, most of whose followers today don't even know why they are supposed to hate and enslave or kill all Westerners and Jews except that Qur'an (which was written by Ishmael's followers) says to do so. Practicing Muslims believe that they have to follow every word, including murdering every descendant of Isaac (Abraham's other son, Ishmael's half-brother, whose descendants are the Israelis), and murdering or enslaving every other non-Muslim on the face of the Earth.
Other religious books have already undergone reformation and have been re-written so that they no longer advocate murdering all those who believe differently. The Qur'an is long overdue for reformation, and some moderate Muslim should rise to this task. The sticking point so far has been that most Muslims erroneously believe that God himself wrote every single word, and each word has been transcribed 100% accurately, with no possiblity of errors / additions, etc. Hopefully, some enlightened Muslims will understand that parts of the Qur'an need revision to bring it in line with the times -- we no longer live in times where we gallop on horses, cutting the heads off huge numbers of people who don't believe the same things as us. Most of the world's religions not only don't advocate murder, but say it is wrong to kill except in the most dire of circumstances when one's life is in imminent, mortal danger and there is no other recourse or help available.
Any so-called "religion" that calls for murder, and trains and sends its followers on missions to murder is not a religion, and should be outlawed. Think of how ludricrous it is to think that God told me to kill everybody else on the planet who doesn't quite believe everything that I do!
Some quotes from the movie "Obsession":
Our motto is 'Death to America'.
The purpose of Islamist propaganda is to make the Muslims angry and hateful at the West, and to encourage them to fight them. This kind of indoctrination produced the terrorists of today. These Muslims are the natural product of indoctrination.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. -- Edmund Burke (1729-1797), Irish philosopher & statesman.
We've been infiltrated with this radical agenda and America has to wake up because we're strangling ourselves with our political correctness -- from an interview with the daughter of a shahid (Egyptian Islamic martyr). Note: the Muslims themselves are telling us this! Do you think we should start listening and doing something about it?
The deception is so successful that I'm afraid we're losing the battle. We are living with them; they are here. They're not outside our borders; they are here. They are using our democracy against us and they know exactly what they are doing -- Steve Emerson.
The movie showed some practicing ("radical") Muslim leader in New York City teaching his listeners how to exploit a loophole in western law and in the U.S. Constitution called "freedom of expression" which he explained to his followers (here in the U.S.!) allowed him and them to advocate murdering U.S. citizens, and led them in calling "Death to America" and other hate speech while simultaneously stomping and grinding his foot contempuously on the American flag that he had flung upon the sidewalk -- and no one, police or otherwise, did anything to stop it, while he was publicly recruiting Jihadists! It also showed frightening parallels between the current situation today and how the West was so late in recognizing the danger from Hitler that they delayed too long before they attempting to stem it so that it then cost hundreds of thousands of more lives to confront the danger than it would've earlier -- yet many of us continue to bury our heads in the sand and say that it's all Bush's war and once we get rid of him, the problem will go away. The movie also showed how Hitler had enlisted the "Mufti" -- legions of Israeli-hating Muslims -- who were only too happy to help him annihiliate the Jews. Although Hitler was eventually defeated, the practicing Muslims continue attempting to annihiliate all non-Muslims -- and some moderate Muslims, too!
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. -- George Santayana
A Pew Research Center poll found that 26 percent of Muslims in America age 18 to 29 believe suicide bombings could be justified in defense of Islam. Moreover, relatively few Muslim Americans believe the war on terror is a sincere effort to reduce terrorism, and 60 percent of Muslim Americans say the 9/11 attacks were not carried out by groups of Arabs! “The study sent some warning signals that we need to truly work the problems to ensure that the extremism is kept in small amounts in this country,” Allen says. “We must get stronger in that area of countering the al-Qaida extremist ideology.”
Recently, the media highlighted a finding in a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that al-Qaida has established a safe haven in the tribal areas of Pakistan. But the estimate also said that terrorist groups “perceive the homeland as a harder target to strike than on 9/11.”
While The New York Times ran that positive conclusion as part of the text of the NIE, the paper ignored the point in its story about the resurgence of al-Qaida in Pakistan. Only three other newspapers — The Virginian-Pilot, the Mobile Register, and The Cincinnati Post — referred to the finding.
While progress has been made, the war on terror is being undercut by leaks of operational secrets, Allen says. “Any time you give aid and comfort to the enemy, or talk about counter measures the United States may be taking or measures that are out there to disrupt or defeat al-Qaida, it’s devastating to the United States,” he says. Most of all, Americans must not lose their will in what will be a long battle. “We Americans have to be strong, we have to be resilient,” Allen says. “We’ve got to be very, very tough.”)
There is a broadly accepted belief that a small but lethal number of fanatics have hijacked the religion of Islam and are using it in a distorted way to justify terrorism: this is not only untrue, it is proving to be lethal to the West. Compounding the false belief, and in fact providing credence to the belief, is the thought that the fundamentals of Islam, like all religions, are peaceful and benign.
The reality is very different; it is different in philosophical terms and in application of religious dictates. Empowered by the West’s naiveté, Islam has achieved an unprecedented and successful forward movement into Western society and its institutions. The process of this evolving “incursion” is ominous and potentially far more deadly to Western culture than the activities of even the worst of the terrorists. It is the purpose of A Never Ending War to prove this assertion.
Through tracing the history of Islam from the seventh century to modern times and juxtaposing the historical events with Muslim society’s positioning of Islam as a religion of peace, tolerance and benevolence it becomes quite clear that Islam contains many characteristics, but its self proclaimed attributes are not among them.
The justification and “authority” underlying the belligerent nature of many Islamic positions and actions towards the West are clearly put forth in the Qur’an. The dictates of the Islamic Holy book are quoted and analyzed and demonstrate how they effect Islamic policies and culture now and have throughout history.
The advancement of Islamic interests in the Western world is in a sense a “conspiracy”, but not a conspiracy in any classical sense of the use of that word: it is “conspiratorial” in the context of how Islam universally applies specific programs and activities to further its empowerment throughout Western countries. Islam utilizes immigration, energy control, cultural accommodations within the West, the manipulation of the Israeli, Palestinian and Lebanese issues, and most critically the use of Islam’s emerging political presence in Western countries and its influence on politics and policies, all aimed at wearing down the Western will to resist while furthering the Islamic goal of power and dominance -- and they “play” us beautifully.
The acquisition of power by Islam cannot be achieved without the support of the West, be it unintentional or worse. The lack of unity and a cohesive pro-Western diplomacy toward Islam, divisive politics, “politically correct” but inaccurate media reporting, and often benign positioning of issues that pertain to Islam all contribute to Islam’s empowerment. A careful analysis of these categories and the linking of them to actual Islamic advancement are demonstrated.
To counterbalance the aggressive encroachment on Western culture by Islam a set of realizable solutions and counter measures are proposed. They include philosophical, political, energy and military policy proposals.
In a single book, A Never Ending War presents some of the most vexing problems facing the West today and posits a set of solutions to these problems.
The Defining Issue of the 21st Century
A Never Ending War offers a new, unique and integrated view of both Islam the religion and Islam the political entity. Detailed are the West’s ideologically fragmented and contradictory policies juxtaposed against an aggressively expanding Islam. The nature of the expansion and the ways in which the West unintentionally aid Islam’s expansion are included along with ways in which it can be stopped.
Excerpts From “A Never Ending War”
From Chapter 16: A Different War-- Terrorism
Without the influence of fear terrorism can be seen for what it is: a morally bankrupt reprehensible act of murder executed by people who have been dehumanized by an equally bankrupt culture. As true as this may be, the tragedy is that at the current time the West seems not to be able to state this fact with any degree of moral certainty, i.e., the bankruptcy of current Islamic culture. Compounding this moral failing is the fact that the West is stuck in a purely defensive battle against an implacable enemy and narrowly focused tactics cannot defeat terrorism. Incidents can be prevented and terrorist rings can be destroyed but all of this will have little effect on the long-term cessation of terrorism. It will take a strategic thrust (based on unequivocal moral certainty) at the underlying support mechanisms of terrorism to destroy it.
From Chapter 17: A Different War -- Subversion
Islam cannot win the battle for supremacy by military means. Technologically and militarily the West, particularly America, is vastly stronger and more capable then all of the Islamic countries combined. Therefore alternate means must be pursued. Islam’s main weapon in the battle has become infiltration and subversion of non-Islamic countries, organizations and cultures, and terrorism is infiltration’s handmaiden fostering destabilization.
From Section VI How The West Supports Islamic Expansion
Chapter 27: Multiculturalism (“Diversity”) and Political Correctness
The expansion of Islam in the West cannot be achieved without the help of the West, albeit indirectly and mostly as a secondary consequence of policies thought to be otherwise positive. The help is quite broadly based and emanates from politicians, diplomats, universities and the media. Of course, while these sources very rarely have as their objective the support of Islamic expansion, nonetheless that is exactly the result. All of the beliefs and activities of these groups are governed by their near religious acceptance of multiculturalism/“diversity” and its watchdog political correctness. These two constructs bear the greatest responsibility for the on going sacrifice of the best interests of America specifically and Western culture broadly.
From Chapter 34: A Matter of Policy
One observation that demonstrates the intellectual bankruptcy of Western diplomacy: after forty years of an endless Peace Process in the Middle East, the West has even more slaughter and less peace than it did in the beginning -- yet the thought that the process will never work, at least as configured, seems not to enter the heads of Western leaders, not at least as reflected in their policies or utterances. However, during this same period, look at the progress that Islam has made: it has spread (actually exploded) throughout the EU, it has had major strides in the U.S., the acquisition of incredible wealth through oil, the wearing down of Israel, acquisition of deadlier weapons in general and now Iran on the verge of a nuclear device -- and we still think we can hold more talks to change the situation! At this rate the solution will be achieved but unfortunately it will be by Islam. We’ll come back to this issue in the section of the book - Solutions. (See Obsession online here. Related videos here, here, here, and here.)
Because They Hate By Larry Elder Thursday, April 12, 2007
"Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America," is written by Brigitte Gabriel. This is an edited version of our interview.
Larry Elder: You are of Christian Lebanese descent. When you heard what Rosie O'Donnell said, that Christian extremism is as bad as Islamic extremism, how did you react?
Brigitte Gabriel: Well, I do not know what land she is living in, but I do not recall when the last time I saw a Christian behead anybody on television, or behead somebody and advertise it on the Internet. I do not recall hearing a Christian preach that Muslims are apes and pigs because they are cursed by Jesus, the way that Muslims are teaching that we are apes and pigs. I do not recall the last time a Christian went into an elementary school, hijacked children and started shooting them in the back like the Muslims did in Beslan in Russia when they went into a schoolyard and took over the children and started butchering them and killing them. [Rosie] better be thankful that she is living in America because if she were living in Iran and spoke against her country -- or any Arabic country -- she would be beheaded or actually buried halfway in the ground, to be stoned to death.
Elder: Did you study Islam?
Gabriel: No, I did not study Islam; I lived Islam. I lived in the Middle East. I read the Koran in the Arabic language -- I do not need translation. There is something about living in a place and being an eyewitness and coming from a culture and blowing the whistle on that culture, and that is very different from someone majoring in Islam and living in the Middle East for two months so they can write their thesis.
Elder: You were raised in Lebanon, you were 10 years old and living in southern Lebanon when militant Muslims . . . poured into your country and declared jihad against Lebanese Christians such as yourself.
Gabriel: Yes, my 9/11 happened to me in 1975 when I was a 10-year-old child, living and minding my own business, [in] a small town in south Lebanon. I was an only child to a businessman and his wife. I was blessed with a wonderful childhood . . . they showered me with love and everything life had blessed them with. However, our lives were turned upside down because in 1975, the Muslims declared Holy War on the Christians of Lebanon. My home exploded around me, buried in the rubble, wounded as the perpetrators shouted "Allahu Akbar" [God is great]. My only crime was that I was a Christian living in a Christian town. I learned at 10 years old the meaning of the word "infidel." I had a crash course in survival not in the Girl Scouts, but in the bomb shelter that I lived for seven years of my life in freezing cold, pitch darkness, drinking stale water and eating grass to live. I remember at the age of 13, I dressed in my burial clothes going to bed at night, waiting to be slaughtered. By the age of 20, I had buried most of my friends who were slaughtered by Muslims.
Elder: You call your book a wake-up call. Tell us what the West does not understand about what I call Islamofascism. And, do you think "Islamofascism" is an appropriate term?
Gabriel: Yes, it is an appropriate term. We are fighting Islamofascism, we are fighting a war that is much worse than Nazism, anything we have fought before because even the Nazis did not encourage their children to strap bombs onto their bodies and then rejoice at their deaths, as well as the deaths of their victims. Islamists are encouraging their children to die.
Elder: There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. I want you to analyze them by ideology.
Gabriel: Not all of them are radicals. We estimate that the radicals are between 15 and 25 percent; that translates to between 180 and 300 million people like Mohammad Atta who are willing to strap bombs to their bodies and commit martyrdom operations. Now, that is still a minority, 15 to 25 percent, but 300 million Mohammad Attas ready to unleash their blood upon the West. . . . Now, the rest of them . . . despise the West, they hate our westernization, they think we are morally corrupt, that we are corrupting the world, and they think we are such a bad influence on the world that we need to be stopped at any cost. They may not be willing to commit martyrdom operations themselves, but they will sit there and cheer on and rally those who are willing to kill us.
Elder: Are we winning?
Gabriel: No, we are losing.
Part two: seven steps necessary to fight Islamofascism.
Because They Hate, Part II By Larry Elder Thursday, April 26, 2007
Brigitte Gabriel, a Lebanese Christian who lived through jihad as a child, wrote "Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America." This is an edited version of our interview.
Larry Elder: What caused Lebanon's 1975 jihad invasion?
Brigitte Gabriel: . . . In the early '70s, Lebanon was a majority Christian country . . . a republic very much like America. We prospered. We focused on growing our economy. We were multicultural, fair and tolerant, and had an open border policy. We welcomed everybody into our country, because we wanted to share the westernizations we had created in the Middle East. . . . Sadly, many people who came didn't want to assimilate and adopt westernizations, but wanted to drag us down to their tribal Islamic culture. . . . By 1974, Christians stopped traveling. We became prisoners in our homes and cities because Muslims would set up fly-by-night checkpoints. . . . Our religion is written on our national ID. . . . So, Muslims would stop cars, look at their IDs and if a Christian family was traveling, they would shoot them in cold blood. The whole family. . . . Extremist Muslims started coming from all around the Arabic world to fight alongside the Muslims in Lebanon.
Elder: Tell us about Islamofascism in the West.
Gabriel: The Center for Religious Freedom went undercover last year and collected 200 publications from some of the most prominent mosques in the United States. Those books, provided by the government of Saudi Arabia to American mosques, teach Muslims living in an infidel land how to deal with infidels. These Saudi publications repeatedly exalt Muslims to, and I quote, hate them for their religion -- meaning Christians, Jews, atheists and everybody in between. . . . They say that democracy, justice, freedom, brotherhood and equality cause all of the world's problems. This is being taught in the mosques. And it gets worse. They say it is the religious duty of every Muslim to impose functionally Islamic government on every country in the world. This religious duty is binding . . . and a sacred obligation of jihad. . . . Many people do not realize that under the banner of Islam the Muslims killed children in Israel, massacred children in Lebanon, killed cops in Egypt, murdered Armenians in Turkey, killed Hindus in India, and expelled over 900,000 Jews from Arab land. All that happened before they turned their eyes to the West and before September 11, 2001. . . . This is the religion of Islam. . . .
Elder: Are there moderate Muslims who condemn the radicals, who don't feel threatened by democracy?
Gabriel: Yes. . . . I call it a practicing Muslim and a non-practicing Muslim. I think it is a better description than "moderate" and "radical." A practicing Muslim goes to mosque, prays five times a day, doesn't drink, believes God gave him women to be his property -- to beat, to stone to death. . . . He believes Christians and Jews are apes and pigs because they are cursed by Allah. He believes it is his duty to declare war on the infidels because they are Allah's enemies. That is a practicing Muslim. A non-practicing Muslim no longer goes to mosque or prays five times a day, has an occasional glass of wine and believes that a woman is equal to a man. . . . He believes he cannot murder his wife just because he wants to. He does not believe in taking four wives just for sexual pleasure. . . . He no longer believes that, as a Muslim, it is his duty to kill the apes and pigs that have been cursed by Allah. A non-practicing Muslim is educated, an intellectual who believes the Koran -- written in the 7th century -- doesn't apply to today's standards, and Islam needs to be reformed. Those Muslims do exist and live in the West. However, they are such a minority -- we estimate about 2 percent -- they are irrelevant because it is the majority that is causing the problem now.
Elder: What should be done?
Brigitte Gabriel: Shut our borders. We have terrorists coming through our borders. Al Qaeda is working with the MS-13 gang [El Salvadorian gang Mara Salvatrucha], smuggling al Qaeda terrorists into the country. Hezbollah is doing the same. . . . We estimate thousands have already been smuggled into America. . . . Hamas is here. . . . They have cells in over 40 states. . . . We also need to reform our immigration and visa programs. We need to monitor who is coming into our country and why. . . . We need to increase human intelligence. . . .To get that human element that gets you the information, it takes years to establish trust with the enemy in order to get the secrets out of them. . . . As for profiling, I want everyone who fits the terrorist profile to be profiled. We have men between the ages of 16 and 40 who have committed terrorist acts around the world in the name of Islam. They are not little old ladies from Ohio with blue hair. They are not children going to Disney World on their Easter vacation.
Elder: What happens if a Democrat wins the 2008 election?
Gabriel: We are doomed. Our enemies want the Democrats to win. This last election, jihadist websites were playing victory songs and declaring the Democrats are our allies in the war against America. . . . Whoever comes next is going to have to deal with the same things Bush is dealing with.
”Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West” is an award-winning, eye-opening documentary that allows us to enter the minds of radical Islamists - to hear and see what they think about us in the West. Using actual footage from Arabic TV rarely seen in the West, and interviews with former terrorists, “Obsession” documents the call for world domination and global jihad that are made by Islamic leaders daily. You do not have to read between the lines here – their message is loud and clear. The undercover footage shows suicide bomber initiations, the indoctrination of young children into hate and violence, secret jihad meetings and public celebrations of 9/11.
Due to its vivid exposition of the terrorist’s ideology and methodology, “Obsession” has been used by numerous military and security personnel for educational purposes as well.
Many newspapers covered the recent controversy when administrators from Pace University attempted to prevent the screening of “Obsession” fearing Muslim opposition. Similar incidents occurred at the State University of New York - Stonybrook, Georgia Tech University, as well as in the Winnipeg, Manitoba community.
“Obsession” should serve as a wake-up call to the free world to confront the threat now, before it is too late..." Joel Surnow, Executive Producer of “24”.
“Obsession” is without exaggeration one of the most important films of our time… Please, you must see it.” Glenn Beck of CNN Headline News.
”Obsession” is touted as “The movie Hollywood doesn’t want you to see,” due to the fact that despite the overwhelming public interest, no distributor was willing to pick up the film for release because of its controversial nature. “Obsession” shows that what the West perceives as seemingly isolated acts of terrorism are actually viewed by radical Islamists as integral parts of the global war they are waging against us.
The feature-length edition is now being released despite protests from political groups opposed to the film.
”Obsession” features interviews with Sir Martin Gilbert, Alan Dershowitz, Daniel Pipes, Steve Emerson, a former Federal Prosecutor, a former Hitler Youth Commander, as well as anti-Islamist Muslims including the daughter of a terrorist, a former Palestinian terrorist, a Palestinian journalist, and the director of the Palestinian Media Watch. The film demonstrates parallels between Chamberlain’s doomed strategy of appeasing Hitler and the West’s current attitude of appeasing Iran and radical Islamists, the film also traces blatant similarities between the Nazi movement of World War II, and the “Islamo-fascists” of today.
Awarded Best Feature Film at the Liberty Film Festival and a Special Jury Award at the WorldFest Houston, this is a film you cannot afford to miss!
Farewell Israel: Bush, Iran and the Revolt of Islam (DVD $14.95)
The confrontation between Islam and the Jews began in the Prophet Muhammad's time, and continues to this day. Israel's existence recalls Islam's age old Jewish problem, first felt at Islam's inception in Medina in 624 AD: How can Islam thrive and find salvation if Jews are politically powerful? And it requires the same solution chosen by the Prophet Muhammad - elimination of political independence of Jews and the domination of Islam over them.
Farewell Israel: Bush, Iran and The Revolt of Islam is an historic journey, from the birth of Islam, through its 1,200 year reign over the civilized world, to the last 300 years of Islamic decline, overtaken and dominated by the West -- then humiliated by a Jewish state. Islam's historic trials with Jews, and its relationship with conquered non-believers, help illustrate the Islamic world view - all through the eyes of Muslims.
In this groundbreaking film, the total rejection of Israel by Muslim states since its inception in 1948 comes to light as a religious duty for Believers. The Islamic roots of Anwar Sadat's 1977 Camp David Accords with Israel are exposed as "The Diplomatic Strategy Against Israel," by which Egypt sought to defeat Israel through diplomacy, rather than establish "Western Peace." Israel's misunderstanding of Islamic goals and values are highlighted by its enthusiasm for Yasser Arafat and the 1993 Oslo Accords.
Next, President George Bush's tragic misunderstanding of 9/11 as a "War Against Freedom," in which the United States played into the hands of Al-Qaeda and the Islamist cause by advocating democratic reform across the Middle East, is revealed. Finally, the Iranian agenda for acquiring strategic weapons to eliminate Israel comes clearly into focus.
Today, at the direction of Iran, Islamists are preparing for a fateful coming war for Islam - and Israel is the number one target and obstacle in the path of Islamic revival. For Muslims, Israel embodies "injustice", and is the ultimate symbol of Islam's decline - a Western, secular society imposed by the West on former Islamic lands. Only with the return of Jews to their historic status as "Dhimmi" or "Tributaries," tolerated and protected within Islamic society, can Islamic revival succeed - resulting in "Islamic Peace" in the Middle East.
Farewell Israel: Bush, Iran and The Revolt of Islam reaches the unavoidable conclusion that Western and Israeli misunderstanding of Islam is leading to a coming war - which will have devastating consequences for the West, and worst of all for Israel - Farewell Israel!
Conversation with Director Joel Gilbert
What are the main concepts you wish to convey in your film?
First, an understanding of the Islamic world view, from the point of view of Muslims. In the West, there is a huge gap in understanding Islam on every level, from the man on the street, to Jewish and Christian religious leaders, to our elected officials. Only by gaining an understanding and appreciation of Islam's world view, through its historic trials and its theology, can the West begin to deal with the real issues and challenges.
Second, misunderstanding leads to war. Israel's lack of understanding of Islam, its values and goals, have led it to a policy of surrender of territory, based on the belief that it will achieve "Peace" in Western terms. In reality, "Western Peace" between Israel and Islam is unattainable. Peace can only be achieved in Islamic terms - "Peace with Justice" - which requires the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state. Muslims have 1,400 years of experience and Holy Scriptures to refer to that deal with Jews. Because Judaism predates Islam, Jews have no such foundation in dealing with Muslims, hence the Israeli misunderstanding, and the Islamic advantage.
What do you mean by "The Revolt of Islam"?
The terms "Radical Islam" and "Islamo-fascism" are simplistic and inaccurate Western misperceptions. Islamism is not a war against the West; it is an internal struggle for the revival of Islamic society - a "revolt" against their failed secular governments. The attacks of 9/11 are completely misunderstood by the West. In fact, 9/11 was only a provocation by a small group of Islamists, hoping to use the West's response to inspire the masses in Islam's internal struggle. The 9/11 attacks were successful only because George Bush played into the hands of the Al-Qaeda by adopting Al-Qaeda's agenda for government reform across the Middle East - helping to pave the way for Islamist parties to come to power.
Why are Israel and the West lacking understanding of the Islamic world view?
Unfortunately, it is a natural tendency to dismiss ideas and values that are not understood or shared - thus one judges other societies through one's own world view. Because the West considers its own historic development of concepts of "nationalism," "freedom," and "secularism" as the natural advancement of humanity, it has a hard time accepting that its values don't apply to others. This is why Western media doesn't even know what questions to ask. For instance, "Why can't Islam accept Jewish statehood? Why don't Western concepts of secularism and nationalism fit into Islamic society? Why do Muslims consider America to be "The Great Satan"? You'll find the answers to these questions in my film. Contrary to popular media concepts, the Middle East is very understandable and predictable looking through the eyes of the Muslim world, rather than our own Western world view.
What is Iran's agenda in the Middle East?
Iran is acquiring strategic weapons in order to shift the balance of power with Israel, which it believes will precipitate Israel's destruction and Islam's revival. Even without attacking Israel, the mere capability of Iranian missiles to lay waste to Tel-Aviv would create a "strategic umbrella," preventing Israel from using its superior strategic assets in a conventional war. With Israeli missiles neutralized, Muslim countries could overwhelm Israel with their superior numbers, conventional armor and short range missiles.
Doesn't Egypt's Camp David Agreement of 1979 with Israel and the 1993 Oslo Accords demonstrate there are moderates in the Muslim world?
Sadat, Carter and Begin
No, those agreements were simply part of what I call "The Diplomatic Strategy Against Israel," with the same goal as a military Jihad, the transformation of Israel from a Jewish state into a Muslim state. There is complete consensus across all schools of thought in the Islamic world that Israel's existence is an injustice, and must be eliminated on the path to successful Islamic revival.
How are President Bush and Iranian President Ahmadinejad featured in the film?
Actually, each of them represents the world view of their society - Bush expresses common Western misconceptions of Islamist values, such as "they are against freedom," "they want women to be prisoners in their homes," and so on. Ahmadinejad's statements, though considered "radical" in the West, are actually honest opinions that reflect long held Islamic views regarding Israel and the Jews. You'll see statements by Bush and Ahmadinejad throughout the film that relate to both historic and current subjects. Bush and Ahmadinejad help to demonstrate the very, very different world views of Western and Islamic culture.
The title of your film is disturbing - how can you imply that Israel is doomed?
There is a coming war in the Middle East, and it will be here soon, a war for Islamic revival. Islam must reacquire Palestine to redeem itself from Westernization and the humiliation of a Jewish state. After years of diplomacy and withdrawals, Israel is no longer a strategic asset for the United States, but instead a security burden. George Bush or Shimon Peres will say that "Peace" in the Middle East is at hand between Israel and "moderates", but anyone who believes that just doesn't understand the reality, or is in denial. Islamism is on the march and Israel is facing a calamity.
Are there any new historic revelations in this film?
Yes, there are many. First of all, Islam's historic trials with Jews will be a revelation to most. Islam solved its Jewish problem at its inception, and has a natural social order whereby Jews are given a protected status under Islamic leadership. There are also fascinating new perspectives on the Holocaust, Haj Amin Al-Husseini, Menachem Begin, Anwar Sadat, Shimon Peres, Yasser Arafat, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, George Bush and Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri. Its amazing how well one can understand current events once you understand the Islamic world view.
You have Bob Dylan band members playing on the film soundtrack?
Yes, I'm honored to have Dylan's musicians on my film's original music score - all of them have recorded and performed with my Bob Dylan tribute show, Highway 61 Revisited, in the past. Violinist Scarlet Rivera and Bassist Rob Stoner were featured on Dylan's Desire album, Rolling Thunder Review Tour and Dylan's film Renaldo and Clara. Bruce Langhorne, "Mr. Tambourine Man," was second guitarist on early Bob Dylan albums like Freewheelin' and Bringin' It All Back Home - that's Bruce playing tambourine on "Like A Rolling Stone." I play harmonica on the soundtrack. You can download 10 soundtrack songs as MP3s from the DVD. All together it sounds like a Bob Dylan Middle Eastern album, if you can imagine that!
Who is the film's narrator?
Lance Lewman is a renowned voiceover artist who has narrated documentaries for PBS's NOVA series, National Geographic's highly rated Taboo Series, and the Discovery Channel. He was the announcer for the 2003 Kennedy Center Honors, and has done political commercials for Clinton/Gore and Kerry/Edwards.
It's unique to see CGI in a documentary, why did you choose to use CGI?
The CGI environment is used to replicate the look of the Ishfahan complex in Iran, because of its incredible beauty and powerful Islamic historic feeling. The presentation of the film travels through rooms in an Islamic museum of history, created with CGI, and then each scene comes to life full screen out of picture frames (refresh to view).
How long did it take to make this film?
I actually wrote a book of the same name based on my studies and many years of ongoing research, and continued to update it. Then, I converted the book into the narration for this documentary. It took 6 months to find the footage, and another six months of editing, narration, and music to complete the film.
Donald Anderson Anchorage, AK
By a wide margin, this is the best documentary about political Islam. It contains the most historically accurate depiction of the legal and political side of Islam that I have seen. It carefully shows Islamic thinking with respect to Jews, Christians and other infidels. It shows the special tradeoffs of Dihimmi status and the peace that is available under Dar al-Islam.
Gilbert does a remarkable job of selecting pieces of Islam's historical record to give the viewer an excellent appreciation for the thinking of Muslims about their relationship to God and their earthly duties and opportunities. He generally presents accurate information and lets the viewer form his own opinion and recommended course of action.
I was blown away by the quality and quantity of information about political Islam contained in this 2.5 hour video. Joel Gilbert has produced by far the best video documentary on the topic of Jihad and Islam I have ever seen. It is probably about too serious and sensitive a topic to receive a well deserved award for the best documentary of 2007. I would not trade it for a half dozen of the books on fundamentalist Islam that I have read.
Every American and everyone else in Dar al Harb needs to see this film to appreciate the seriousness and duration of the battles we are now fighting.
Pete Howard, Former Editor Rolling Stone Magazine
Farewell Israel: Bush, Iran and the Revolt of Islam is a thoroughly researched, expertly crafted look at the tumultous Middle-Eastern political unrest and the West's gross misunderstanding of it, particularly the United States and even more to the point, the Bush administration. Not a moment is wasted in the engrossing, if dense, two-and-a-half hour presentation that feels like a college course but, unlike a live classroom setting, can be rewound or viewed repeatedly to glean the full meaning.
Plenty of archival newsreel footage (including sundry world leaders), splashy graphics, original, engaging soundtrack music and scholarly reporting combine to make this a compelling view for anyone interested in this most curious and important part of the world, and the history leading up the tensions found there today. Anyone with even a shred of interest in political science, or with a desire to educate themselves about a region of the world that's key to the future of America, should not miss this film!
Lex Zaleta, Charlston, TN
FAREWELL ISRAEL lifts the veil of mystery that has shrouded the Islamic culture from the Western world for many centuries. Joel Gilbert skillfully bobs and weaves through history to hit the high and low points of the struggles between two distinctly different, yet scarily similar, ideologies. Gilbert lays out his research in meticulous and painstaking detail, and viewers need only add their own reasoning to this chronological cautionary tale.
Those who have been paying little or no attention to what's been happening “over there” will be jolted into awareness by this crash course in past, current, and coming events. No matter where you stand on the Arab-Israeli issue, your comfort zone will be invaded and occupied by FAREWELL ISRAEL.
Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk), Phil Knowles, Trinity Home Entertainment
With Farewell Israel, Director Joel Gilbert has combined a scholarly work with a fast-paced and visually exquisite presentation that is at the same time historic, current, and extremely revelatory.
Set to music by Bob Dylan's finest bandmates, and with sound effects and stunning CGI graphics - it all makes for a world-class presentation in both content and film making. This film is for everyone - those who know little about the Middle East, and those who think they know a lot. I highly recommend this topical film.
J. Bones, San Diego, CA
Just finished watching a new DVD by Joel Gilbert, titled "Farewell Israel - Bush, Iran and the Revolt of Islam". I think this should be seen by as many Infidels as possible, including the politicians and students from 6th grade on. It is a cold dose of realism about Islam, Israel, and Western & Israeli ignorance about Islam.
Gilbert has compressed 13 centuries into the DVD with excellent maps and backgrounding. He makes the Islamic definition of 'Peace with Justice" abundantly clear. The Israeli government should require every politician to watch it at least 5 times. America and the Euro politicians too. There is more historic info packed into that DVD than any of our highschoolers are getting on Islam. Where it should go is on National TV, and replayed at least 3 or 4 times a week for a year.
Andrew Ian Dodge, Bloggernews.net
This is a rather depressing and extensive documentary (145 minutes) on how badly the West and even the Jews do not get Islam at all. They routinely don’t even attempt to see the world as Islam sees and thus make loads of mistakes in dealing with Islam. We assume the best and get burnt every single damn time due to ignorance about the religion and its ultimate goals.
This DVD, with a soundtrack from Bob Dylan’s backing band, tells the tale of the rise, fall and possible rise again of Islam. It tells the tale of Islam from its roots to its present behaviour. I think Robert Spencer’s books are written for those who can’t be asked to read at times meaty and esoteric tomes.
What is very interesting is the method in which they explain the gist of this documentary. It’s done as if one is in a Mosque looking at various pieces of art on the wall; which each major point being a different picture. Chapters are set in different areas with the final prediction of all out war set in its own room.
Extras include Islamic art and the complete soundtrack in it entirety including the haunting track ‘By the Rivers of Babylon.” And no, not the Boney M song.
This is a very pessimistic piece which I fear is spot on about Islam’s intentions for all of us. However, that said, this is not a subject to be taken lightly. This DVD should probably be required viewing for everyone both young and old in the West. Its blunt but equally damning of the idiotic actions of the West and Israel when confronted by Islam.
I highly recommend this DVD to you -- that is if you give a damn about what we are all up against.
Karen Phelps, Denver, Colorado
Thanks so much for making this DVD. I loved it. I’ve shared it will all my family and friends, and urged them to buy copies to share will all their family and friends. Again, my sincere thanks for making this educational tool available.
Mark Lansing, Escondido, CA
I just finished watching Farewell Israel. You have crafted a true masterpiece documentary and should be justly proud.
Finally! Finally, I feel informed on the facts and history of this epic struggle. Thank you for your hard work and contribution.
Robert Avrech, Seraphic Press
Farewell Israel: Bush, Iran and the Revolt of Islam, written and directed by Joel Gilbert, lays out the true nature of the Arab Israeli conflict with an unblinking eye. Gilbert is eloquent about the Islamic point of view, which should put to rest, once and for all, the notion that we are all alike.
Farewell Israel makes clear that it is a religious duty for every Muslim to reject Israel. The film also shows how Israel tragically misunderstands Islamic goals and values, hence a parade of Israeli and American politicians play into the hands of Israel's enemies at each and every turn. …Farewell Israel is a powerful film, an informative film, and I urge everyone to order Farwell Israel and screen it for as many of your friends as possible.
Rael Jean Issac, Mideast Outpost
Joel Gilbert has pulled off a remarkable tour de force: in “Farewell Israel” he has produced a technically sophisticated, visually imaginative, scholarly documentary that manages in the space of 145 minutes to investigate the belief system and history of Islam, the development of the Arab-Israel conflict (more accurately the Muslim-Jewish conflict) and the aftermath of 9/11. The documentary’s enormous achievement is in bringing all this together to show incontrovertibly the total misunderstanding of Islam that shapes the policy follies of the West in general and the U.S. and Israel in particular. The potentially deadly results are summed up in the foreboding title—Farewell Israel. (more)
Arsenio Orteza, World Magazine
Despite the dozens of bestsellers and non-stop talk-radio and television-news coverage devoted to the topic during the last six years, the "war on terror" - a.k.a. the war against radical Islam - still generates more heat than light. Joel Gilbert's fascinating new documentary, enticingly titled Farewell Israel: Bush, Iran, and the Revolt of Islam, represents an important act of redress.
Part historical documentary and part multi-media survey course, Farewell Israel is ultimately a call to reason, painstakingly detailing both the origin of Islam and its subsequent rise and fall, with particular attention to the religion's first millennium and definitions of its most important yet often most misunderstood terminology. Because of its theology and philosophy, Islam has changed little since the Prophet Muhammed's death left the religion to his followers, so Gilbert's attention to their roots and evolution is more essential than ever to a meaningful (as opposed to a merely expedient) response to the present crises posed by Ayatollahs, the PLO, Al-Qaeda, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The fact remains, however, that, for whatever reason, most Westerners, from the man on the street to the movers and shakers, are as oblivious to the history and ideology of Islam as they are passionate about either combating or appeasing it.
Gilbert has not only skillfully condensed this information into a swiftly moving script (euphoniously delivered via voiceover by the veteran narrator Lance Lewman) but also made it visually arresting, supplying the film's latter half with ample footage of the relevant 20th and 21st century people, places, and events while illustrating the first half with a clever, and at times ingenious, combination of Islamic art, stock Crusader-movie footage, and computer graphics. As for the original Middle Eastern-sounding soundtrack, performed by Gilbert and a trio of musicians best known for their past association with Bob Dylan, its effectiveness is such that it calls attention less to itself than to the historical parade at the heart of the story. The result is an artful mixture of quick-edit form and thought-provoking content that will hold the attention of MTV-generation channel-surfers and reflective intellectuals alike.
Farewell Israel is so absorbing, in fact, that one will not only want to watch it repeatedly but also to weigh its fundamental premise: that neither the stereotypical conservative nor liberal reactions to 9/11, based as they are on Westernized misperceptions of Islam's nature, bodes well for the future of Israel or the West.
Si Woolridge, DVD Reviewer Magazine
One of the most important questions of our time, especially in the post 9/11 world, is how we view the world of Islam. The other important question, possibly of greater value, is how the world of Islam views us. What do we know?
What if the knowledge that we take for granted is flawed? What if we’re looking at this through Western eyes with Western ideals? Joel Gilbert, better known for producing documentaries on Bob Dylan, brings us his latest film in an attempt to show the history of Islam and how they view the wider world.
Farewell Israel is a history of Islam, from it’s earliest roots to the present times, marking each significant point in history that Gilbert believes shows an understanding of what Islam is trying to achieve, arguing that the West has failed to understand the motivations of Muslims and continues to view the religion from our own perspective and our own values rather than attempting to walk a mile in their shoes.
As well as a detailed history lesson, Gilbert also tries to educate us with dictionary type definitions of key words and phrases used by Muslims. A lot of the phraseology he uses is straight out of the Koran, but it’s broken down to it’s component parts in an easy to understand format so that even the most ignorant about Islam can walk away understanding just how Islam views the world and what it is trying to achieve. It’s a brave line that Gilbert takes and a vital one if we are to learn the lessons of the last few hundred years, let alone the last decade.
This is an extremely well presented documentary, broken down into bite sized portions with detailed but short explanations. For someone who knows nothing or very little of Islam and the Middle East, it is a great introduction and helps to put things into perspective. At just over two hours, it’s very long but I would guess is designed not only for repeat viewing but also block viewing. I watched this over four sessions, went back over a few sections and truly believe that I will watch it again. It’s a fantastic achievement in my eyes and hopefully may lead people to start trying to understand a religion that appears tolerant and extremist at the same time dependent on the direction you’re facing at a given moment.
Phyllis Jones, Simi Valley, CA
When I saw this piece I was amazed at the depth and breadth of information in it. It was almost too much to take in at one time. It illuminated the history of the Muslims, how they developed and why they are doing what they are doing today.
Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri
This vast accumulation of knowledge, paired with the visually stunning graphics, reflects
Director Joel Gilbert's professional dedication and hard work, resulting in a real eye opener. Every American should see this film. It cleared up many questions, as well as misconceptions that I had. I'm sure others suffer from the same lack of education as I did.
Paul Rekstad, Palm Coast, FL
KUDOS for a fine job of simplifying a complicated story. After two hours of viewing I was so angry at what is happening to Israel I had to turn it off and finish viewing it the next day. It's a story that needs to be told. What amazes me is that the Israelis, as smart as they are, do not appear to fathom what is at stake. It is as though they have never learned from their history.
I hope your video gains wide distribution and jars our nation of sleep-walkers back to reality. Having lived in Libya, and traveled in the Middle East in 1954, I appreciate your wake-up call all the more. Thanks again for a first-rate production.
Nancy Stern, Oldwick, NJ
Moving, powerful, disturbing, the end made me speechless! All the images from the movie are very stuck in my head. I find myself singing By the Rivers of Babylon and feeling the way I did as the film ended. It made a huge impression on me!
Kirkland Ciccone, Subba-cultcha.com
Farewell Israel is a political documentary that strays away from sensationalist extremes which means it’s nothing like a Michael Moore project at all.
I will confess to not knowing much about Islam so this documentary comes as a bit of a crash course in the history of Islam, that religion that divides the world. Now I also need to confess that I cringed when I was told to review this -- after all who wants to watch boring documentaries about religion? I have much more important things to do.
I was wrong. This is a scholarly in-depth look at a religion that is hundreds of years old. It helps to put into perspective what is happening in the world right now, and does it in a manner that is not flippant, but not so ponderously boring that it would be hell to watch. It’s interesting stuff. The sheer volume of information to take can be quite heavy but the documentary has an interesting way of breaking up the sequence of events for people like me who need hundreds of years explained in simple terms.
The history presented in this documentary threads up whole countries and other cultures and it helps explain the massive tangle the world is currently in. So what can you expect to see? Archive material, dazzling graphics and a compelling soundtrack. Farewell Israel is powerful stuff, if a little depressing to watch. It still should be watched so you can see an old story retold.
Paul Hamill, Granbury, Texas
Excellent DVD! Before viewing, I considered myself knowledgeable on Islam and Islamists. However, I learned a great deal from the DVD. It has become mandatory viewing for my family and highly recommended to my close friends. Money well spent. Thanks again!
Howard Greene, Culver City, California
I watched the "Farewell Israel" DVD. Very well done. Great soundtrack. Lot's of information. Quite educational, compelling and disturbing. Hope you're wrong, but I kinda suspect you're not...
Esther Levens, Prairie Village, Kansas
I was so impressed with this film - I am absolutely in awe! It’s the entire history of Islam and the Jews. I couldn't stop watching it because it is inclusive of every element that we in the West need to understand about Islam. It tells of the relationship to Jews and Christians throughout history in an absolutely riveting depiction. I can't wait to watch it again.
The Coming War with Islam By Solly Ganor FrontPageMagazine.com March 15, 2007
Five years ago, I had a conversation with a young Palestinian student who in short precise terms explained how Islam will defeat the West. The conversation opened my eyes to a much larger picture in which Israel plays only a minor role in the Islamic game of conquest. Since then I tried to speak to some Arabs who come to pray at the Mosque, but they were not as outspoken as the student.
Last week, I had another conversation with an Israeli Arab construction boss by the unlikely name of Francis who was in charge of building a villa near our house in Herzelia. He told me that his family was Christian, and his name was given to him in honor of the Franciscan monks. Our conversation was as interesting as the first conversation I had with the Arab student five years ago and I would like to share it with you. Francis frequently parked his car near our house and we would exchange polite greetings.
About a week ago, the water was shut off for repairs in the house he was building, and Francis asked me if I could give him some hot water for his coffee. He was a tall man of about forty, with reddish hair and blue eyes. He spoke a perfect Hebrew, and I naturally became curious about him. I felt that he may the right person to exchange some views with. By his looks, I assumed that he was either a Druze or from the Syrian region. He looked more like a teacher than a construction worker and, as I later found out, he was actually a teacher by profession. Since my conversation with the student five years ago, I was always curious to hear their side of the story; therefore, I decided to invite him for a cup of coffee to our house. I saw him hesitate for a moment; then he smiled and thanked me for my hospitality.
While we drank our coffee, he told me that he was from a small village in the Galilee called Jish, near the present Kibbutz Sassa. I remembered the village very well as I was one of the soldiers who captured the village while serving in the 7th Armored brigade during the War of Independence in 1948. I decided not to tell him about it because at the time we encountered some stiff resistance at that village and quite a few of the inhabitants were killed.
He went on to tell me a little about himself. “For a while I was a teacher and I loved teaching, but I couldn’t make a living at it and I decided to join my father in law who is in the construction business.” Judging by the large Honda he was driving, I figured that he didn’t do too badly changing his profession.
Our conversation soon turned to the present situation in the Middle East, about Hamas winning the elections, the situation of the Israeli Arabs, and the last Lebanese war against Hezbollah. “As Christians we are in a difficult situation here in Israel. Unfortunately, the Moslems and especially the extreme Islamist section, are giving the tone here. My family who lived in Bethlehem probably since the Crusaders, had to flee for their life. The Moslems have been forcing us out, by threats and even murder. Bethlehem that was once predominantly Christian is now predominantly Moslem. Very little is written about it even in the Israeli press.”
He sipped his coffee and gave me a long look. He seemed like someone who wasn’t quite sure whether to say what he was about to say. I gave him an encouraging nod.
“I have to tell you something which very few of you seem to comprehend.” He continued, “Your bungling war against a few thousand Hezbollah fighters which you should have crushed no matter what, considering the importance of the outcome, has created a completely new situation, not only for this area, but globally. Your inept leadership totally misunderstood the importance of winning this war."
“As a matter of fact, the whole Moslem world, not only the Arabs, simply couldn’t believe that the mighty Israeli Army that defeated the combined Arab forces in six days in 1967, and almost captured Cairo and Damascus in 1973, couldn’t defeat a small army of Hezbollah men. As usual the Moslems see things the way they want to see things. Most think that the present generation of Israelis have gone soft and can be defeated."
“The American bungling of the war in Iraq only added to their conviction that victory not only over Israel but also over the West is not only possible, but certain. The ramifications of these two bungling wars may bring an Islamic bloody Tsunami all over the West, not only in Israel. The sharks smell blood and these two wars gave them the green light to attack sooner than they had in mind. Your problem is that you are on the defensive and they have the option to choose the time and the places when and where to attack and there is nothing much you can do about it. When will you Westerners realize that half measures don’t work with people who are willing to die by the thousands for Allah to achieve their goal? In their eyes the Western World is simply an abomination on earth that has to be wiped out.”
He spoke quietly and I could just picture him in the school giving his students a lecture. I poured him another cup of coffee and encouraged him to continue.
“The Americans, the Europeans, and even you Israelis really don’t know what it is all about, do you? During the last generation hundreds of thousands of children have been taught all over the Moslem world in Madrass schools to become martyrs for Allah in order to kill the infidels. These youngsters not only are ready to do it, but are actually in the process of doing it. Bombs are going off all over the world killing and maiming thousands of people, not only on 9/11 in the US, in London Madrid and Bali, but in Africa, India, Bengladesh, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and many other places. The first signs of the Islamic Tsunami is already here, but the West doesn’t understand, or doesn’t want to understand what is coming."
“The Americans, instead of realizing that this is as bad as World War Two, or even worse, are going to pull out of Iraq, handing it over to Iran on a silver platter. Next may come the Saudis and the rest of the Gulf states. When dirty bombs go off all over Western towns, who is going to stop the Iranians?"
“Now is the time to stop them, not only because they are developing nuclear bombs, but because Iran has become the base for all Islamic terrorist. They supply, money, men, and weapons to Islamic terrorist around the world, quite often through their diplomatic mail. Billions of petro-dollars that are pouring into Iran are being funneled into terrorist organizations world-wide. They believe, and perhaps rightly so, that the West will do nothing to stop them in achieving their goals. Is history repeating itself? Are the Iranians making the same mistake that Hitler made when he attacked Poland? Is the situation similar?"
“As a history teacher who studied the subject thoroughly I can tell you that Western victory in World War Two was not all certain. Hitler could have won the war if he would have gone ahead with the atomic bomb development before the Americans. The Germans began working on it in the thirties, and it was Hitler’s decision to prefer building more conventional arms, as he considered atomic weapons sheer fantasy. Hitler made the wrong decision, but had he made the right decision the world would have been a different type of world today, wouldn’t it? The West won the war against Hitler by sheer chance. Very few people seem to realize that.”
I must say that his last words shook me up quite a bit. Had Hitler made a different decision, I would have died in Dachau, there wouldn’t have been a Jewish state called Israel, and most likely there wouldn’t have been any Jews left in the world. The idea that the Western democracies in general and the fate of the Jewish people in particular could have hinged on Hitler’s one decision, is a scenario of the worst nightmare.
He notices that his last words had an effect on me, and he smiled. “I see that my words are not wasted on you,” he said dryly. I nodded, and he continued with his lecture. “Coming back to our time, the Iranians rely on the West doing nothing about their development of nuclear bombs. They also rely on their secret weapon: an inexhaustible supply of Islamic suicide bombers, some of them who are already planted all over the Western World. Besides the Islamic countries that supply these suicide bombers, a second front has been opened, and that is the Internet with more than five thousand Islamic web sites, brain washing and urging young Moslems to become martyrs for Allah. They especially target young Moslems who live in Europe and the West in general. The Western intelligence authorities consider these web sites a bigger threat than the Iranian atomic bomb. Al-Qaeda recently issued a television broadcast that promised a devastating attack against its enemies this spring. As we all know, Al-Qaeda doesn’t make empty threats."
“Actually, I don’t understand why the Iranians bother to develop atomic bombs and bring the whole world down on them. Every suicide bomber is a potential atomic bomb, or a biological, chemical or dirty bomb that can be no less devastating than an atom bomb. The Americans and Europeans have no defense against this type of war."
“What can we do against this type warfare?” I asked him. “Well, you Israelis, should better prepare yourself for another round against Hezbollah. It will not be long in coming. It depends on the Iranians to give the word. This time you will have to destroy Hezbollah no matter what the cost may be."
“Of course, your next round against Hezbollah may involve the Syrians and the Iranians against you. The Iranians declared that they will not allow Hezbollah to be defeated no matter what and may launch their missiles against you. So will the Syrians. What will Israel do? It is unlikely that Israel will accept its destruction and may use their nuclear arsenal if the West will not come to their help. Perhaps our book of Revelation is not so wrong in describing that the end of the world would start at Armageddon, which we know as Har-Megiddo in Israel. The book of Revelations describe the last battle would be fought at Armageddon between the “Forces of good and the forces of evil.”
“And who would you call the forces of good ‘Israel or Islam?’ I asked looking him straight in the eyes. He gave me a startled look. “If I were a Moslem, I would have no problem to name the forces of good and it wouldn’t be Israel. As a Christian, I would probably name Israel, but as a Christian Arab I would prefer not to answer.”
We looked at each other. His answer made it clear where the Israeli Arabs stood, whether they were Moslems or Christians. And why should I be surprised? After all the Israeli Arabs call the establishment of the State of Israel their nakbah (disaster).
Is there a way to avoid the “Armageddon”?
“I think there are two ways to avoid it. One can be a major war which the West can win. As in World War Two, had the West attacked the Germans in 1936 the war would have lasted not more than a month with very few casualties. Their procrastination resulted in World War II with all its consequences. Eventually, the West will have to tackle the Iranians, it is better that they do it now to avert a world catastrophe later. With Iran defeated the Islamic onslaught will lose its base, and it may be the turning point in history to defeat the menace of extreme Islam. The majority of the Moslems don’t want this confrontation anyway.”
“You are painting a rather dark picture. When do you think we will have the next round against Hezbollah?” I asked. “I think they will attack again as soon as they are fully re-equipped and I think it will be during the summer, while Israel is still in a military and political turmoil.”
For a while, we sat in silence. He finished his second cup of coffee and got up. “I know what I am going to do. I am going to Canada to join my brother. This country is becoming much too dangerous for Christians as well,” he said. He thanked me for the coffee and we shook hands.
“You said there are two ways to avoid Armageddon?” I remembered to ask him.
“Sure, all the West has to do is follow Putin’s ways. He assassinates his enemies without blinking an eye. Assassinate the four or five Mullahs who run the show, Ahmadinejad, and a few more Iranian fanatics, and the War can be avoided. It may be difficult to do, but not impossible. With today’s hi- tech technology I am sure that new weapons against individuals are being prepared right now. I think it would be a better way of handling the matter than an all out war against Islam.”
The conversation with Francis was not more encouraging than the one I had with the Palestinian student five years ago. It was becoming clear that Israel may be on the forefront for the coming war of the West against Islam, unless we follow Francis’ suggestion to assassinate the heads of the snake, rather than going to war with Islam.
Democrat Keith Ellison is now officially the first Muslim United States congressman. True to his pledge, he placed his hand on the Quran, the Muslim book of jihad and pledged his allegiance to the United States during his ceremonial swearing-in.
Capitol Hill staff said Ellison's swearing-in photo opportunity drew more media than they had ever seen in the history of the U.S. House. Ellison represents the 5th Congressional District of Minnesota.
The Quran Ellison used was no ordinary book. It once belonged to Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and one of America 's founding fathers. Ellison borrowed it from the Rare Book Section of the Library of Congress. It was one of the 6,500 Jefferson books archived in the library.
Ellison, who was born in Detroit and converted to Islam while in college, said he chose to use Jefferson's Quran because it showed that "a visionary like Jefferson " believed that wisdom could be gleaned from many sources.
There is no doubt Ellison was right about Jefferson believing wisdom could be "gleaned" from the Muslim Quran. At the time Jefferson owned the book, he needed to know everything possible about Muslims because he was about to advocate war against the Islamic "Barbary" states of Morocco , Algeria , Tunisia and Tripoli .
Ellison's use of Jefferson's Quran as a prop illuminates a subject once well-known in the history of the United States, but, which today, is mostly forgotten - the Muslim pirate slavers who over many centuries enslaved millions of Africans and tens of thousands of Christian Europeans and Americans in the Islamic "Barbary" states.
Over the course of 10 centuries, Muslim pirates cruised the African and Mediterranean coastline, pillaging villages and seizing slaves.
The taking of slaves in pre-dawn raids on unsuspecting coastal villages had a high casualty rate. It was typical of Muslim raiders to kill off as many of the "non-Muslim" older men and women as possible so the preferred "booty" of only young women and children could be collected.
Young non-Muslim women were targeted because of their value as concubines in Islamic markets. Islamic law provides for the sexual interests of Muslim men by allowing them to take as many as four wives at one time and to have as many concubines as their fortunes allow.
Boys, as young as 9 or 10 years old, were often mutilated to create eunuchs who would bring higher prices in the slave markets of the Middle East . Muslim slave traders created "eunuch stations" along major African slave routes so the necessary surgery could be performed. It was estimated that only a small number of the boys subjected to the mutilation survived after the surgery.
When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American merchant ships lost Royal Navy protection. With no American Navy for protection, American ships were attacked and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the "Dey of Algiers "--an Islamist warlord ruling Algeria .
Because American commerce in the Mediterranean was being destroyed by the pirates, the Continental Congress agreed in 1784 to negotiate treaties with the four Barbary States . Congress appointed a special commission consisting of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, to oversee the negotiations.
Lacking the ability to protect its merchant ships in the Mediterranean, the new America government tried to appease the Muslim slavers by agreeing to pay tribute and ransoms in order to retrieve seized American ships and buy the freedom of enslaved sailors.
Adams argued in favor of paying tribute as the cheapest way to get American commerce in the Mediterranean moving again. Jefferson was opposed. He believed there would be no end to the demands for tribute and wanted matters settled "through the medium of war." He proposed a league of trading nations to force an end to Muslim piracy.
In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the "Dey of Algiers" ambassador to Britain.
The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote to appease.
During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey's ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America , a nation with which they had no previous contacts.
In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."
For the following 15 years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800.
Not long after Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, he dispatched a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean , and informed Congress.
Declaring that America was going to spend "millions for defense but not one cent for tribute," Jefferson pressed the issue by deploying American Marines and many of America 's best warships to the Muslim Barbary Coast .
The USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Philadelphia, USS Chesapeake, USS Argus, USS Syren and USS Intrepid all saw action.
In 1805, American Marines marched across the dessert from Egypt into Tripolitania, forcing the surrender of Tripoli and the freeing of all American slaves.
During the Jefferson administration, the Muslim Barbary States , crumbling as a result of intense American naval bombardment and on shore raids by Marines, finally officially agreed to abandon slavery and piracy.
Jefferson's victory over the Muslims lives on today in the Marine Hymn, with the line, "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli , we will fight our country's battles on the land as on the sea."
It wasn't until 1815 that the problem was fully settled by the total defeat of all the Muslim slave trading pirates.
Jefferson had been right. The "medium of war" was the only way to put and end to the Muslim problem. Mr. Ellison was right about Jefferson . He was a "visionary" wise enough to read and learn about the enemy from their own Muslim book of jihad.
The paper stated today that some Muslim doctor is saying we are profiling him because he has been checked three times while getting on an airplane. The following is a letter from a pilot. This well spoken man, who is a pilot with American Airlines, says what is in his heart, beautifully.... Read, absorb and pass this on.
"YOU WORRY ME!" By American Airlines Pilot - Captain John Maniscalco
I've been trying to say this since 911, but you worry me. I wish you didn't. I wish when I walked down the streets of this country that I love, that your color and culture still blended with the beautiful human landscape we enjoy in this country. But you don't blend in anymore. I notice you, and it worries me. I notice you because I can't help it anymore. People from your homelands, professing to be Muslims, have been attacking and killing my fellow citizens and our friends for more than 20 years now. I don't fully understand their grievances and hate, but I know that nothing can justify the inhumanity of their attacks.
On September 11, nineteen ARAB-MUSLIMS hijacked four jetliners in my country. They cut the throats of women in front of children and brutally stabbed to death others. They took control of those planes and crashed them into buildings killing thousands of proud fathers, loving sons, wise grandparents, elegant daughters, best friends, favorite coaches, fearless public servants, and children's mothers.
The Palestinians celebrated, and the Iraqis were overjoyed as was most of the Arab world, so, I notice you now. I don't want to be worried. I don't want to be consumed by the same rage and hate and prejudice that have destroyed the soul of these terrorists, but I need your help. As a rational American, trying to protect my country and family in an irrational and unsafe world, I must know how to tell the difference between you, and the Arab/Muslim terrorist.
How do I differentiate between the true Arab/Muslim-Americans and the Arab/Muslim terrorists in our communities who are attending our schools, enjoying our parks, and living in OUR communities under the protection of OUR constitution, while they plot the next attack that will slaughter these same good neighbors and children?
The events of September 11th changed the answer. It is not my responsibility to determine which of you embraces our great country, with ALL of its religions, with ALL of its different citizens, with all of its faults. It is time for every Arab/Muslim in this country to determine it for me.
I want to know, I demand to know, and I have a right to know, whether or not you love America. Do you pledge allegiance to its flag? Do you proudly display it in front of your house, or on your car? Do you pray in your many daily prayers that Allah will bless this nation, that He will protect and prosper it -- or do you pray that Allah with destroy it in one of your Jihads? Are you thankful for the freedom that only this nation affords, a freedom that was paid for by the blood of hundreds of thousands of patriots who gave their lives for this country? Are you willing to preserve this freedom by also paying the ultimate sacrifice? Do you love America ? If this is your commitment, then I need YOU to start letting ME know about it.
Your Muslim leaders in this nation should be flooding the media at this time with hard facts on your faith, and what hard actions you are taking as a community and as a religion to protect the United States of America. Please, no more benign overtures of regret for the death of the innocent because I worry about who you regard as innocent, no more benign overtures of condemnation for the unprovoked attacks because I worry about what is unprovoked to you. I am not interested in any more sympathy. I am only interested in action. What will you do for America - our great country - at this time of crisis, at this time of war?
I want to see Arab-Muslims waving the AMERICAN flag in the streets. I want to hear you chanting "Allah Bless America" I want to see young Arab/Muslim men enlisting in the military. I want to see a commitment of money, time, and emotion to the victims of this butchering and to this nation as a whole. In short, I want to see you assimilating into America and making it stronger, the way other immigrants have for hundreds of years.
The FBI has a list of over 400 people they want to talk to regarding the WTC attack. Many of these people live and socialize right now in Muslim communities. You know them. You know where they are. Hand them over to us, now! But I have seen little even approaching this sort of action. Instead I have seen an already closed and secretive community close even tighter. You have disappeared from the streets. You have posted armed security guards at your facilities. You have threatened lawsuits. You have screamed for protection from reprisals.
The very few Arab/Muslim representatives that HAVE appeared in the media were defensive and equivocating. They seemed more concerned with making sure that the United States proves who was responsible before taking action. They seemed more concerned with protecting their fellow Muslims from violence directed towards them in the United States and abroad than they did with supporting our country and denouncing "leaders" like Khadafi, Hussein, Farrakhan, and Arafat.
If the true teachings of Islam proclaim tolerance and peace and love for all people, then I want chapter and verse from the Koran and statements from popular Muslim leaders to back it up. What good is it if the teachings in the Koran are good, and pure, and true, when your "leaders" are teaching fanatical interpretations, terrorism, and intolerance? It matters little how good Islam COULD BE if huge numbers of the world's Muslims strictly adhere to the teachings of Mohammed and the Qur’an, the teachings that have been demonstrated to us over and over again, whose structure is built upon a foundation of violence, death, and suicide, whose members are recruited from the prisons around the world, whose members (some as young as five years old) are seen day after day, week in and week out, year after year, marching in the streets around the world, burning effigies of our presidents, burning the American flag, shooting weapons into the air, whose members convert from a peaceful religion, only to take up arms against the great United States of America, the country of their birth, whose rules are so twisted, that their traveling members refuse to show their faces at airport security checkpoints in the name of Islam.
We will NEVER allow the attacks of September 11, or any others for that matter, to take way that which is so precious to us: Our rights under the greatest con situation in the world. I want to know where every Arab Muslim in this country stands and I think it is my right and the right of every true citizen of this country to demand it. A right paid for by the blood of thousands of my brothers and sisters who died protecting the very constitution that is protecting you and your family. I am pleading with you to let me know. I want you here as my brother, my neighbor, my friend, as a fellow American.
But there can be no gray areas or ambivalence regarding your allegiance and it is up to YOU, to show ME, where YOU stand. Until then, "YOU WORRY ME!"
Islamo-Fascism Week Spotlights Terrorism Tuesday, October 23, 2007 By: Lisa Makson
A week-long series of forums discussing Islamic fundamentalism’s ties to human rights abuses and terrorism has sparked protests and charges of hate speech on college campuses nationwide.
Students on more than 100 college campuses nationwide are participating in Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, which organizers say is designed to “rally American students to defend their country.” Events are scheduled at schools including Princeton, UCLA, Columbia University, and Penn State.
Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week is the creation of Terrorism Awareness Project (TAP), a student offshoot of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Its mission, according to its Web site, is to counteract the “blame America first” crowd that dominates America’s universities. The group aims to educate students and other Americans about the “cadre of Islamic terrorists” who “have declared Holy War on the U.S.,” according to organizers.
“We are trying to arm students with the truth that they aren’t getting from the left on college campuses,” TAP President Stephen Miller tells Newsmax. “America cannot defend herself without the support of her people. If the citizens of this country don’t understand this deadly threat — its resources, its aims, its capabilities — they won’t be able to protect her and defeat our enemy.”
But TAP’s full-throttle campaign has spawned a flurry of attacks against Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week.
A spokesman for the Council on Islamic Relations in Washington says the event spreads “hostility.”
Critics have dubbed the event “hate speech,” calling it a “campus crusade against Muslims,” and an “Islamophobia tour.”
Even Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Islamic Republic News Agency is getting into the fray, issuing two press releases to help students at Columbia University protest Horowitz’s appearance at his alma mater later this week.
Protesters went so far as to plaster the campus of George Washington University with phony fliers reading, "Hate Muslims? So Do We!!!" The posters purported to promote the Islamo-Fascism Awareness event and appeared to be signed by the conservative student group GWU Young America's Foundation.
“We did not put up those posters," YAF chapter president Sergio Gor, a senior, tells the Washington Post. “Someone took our name and used it. It was hateful. It's clear when you look at the flier that this is an obvious attack from the left.”
“The only thing people should be afraid of is ignorance of the threat facing our nation,” says Miller. “We’re drawing a big distinction between Islam and Islamo-fascists. In fact, Muslims should join us. [Islamo-fascsists] killed, raped, tortured, and maimed people, and anyone who is an advocate of human rights should support us.
“Our opponents have demanded we abandon the term Islamo-fascism and instead use only vague terms like terrorism. That is ridiculous — and dangerous,” Miller says. “It's hard to defeat an enemy you're not permitted to describe. One of the points of this week is to get rid of the political correctness that handcuffs us when we talk about the threat.
“We’re not going to back down an inch to the leftist bullies. We are going to continue this fight,” he says.
TAP’s first event was an Islamo-Fascism Awareness Day last April, featuring screenings of “Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West” at 96 college campuses. From that blossomed Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week.
Miller adds that “one of the things that makes this event so unique is David Horowitz. He approaches this as a true, in-the-trenches activist. This event is bold and different from what other conservatives are doing on college campuses.”
Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America - Brigitte Gabriel:
Obsession is a film about the threat of Radical Islam to Western civilization. Using unique footage from Arab television, it reveals an 'insider's view' of the hatred the Radicals are teaching, their incitement of global jihad, and their goal of world domination. The film also traces the parallels between the Nazi movement of World War II, the Radicals of today, and the Western world's response to both threats. Featuring interviews with Daniel Pipes, Steve Emerson, Alan Dershowitz, a former PLO terrorist, and a former Hitler Youth Commander.
This film needs to be seen by every citizen (especially the members of our governments) of the remaining free nations! The map alone showing the global spread of Islamic terrorist acts should be an alarming wake-up call,and confirmation of what many ex-mulims have been trying to warn the west of for many years.That the goal of Islam is to establish a worldwide Caliphate! Probably the most convincing thing about this film that attests to that fact,is the clips from the terrorists themselves,what they,and their religious leaders have to say. Religion of Peace-GIVE ME A BREAK! That old worn out lie is just that,a complete, total lie. There is nothing about the aims/goals of this false religion that is peaceful. It should be classified as a violent/fanatical "cult",and stop calling it a religion!
I have also read: What the Koran Really Says: Language, Text, and Commentary by Ibn Warraq and The Qur'an (Oxford World's Classics) by M. A. S. Abdel Haleem and I suggest everyone else do the same, so you can tell the Muslim Apologetics that you are aware of how *Abrogation* applies to the Quran and so you cannot be *swayed* by their false claims!
Whether you are aware or not, like it or not, the mainstream middle eastern media carries stories and images which denounce the west and encourage radical behavior on a daily basis. Obsession exposes the agenda of the Islamists and how the middle eastern media encourages their people to hate and kill non-muslims - much of it though lies and disinformation to people whom have little to no outside information or reason to distrust their leaders, people who have been brainwashed since birth to believe only what their religion tells them to believe... or else. The video exposes Imams, Shieks, Muftis and other Islamic leaders who preach this hate against the west and drive their followers on an agenda of world domination. Commentary is provided by terrorism experts and ex-muslims who are forced to live in hiding for fear of their lives. I highly recommend this video to people who want to learn about what's going on in the world right now.
A wake-up call for America Every democratic citizen of the free world needs to see this movie. Forget about the commentary and just listen to what the radical muslims are saying. If you won't believe it when you hear it from thier own mouth, what will it take? Our children will fight this war if we don't address this problem now--and it starts with the moderate Muslims taking a stand. They know who the radicals are, and need to point the ones here in the West out to us, if they want us to believe that they truly loyal to our (and now, their) country and want what is best for us.
Obsession reveals a side of the Radical Muslim world that is never shown on Western media: the truth. Obsession lays before the viewer the unvarnished, unfiltered reality of the hatred and insanity that is taught to thousands of children daily in the Muslim world via their own state run broadcasts. This documentary will force you to fully understand that no one is safe from the radical Islamofacist's path to Allah; It is through your death and the death of your children. Obesession is a must see for all and should be shown in schools well before wasting time with Al Gore's environmental nonsense.
Obsession is a movie that everyone should watch but not everyone wants to understand. Based upon a few negative reviews it is apparent that some people refuse to believe that evil exists and claim that this movie is propaganda. If you want to see propaganda watch al-jazeera. If you want to see evil watch the beheading videos put out out by al-qaeda. Obsession should scare you because it IS the truth.
What makes this movie great is that it does not attempt to be politically correct. It presents the facts as they are with no apology. Our government and liberal media has become so politically correct that a terrorist cannot even be called a terrorist by certain newspapers or T.V. news stations because it may be considered offensive! This PC mentality is destroying our country. Radical Islam is the number one threat our nation faces. Unfortunately, liberal career politicians are more concerned with votes, lies, and deceit rather than national security. Their "viewpoints" vary like the soup of the day menu at your local diner. If Hillary or Obama becomes the next president we just may find out how real Obsession is and what the future holds. Lets hope not.
This is a great documentary. It should be shown to all world leaders, especially those in Europe who believe in placating the Radical Muslims.
That We May Know Our Enemy This is a revealing and graphic look at Islamic Jihad against the West. The video is filled with footage from Middle East TV sources showing hate-filled speeches by Muslim clerics whose goal is to dominate the world with Islam. There are scenes of the bodies of dead American soldiers being desecrated for Islamic propaganda television. There are especially troubling scenes of Islamic children being brainwashed in ways similar to Nazi youth in the 1940s. The cultural brainwashing continues in the form of videos falsely depicting Jews cutting throats to get blood to make Matzo bread. The irony is that the Islamic propagandists are accusing the Jews of doing exactly what the Islamists themselves do. Other Islamic Jihad tactics are revealed such as leaders saying one thing to Western journalists and the opposite to Muslims. Yasser Arafat is shown doing this. Another case in point, is Anjem Choudary Al-Muhajiroun, who tells London TV in 2002 that "the actions of flying airplanes filled with innocent civilians into buildings is not legitimate"; but later, when speaking to an Islamic audience on 9/11/03, he refers to "the magnificent 19" who "split the world in half." Everyone in the free world should see videos such as this that we may know our enemy in order to better defeat it.
Become aware of the threat If you are reasonably aware of the threat posed by radical islam you will become even more alarmed. If you don't believe there is a threat, you are in for a very rude awakening. You will have to believe everyone in the video is lying for some evil purpose to not become very concerned about the threat and the hate being preached.
The numbers of muslims that want non believers to be killed or enslaved is very large. The number of muslims that will stand by and watch is staggering.
As they say, be afraid, be very afraid.
Open mouth and insert foot. Who needs to make stuff up about radical Islam when its leaders and putting themselves on TV, constantly saying they want to destroy Israel and the West, and saying much of in English where there can be no bias in translation.
Its time to take seriously what these madmen are saying (it would be madness to keep ignoring them). This is real news and our liberal journalists are criminal in not bringing it to the public's attention. The material is out there and easy to get, if they cared to.
have been studying Islam for the past several months and my church recommended the movie "Obsession". Not finding it in my local video stores I decided to purchase it. What I saw was not only very well done but also chillingly true.
Everyone -- Christians, Jews and even Muslims need to see this movie to understand what is happening in today's world.
To echo a few other reviewers, this documentary is an absolute MUST-SEE for everyone threatened by the jihadist agenda - meaning not only infidels of every religious stripe, from Christian to Jew to atheist to Buddhist and beyond, but to MUSLIMS TOO, who are currently the most numerous victims of terrorism.
I completely disagree with another reviewer who claims Americans don't need a wakeup call - we most certainly do, because most Americans do not really understand the jihadist threat and its infiltration in the West. It's not just some vague little problem in distant Pakistan or Iraq - it's a worldwide danger, and this documentary captures chilling evidence, in their own words, of the jihadis' evil agenda. I do agree with another reviewer that this documentary is too short (and that's why I'm rating it only 4 stars), and that those interviewed could have been given much more time to expound, but this is nonetheless an excellent starting point for Americans who need to be shocked out of their complacency and naivete.
WOW!! Truly educational and an eye opener. We in the West have to wake up. We are willfully subjugating ourselves to this radical ideology. Our media is clearly bias and intimidated as could be seen with the cartoon incident and also more recently in Canada. A Muslim was found to have had 3 bombs in his car. There was NOT ONE word mentioned in the media that he was a Muslim. NOT ONE!!
Eye Opener We have Radical Muslims using our laws against us. They are spreading their hate and even trying to use our taxes to finance their schools. I am not against Muslims but until they start acting like the peaceful people they claim to be, they have very little credibility. What ever you do, watch the movie and decide for yourself.
The whole world need to see this film. It is a powerful educational tool for open minded person. Strongly suggested for UN staff and Hollywood stars.
Can't we all just get along? Why don't we sit down and discuss this with them? This is the conventional thinking of conventional people. Unfortuately, the KORAN is not about conventional people. Nor are the people who follow the Koran conventional, in any sense.
If you are in the "why can't we sit down an negotiate" crowd, do some research and then ask that question OF YOURSELF!
Google or Yahoo has many links to English translations of the Koran (and many of its other spellings). Try "browse koran" for your search term.
When you get it, open it up to chapter 9, then read the first few verses (this is the ISLAMIC BIBLE!!!). I'll help you translate it... It says they have exactly 2 choices. YOU MUST EITHER ... BOW DOWN TO ALLAH, and pay the poor taxes ... or THEY MUST SLAY YOU!!!
(I think that means they INTEND TO KILL ME - because I don't intend to bow down to Allah). Oh, by the way, if you are one of the offspring of the half-brothers of the children of Moses, (Jews, if you don't know who that might be), YOU DON'T GET THE CHOICE - YOU MUST BE SLAIN!!!
I was already aware of this, before I watched this movie, but this movie drove home the VAST IMPACT that they are already having. It begins in the cradle; continues through childhood; continues in their religious teachings; and permeates the entire world-wide population of ISLAM.
Another point that was not brought out in the movie - but you should be aware of - is that they don't care if they have to wait 1000 days or 1000 years. Americans (according to Osama Bin Ladin) don't have the patience to finish this. They do!
I have heard the quiet ones say that there are Islamic's who are "peace loving." Now, go read that chapter 9 again - it also says that Islamics are peace loving - and that Allah is "merciful." Somehow, I find it hard to believe a word of it.
It's real simple - how many powerful Islamic religious leaders have you seen leading the children of Ismael out of the wilderness and into peaceful existance with the world? I haven't seen ANY!
ONE SOLID DOCUMENTARY. Clearly this documentary can only focus on one aspect of radical Islam since it has a limited amount of time to make it's points. The topic is indoctrination of the Muslim world with radical jihadist ideology, and how that is causing global jihad to spread war against many different countries and peoples. Footage of Arab television is stunning.
This film presents only one piece of the puzzle of radical Islam. Yet it is a great piece of the puzzle to start with. You'll witness the massive power and energy invested in poisoning the minds of Arabs and Muslims worldwide, hijacking Islam, and threatening the world.
SOME (of many) GOOD POINTS: 1) Towards the end of the film, they make a most crucial statement: The people who need the most support in fighting radical Islam are those Muslims who do NOT support the radicalization of their religion. Currently, such muslims must put their families lives at risk if they wish to speak out against the Islamists. Yet Western politicians and media have continued to fail in supporting moderate muslims, while doling out support for radical groups such as CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations).
2) An additional point that the film makes - although subtly since this point kind of goes against the film's title - is that radical Islam is not only attacking the West, but is attacking non-Muslim Africans in Darfur, Buddhists in Asia, and their very own fellow Arabs in the middle east. Caroline Glick, one of the interviewees, makes the point that these ongoing conflicts are not unrelated, despite the Western media spinning them that way.
Many people find it difficult to face the fact that muslim terrorists come from an entirely different world than Westerners are used to, or can even imagine. Such people find it easier to create detailed and overly intricate stories to explain global jihad, such as the CIA or the Bush Administration, etc. than to accept the reality of our world today.
Meanwhile brave Arabs and Muslims, such as the men and women featured in Obsession, come to tell their stories about the people they grew up with, and share with us all they know about radical Islam and its intentions for our world. Yet feeble minded conspiracy theorists spit in their faces. Please show your support for such brave Muslims by listening to their stories and taking their words with deep regard.
I manned checkpoints in the Israeli army, finishing just before the 2006 war with Hizbullah. The Palestinians that I got to know in the West Bank occasionally confided in me that they are trapped in their world. If they even speak out against the jihadists, they will be slaughtered. They told me that their true wish is NOT their own state, but rather to move to Israel! to the West, to freedom! But what can they do? This is why you need to see the film. To see the world that they are living in, which directly effects the rest of our globalized world. The war we are in is far more complex than you can imagine. Your greatest weapon is education.
I bought this movie when it first came out and have had several public showings, and I've tried to encourage anyone who will listen to either see our copy or buy it themselves. It was amazing to me how much difficulty I ran into trying to get it shown in a so-called 'public' theater here, when they show tons of schlock like Gore's lying movie or Michael Moore's version of reality. But resistance to the truth has always plagued humanity, and is the real reason for war.
The funny thing is, the content in this film comes from the mouths of the perpetrators, not the producers. There is real video copied from their own media, commentary by experts and first-hand accounts of involvement by the people who were (are) there, but no outside scripted rhetoric by someone with an ax to grind (unlike a couple of the reviews here so far). It is fair and balanced, well thought out, and if anything more complimentary toward Islam than it should be. If I needed to say anything negative it would be it is slanted too far towards politeness and giving the benefit of the doubt to Islam.
One of the many scenes that stood out for me in the film was the image of Neville Chamberlain from before the beginning of World War II standing in front of cameras and confidently declaring that he had Hitler's peaceful assurances on paper. We all know how that turned out, don't we? Reminds me of so many other people now who are burying their heads in the sand, liberals who shrink from doing anything difficult, talking about needing 'diplomatic' solutions and just sending more money (blackmail payments?).
It might be unfair to compare Islamic fascism with Hitler's version, and I might agree. It would be unfair to Hitler, because the Islamic version is much more murderous and implacable.
There is no doubt that the groups caught on film here are bent on destruction of anything with which they don't agree. The nice thing is they are condemned by their own words and actions, and no one has to manufacture anything. All you've got to do is listen to them and you'll find out what the chances are of talking them out of their hatred. The only thing they'll understand is more of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Three cheers for the United States and our brave leaders standing up to these monsters and taking action. This is what our soldiers are fighting, and this is why the fight is necessary.
Every one in the free world should be required to watch this movie.It does no good to take the politically correct view that this is just a few malcontents and that most Muslims are on our side. A lot of them are, but this film gives you an idea of just how many aren't, and how deep their hatred for us is. It's time to wake up, our future and the future of our children is at stake.
I must admit that I was ignorant about what truly is going on around the world especially against America and the fee western world. I hear everyday on the news bits and pieces of the dangers develping, yet I let the media dictate so long how and what I should think.
This movie was able to show only a small reality of what is actually going on everyday against us. They say "Death to America". They mean what they say. We will be fools not to realize that by now. The question is what we are going to do about it. We can continue playing ignorant and be very sorry, and I hope not.
It was a wake up call, and I recommend it to every free human to watch it.
What you don't know can kill you Open up your history books and recall that before WWII broke out, British citizens were fed a sanitized version of Hitler. This was why they were asleep and why they failed to realize that Hitler was a massive threat. A few politicians realized what Hitler was up to, what it all meant, and what the inevitable future would bring. These politicians were ignored, and rather than stomping out the embers when they could barely start a fire, we were left with the holocaust, a massive world war, and millions dead across the globe.
What you don't know can kill you.
I watched this movie and I was surprised. I thought I knew what was happening in foreign muslim countries. I thought I was familiar with the extent of the indoctrination, the extent of the preaching of American and Israeli and Western hatred and the depth of these emotions. I was wrong. The problem is much, much more severe than you can imagine.
We are watching a movement, like the Fascist movement, like the Imperial Japan movement. We are watching it form, but we in America, like the people in Britain in the 1930's, the very people who can easily crush the embers, are not being told the full story. We are given a sanitized version. We do not understand the extent of the hatred, the violence, and the devotion of those who want to kill us.
We have a choice: stop our ears and ignore the signs of disaster, or take the threat seriously this time and prevent it from spreading into global conflict.
We already know what happens when we ignore serious threats -- we have already paid the price in blood and treasure across the globe, and even here at home.
We must face the real threat, understand our enemy, and learn what drives them. We must hear their propaganda, hear their death chants, and feel the intensity of their hatred against us. We must learn why negotiation is impossible, and victory is the only choice. We must do this or face even more death.
Why We "Must" Fight Sometimes with all the political fallout of the Iraq debacle we lose site of what is at stake in the war on terror. Because the country is so divided over President Bush's ability to manage the war, the very real and serious problem of Islamic terror is often relegated to a foolish unimportance. As my brother-in-law told me the other night, "if Bush hadn't gone into Iraq we wouldn't be in this mess." On Wednesday, March 14, the West Valley Jewish Community Center presented "Obsession: Radical Islam's War on the West," sponsored by the West Hills Chabad. Like a clarion call this film reminds us of the clear and present danger that confronts Western Civilization . After the movie one of the primary speakers in the film, Noni Darwish discussed with the audience in detail her pro American/Israeli position to this war. This is a film that every American should see.
Darwish, the daughter of the Egyptian Fedayeen commander in Gaza during the 1950s, spoke about the madness that is gripping her people. You could not help but admire her courage and her recognition of righteousness against all odds. Ms. Darwish has a price on her head, so the security to get into this presentation was very strict. She doesn't waiver from her condemnation of the Arab world, her support for Israel or her love of democratic values. I have to admit, I was impressed. It's not every day that you meet an Arab national speak about her respect for the Jewish state. Perhaps reality is never far behind because as Ms. Darwish spoke you got the distinct impression that she was very alone in this commitment, disowned by her family, her country and the religion that totally dominated her life growing up.
Meeting and talking with a real live hero like Noni Darwish made the evening exciting but the film stands on its own merit as a glaring example of the utter hatred that much of the Arab world and large swaths of the rest of non Arab Islam feel toward the west. Thanks to Al-Jizeera and some other like minded Middle East media outlets there are mounds of written and video evidence to support the film's arguments.
The film argues that we are not taking this war seriously. Most of what is reported in the Arab world and in other places never seems to make it in the western media. Steven Emerson, a long time researcher of the Islamic threat said, "The amount of hate propaganda is far more extensive and pervasive than the attention that it receives in the western media." This has to stop. We need to begin to follow the Muslim press, listen to what they are saying, understand what they are implying with their statements and analyze more closely their intentions. The films ultimate message: We face disaster if we don't.
There is a violent movement to convert the entire world to Islam, to completely eliminate the Christian-Judeo world from the face of the Earth. Perceived western influences around the globe are targeted on a regular basis. Caroline Glick, a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy, makes the point that many countries in the world today have a problem with Islamic extremism on some level. And then to emphasize that statement the film shows a map of the world covered in red "X"s where Jihadis are on the rise, attacking, bombing and killing. As noted in one Palestinian children's textbook, "this religion (Islam) will destroy all other religions through the Islamic Jihad fighters."
Several of the speakers in the film kept reiterating the fact that the West is in denial of this problem. Even in a post 9-11 environment people do not want to admit that there is a growing malignancy on the planet bent on our destruction.
The film is very clear not to condemn Islam as a religion and therefore claims that not all of the world's Muslims are the enemy. But, it is clear that the Jihadi movement is at present very large and is growing with each passing generation. There are many Islamic leaders calling for the deaths of Jews, the destruction of the United States, and the defeat of the west, all the while being cheered on by thousands of onlookers. There is no shortage of hatred in the Islamic world. The film implores us to recognize this threat and to begin to fight back in order to survive.
Most disturbing about this enemy is the chair squirming, undeniable connection of the Islamic Jihad movement to the rise of Nazism in Europe during the 1930's.The two historical periods are so closely correlated that it is hard to comprehend how we could have missed its growth. It is as if we were so busy reminding ourselves in the last sixty years that we would never again forget the past in Europe that we did not see it creeping up on us again in another part of the world. The film shows that 19th and early 20th century European anti-Semitism along with a remarkably similar ramp toward fascist ideology are alive and well and flourishing within the Muslim world. The only difference being in Europe it was based on politics and now it is based in religion.
One of the historical parallels to Nazism is the connection between the Mufti of Jerusalem and Adolph Hitler. As disturbing then as it is now the film describes and verifies that Hitler and the Mufti agreed that the extermination of the Jews was central to the War's aims. The Mufti, a radical fundamentalist in his own right, distinguished himself as one of the leaders who tried to prevent Jewish Zionism from establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine during that era. In exchange for his support Hitler promised him that would never happen.
In one especially chilling moment, Walid Shoebat, a reformed Palestinian terrorist and, who like Noni Darwish is shunned by his family, community and religion, explains the growth of Jihad as compared to the growth of Nazism. He says that Islamo fascism is far more dangerous than Nazism because of its religious components. Jihad makes war in the name of almighty God while Nazism made war for a man, Adoph Hitler. And, it exists in several countries not just one. Therefore, Shoebat concludes, that if we do not stop its rise we will be facing not one Nazi Germany but several.
The sole of Islam is at stake some western commentators have noted, indicating that the only way we can win this is for Islam itself to struggle with the question internally and repair it internally. In other words, we are your supporters but it is you who have to correct the problem. According to "Obsession," and confirmed by Noni Darwish, the struggle is already over, Islam has been stolen by the Jihadi movement. The enemy is getting stronger and the decent Muslim who wants to live his life like we live ours is growing ever weaker. In fact, one gets the sickening feeling that Noni Darwish, and the other Muslim commentators depicted in the film, which courageously stand against the Jihadi enterprise, are lone puppies in a sea of wolves.
The danger to all of us is clear. Either we begin to get serious about this problem and take positive steps to end it favorably or we are going to lose. The very existence of Western Civilization is at stake and all the freedoms that we developed, struggled with and refined over the last 2500 years are in danger of being forcibly replaced by something very different. We must recognize that to do nothing and to continue to live in denial of this growing problem is a huge mistake. Unless you are willing to accept that your grandchildren before the end of their lives will be bowing down to Mohammad five times a day I would suggest that you begin looking at our involvement in the Middle East as a matter of survival not as a political football to be argued as Republicans and Democrats. It is not too late but we need to begin now or face a global confrontation of such huge proportions that it will dwarf World War II by comparison. The choice is ours.
The minority among Muslims are taking the majority of the action With the thwarted attacks in Germany this week, this documentary becomes even more timely and critical. Perhaps only a few percent of Muslims actively support jihad against the West? Possibly. Yet, that is many millions of people that demand submission to their religious creed. They are the ones who are actively recruiting, and converts get their particular take on the way of the Qu'ran. This "small minority" are those who threaten or accomplish violence against their critics. This "small minority" believes that death is a promotion, and that *your* death is a blessing. They have no motivation to negotiate, as their value system has nothing in common with that of people who would "discuss the situation."
I'm looking forward to the commercial release of this important film. I hope that they lose none of the impact of the pre-release version. If you watch it and find points that you disagree with, take it as a call to debate. Do the research and form educated opinions. Name calling adds nothing to the conversation, however. The jihadist movement plays squarely to the West's inclination toward tolerance. Tolerance of the intolerant is merely submission.
Whether you are aware or not, like it or not, the mainstream middle eastern media carries stories and images which denounce the west and encourage radical behavior on a daily basis. Obsession exposes the agenda of the Islamists and how the middle eastern media encourages their people to hate and kill non-muslims - much of it though lies and disinformation to people whom have little to no outside information or reason to distrust their leaders, people who have been brainwashed since birth to believe only what their religion tells them to believe... or else. The video exposes Imams, Shieks, Muftis and other Islamic leaders who preach this hate against the west and drive their followers on an agenda of world domination. Commentary is provided by terrorism experts and ex-muslims who are forced to live in hiding for fear of their lives. I highly recommend this video to people who want to learn about what's going on in the world right now.
Also, a note to the person who's review is entitled "a film for the ingorant." In fact, it is that person that is ignorant as the evidence and footage displayed in this film are genuine and would be very difficult to discount or dispute. How anyone can claim "ignorance" in the face of that evidence is beyond reason and common sense.
Leaping Before We Looked: The Clinton Administration's Bosnian Failure By Marvin Olasky Thursday, October 18, 2007
With Hillary Clinton surging in the polls and Democrats knifing Bush's foreign policy and praising Bill Clinton's, it's time for a reality check on a supposed triumph: Team Clinton oversimplified a complex situation in Bosnia and ended up aiding and abetting Muslim extremists.
That's the conclusion of John Schindler, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College and a former National Security Agency analyst. In his new book, "Unholy Terror: Bosnia, al-Qa'ida, and the Rise of Global Jihad," Schindler reappraises the 1992-1995 Bosnian war and America's decision to come to the defense of Muslims in their conflict with Serbs.
Because his conclusions are controversial, his credentials are important: Schindler's NSA work, he says, showed him that the conventional academic and media wisdom about the Balkans was wrong. "I spent a lot of time in the Balkans and I participated in the culture, spoke the language and met many people. What I learned was that pretty much everything I thought I knew was either wrong or an even more dangerous half-truth."
In our interview, he told me that "people in the U.S. and the West were fed a steady diet of satellite-driven images, frequently horrifying, without the ability to independently verify what was really happening on the ground in Bosnia. The result was miscomprehension, the reducing of a complex ethnic and religious civil war into sound bites."
Both sides committed atrocities, Schindler notes, but those of Muslims generally went unreported. For example, "The number of Christians murdered in Sarajevo during the war by Muslim military and police, right under the noses of Western journalists, is at least in the many hundreds and probably in the low thousands. Between 1992 and 1995, some 1,300 Serb civilians were liquidated by Muslim troops based at Srebrenica; this was the precursor to the infamous July 1995 Serb offensive against that town."
Those killings did not become well-known in the West because "they were never seriously investigated by the Western press, governments or NGOs. … The view that both sides committed atrocities ran and runs contrary to the simplistic, moralistic view of the war peddled by the international media, and therefore remains unwanted by CNN and many others."
Better coverage, Schindler says, "would have admitted upfront that all sides were behaving badly and committing atrocities, and the Muslims had no monopoly on virtue or suffering. … While Muslims were certainly expelled from their homes in large numbers, so were Croats (Catholics) and Serbs (Orthodox), but only Muslim victims and refugees were really considered newsworthy. And Croatia effectively got no help at all from NATO and the U.S. when it was attacked by the Serbs in 1991; we stood by and watched."
Schindler takes pains to note that he is not "a congenital Islamophobe. I grew up in a typical postmodern American suburb, beloved of progressives, where all religions were held to be equally (in)valid." But he was appalled by Clintonian self-congratulation following the Dayton Agreement's supposed bringing of peace to the Balkans: "The Clinton administration was uninterested in bad news from Bosnia. Dayton was their diplomatic triumph, and no amount of Islamist criminality was going to undo it."
The media also slept, either alone or with the enemy. "Western journalists failed to note that the (Bosnia) Muslim ruling party, while portraying itself as thoroughly democratic and impressively multicultural, in fact was run by and for Islamists of a radical bent, whose ideal society was revolutionary Iran. … That the Bosnian jihad was considered a major success by al-Qaida was something no journalist uttered."
Many of the Bosnian jihadists -- including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the al-Qaida planner of Sept. 11 -- went on to attack Western Europe or the U.S. Bosnia itself "has continued its seemingly relentless slide into crime, corruption and extremism. Radical Islam has a stronger hold there than ever before, and it remains a mystery to me why Western governments continue to not give this problem, in the heart of Europe, the attention it deserves."
Marvin Olasky is editor-in-chief of World, vice president for academic affairs of The King's College and a professor at The University of Texas.
CAIR’s Islamism Revealed June 15, 2007 By M. Zuhdi Jasser The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
The Washington Times printed a report by Audrey Hudson this week, “CAIR Membership falls 90% since 9/11”, discussing CAIR’s (Council on American Islamic Relations) membership numbers as disclosed on CAIR’s own 990Tax returns. Within hours, CAIR described the report as a ‘hit-piece’ in a hate-filled rant of a press release and action alert. A review of the Times piece reveals simple reporting of data from CAIR tax forms on their dwindling membership numbers, donor numbers, and yet increasing funds.
The piece quotes Parvez Ahmed, CAIR Chairman, on the countervailing increase in the number of CAIR chapters around the country during the same period post 9/11. It also cites the recent Department of Justice (DOJ) listing of CAIR as an un-indicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) HAMAS fundraising case. The DOJ refers therein to CAIR’s leadership and origins as, “members of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee and/or its organization.” For all CAIR’s objections, there was no refutation of any of this.
With the elaboration of these facts and more, CAIR still ran wild describing the Times reporter as “having a vendetta against our organization and the American Muslim community since she was barred from a recent CAIR news conference because of her sloppy and agenda-driven reporting.” With a report revealing that its national membership figures reported to the IRS are less than 1700 members in 2006, they still have the audacity to say that criticism of CAIR is equivalent to criticism of over 3 million Muslims in the “American Muslim community”.
This is, clear and simple, the modus operands of “political Islam” and its Islamist operatives. This is also more than likely one of the reasons for their dwindling membership numbers. While they may occasionally be doing good work for the civil rights of certain Muslims in America on selected cases, their Islamist political agenda and their persistence in the claim that criticism of CAIR is akin to criticism of all American Muslims is dishonest, deceptive, and a hijacking of our faith community.
Rather than respond with a semblance of a valid intellectual discourse or refutation of the ideas and facts contained in the June 12 report, CAIR preferred to respond with further empty screeds of hyperbole, victimization, and false claims of religious intolerance and hate-mongering. They claim to be working toward eliminating hate. Yet, they have a wild imagination of hate and rush to claim victimization as they deflect any substantive debate. This actually makes a compelling case for the fact that their attention to perceived incidents of intolerance for Islam and Muslims is a means to an ends of the empowerment of political Islam. In fact Nihad Awad told a gathering of Muslims just that in April in a discussion on their ‘flying imam’ lawsuit in Virginia at ADAMS (All Dulles Area Muslim Society),
Reporting to an organization like CAIR is important, because it is empowering. It is empowering to the Muslims themselves who report, it is empowering to the organization, and it is important to the status of Muslims within the United States. Also it is a powerful tool and message to the government and the legislators, to those who make the laws in the country, to know that this phenomenon has to be dealt with, it has to be dealt with effectively, and results have to be seen….
CAIR scavenges for claims of civil rights abuses not necessarily just to try and humbly build bridges to the greater American community. Is their agenda, in fact, more about empowering Islamists and intimidating non-Islamists?
The rule of law and the protections of our Constitution are certainly the cornerstone of the protection of our rights of religious freedom in America. But there is a fine line between the legitimate representation of individual Muslims whose rights of religious freedom have been infringed and the blatant manipulation of a system for the advancement of a variant political ideology at the expense of some victims.
True to form in the usual Islamist fallback to public criticism, CAIR claimed that the Washington Times was ‘anti-Muslim’ and ‘anti-Islam’. They use the protection of religion when the facts are not on their side. They use the discourse of politics when they want to push forth their Islamist agenda with the presumption of speaking for all Muslims. They will delve into the political only on their own terms in both foreign and domestic policy but when they are on the receiving end of political criticism they run for cover under the guise of victimization.
Why all of the venom directed at the Washington Times or at their reporter, Audrey Hudson -- one of the few national reporters willing to peel the Islamist onion and look deeper into Islamist organizations like CAIR and their ideologies? There is absolutely nothing in the Times report anti-Islamic or anti-Muslim. It is simply critical of CAIR. To say that CAIR is synonymous with Islam or Muslims is Islamism and gives all Muslim non-members of CAIR (the vast majority of American Muslims) short shrift.
It is long overdue for America and especially for Muslims to discuss why such political discourse and reporting could ever be described by an organization like CAIR as being anti-Muslim or anti-Islamic. In fact, a more cogent argument could be made that such reports are pro-Muslim and pro-Islam since they ultimately rescue most Muslims from the grip of Islamists and Wahhabists. Such discussion of realities and ideologies will go a long way toward preserving a positive image of Islam and the inclusiveness of all Muslims under a purely spiritual Islam devoid of a political agenda.
Nothing is more clarifying than, CAIR’s Ibrahim Hooper’s own quotation in their Action Alert,
“It is CAIR’s principled and effective defense of the American Muslim community and our criticism of failed foreign and domestic policies that have made us the target of these scurrilous attacks. We will not be intimidated or silenced by hate-mongers.”
Herein, CAIR claims to be defenders of the entire Muslim community. Where did I sign up for that? Herein, CAIR admits to its primary active critique of American domestic and foreign policy on behalf of the entire American Muslim community. Thus, CAIR and so many of the other American Islamist organizations are about much more than simply “defending the civil rights of Muslims”. If only they stuck to civil rights, less Muslims would have problems with them. They are about the penetration of political Islam into our foreign and domestic policy under the guise of civil rights. In fact, their constant refrain about intimidation and hate-mongering is in fact a cultivation of their own industry. The lawsuit they are sponsoring on behalf of the ‘flying imams’ in Shqeirat v. U.S. Airways, et al, is much more about intimidation than about bridge-building or religious freedom as AIFD has noted.
The next step in this assessment of constituency is to understand their ideology. So much of the substantive criticism of CAIR arises from their unwillingness to be specific in condemnations of radical Muslims, radical organizations, and despotic regimes. Perhaps their dwindling numbers are in fact an ideological problem which does not speak to the majority of American Muslims. Honest debate will have to include a discussion of CAIR’s and other American Islamist organization responses to the following questions which I have been querying for a long time.
1- Will CAIR work to dismantle and lead an organized effort against terrorist organizations and individuals by name beginning with Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Jamaat al-Islamiya, and HAMAS to name just a few of the radical Islamist enemies of America? Will they name and ideologically engage the extremism of the Wahhabists of Saudi Arabia, the theocrats of Iran or the despots of Syria, Egypt or Sudan, and the litany of other dictatorships in the Muslim world? Empty generic condemnations of terrorism are of no impact. 2- Will CAIR acknowledge that political Islam (Islamism) whether militant or not, is the toxin which feeds the terrorism committed by radicalized Muslims? 3- Will CAIR acknowledge the need out of honesty for a faith-based civil rights organization to equally focus upon the civil rights abuses of Muslims by other Muslims as well as by non-Muslims whether it occurs in mosques, Muslim organizations, or so-called Muslim nations? A dismissal of Muslim abuses is hypocrisy. 4- Will CAIR acknowledge that counter-terrorism is a greater public responsibility to the organized American Muslim community than the obsession with the protection of our civil rights? Is it not the primary role of Muslim American organizations to lead the ideological war against radical Islamists? Isn’t this the number one issue on the mind of most Americans in 2007? Non-Muslims can do nothing to deconstruct this poisonous ideology. Our fellow Americans living in fear for their security are looking for us to lead this fight. The credibility of Muslims is suffering deeply as a result of the complete denial of this responsibility by groups like CAIR. In fact, there may be no better way to preserve our rights than by leading an ideological movement against political Islam and militant Islamism. 5- Will CAIR join anti-Islamist Muslims in declaring that the “Islamic state” regardless of its democratic processes is in principle significantly inferior to a “pluralistic Constitutional democracy under God” like the United States? Will CAIR declare the concept of a global Caliphate as archaic and no longer relevant to Muslims in the 21st century? Is the concept of the Muslim “ummah” or “nation” archaic? 6- Will CAIR join what was described in the Pew poll as the 49% of Muslims who felt that the mosque was not the place for the discussion of politics? Will they then help AIFD expose political sermons and their agenda around the United States? Will they moreover call upon our fellow co-religionists to fully and unequivocally separate the spiritual from the political? If they will not, will they recognize that they only represent Islamists and those who believe in political Islam—the remaining 51% according to Pew? 7- How can they honestly claim to speak for anyone beyond their membership and donors?
The Washington Times piece about CAIR was not a hit-piece nor was it anti-Muslim or anti-Islamic. It begins the long overdue debate about the agenda of organizations like CAIR and where they stand with regard to political Islam and these questions. Soon, mainstream media and government leaders are going to need finally to begin to ignore the intimidation tactics of organizations like CAIR and to engage political Islam on the questions above.
They need to do so without fear of violating political correctness or offending pious Muslims. Spiritual Islam and non-Islamist Muslims in fact still are often at the mercy of Islamists, not just in America but across the globe. This is often not only due to the passivity of the majority of non-activist Muslims but to the propping up by government and the MSM of Islamists. We saw this in the recent refusal of PBS to air ABG Films, Inc. documentary, Islam v Islamists. Many anti-Islamist Muslims yearn for the day when the personal domain of the faith of Islam is not poisoned by any national domestic and foreign policy agendas of Islamist organizations like CAIR. American political discourse by activist Muslims should be all about our common national interests and universal humanitarian principles and not about being Muslim, Islamic, or being victims. The Muslims who cannot make this distinction may as well form overt Islamic political parties and make it more obvious as to their intentions and platforms when it comes to American domestic and foreign policy.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor M. Zuhdi Jasser is the founder and Chairman of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy based in Phoenix Arizona. He is a former U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander, a physician in private practice, and a community activist.
CAIR: Islamists Fooling the Establishment by Daniel Pipes and Sharon Chadha Middle East Quarterly Spring 2006
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), headquartered in Washington, is perhaps the best-known and most controversial Muslim organization in North America. CAIR presents itself as an advocate for Muslims' civil rights and the spokesman for American Muslims. "We are similar to a Muslim NAACP," says its communications director, Ibrahim Hooper. Its official mission—"to enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding"—suggests nothing problematic.
Starting with a single office in 1994, CAIR now claims thirty-one affiliates, including a branch in Canada, with more steadily being added. In addition to its grand national headquarters in Washington, it has impressive offices in other cities; the New York office, for example, is housed in the 19-story Interchurch Center located on Manhattan's Riverside Drive.
But there is another side to CAIR that has alarmed many people in positions to know. The Department of Homeland Security refuses to deal with it. Senator Charles Schumer (Democrat, New York) describes it as an organization "which we know has ties to terrorism." Senator Dick Durbin (Democrat, Illinois) observes that CAIR is "unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its associations with groups that are suspect." Steven Pomerantz, the FBI's former chief of counterterrorism, notes that "CAIR, its leaders, and its activities effectively give aid to international terrorist groups." The family of John P. O'Neill, Sr., the former FBI counterterrorism chief who perished at the World Trade Center, named CAIR in a lawsuit as having "been part of the criminal conspiracy of radical Islamic terrorism" responsible for the September 11 atrocities. Counterterrorism expert Steven Emerson calls it "a radical fundamentalist front group for Hamas."
Of particular note are the American Muslims who reject CAIR's claim to speak on their behalf. The late Seifeldin Ashmawy, publisher of the New Jersey-based Voice of Peace, called CAIR the champion of "extremists whose views do not represent Islam." Jamal Hasan of the Council for Democracy and Tolerance explains that CAIR's goal is to spread "Islamic hegemony the world over by hook or by crook." Kamal Nawash, head of Free Muslims Against Terrorism, finds that CAIR and similar groups condemn terrorism on the surface while endorsing an ideology that helps foster extremism, adding that "almost all of their members are theocratic Muslims who reject secularism and want to establish Islamic states." Tashbih Sayyed of the Council for Democracy and Tolerance calls CAIR "the most accomplished fifth column" in the United States. And Stephen Schwartz of the Center on Islamic Pluralism writes that "CAIR should be considered a foreign-based subversive organization, comparable in the Islamist field to the Soviet-controlled Communist Party, USA."
CAIR, for its part, dismisses all criticism, blaming negative comments on "Muslim bashers" who "can never point to something CAIR has done in its 10-year history that is objectionable." Actually, there is much about the organization's history that is objectionable—and it is readily apparent to anyone who bothers to look.
Part of the Establishment When President George W. Bush visited the Islamic Center of Washington several days after September 11, 2001, to signal that he would not tolerate a backlash against Muslims, he invited CAIR's executive director, Nihad Awad, to join him at the podium. Two months later, when Secretary of State Colin Powell hosted a Ramadan dinner, he, too, called upon CAIR as representative of Islam in America. More broadly, when the State Department seeks out Muslims to welcome foreign dignitaries, journalists, and academics, it calls upon CAIR. The organization has represented American Muslims before Congress. The National Aeronautics and Space Agency hosted CAIR's "Sensitivity and Diversity Workshop" in an effort to harmonize space research with Muslim sensibilities.
Law-enforcement agencies in Florida, Maryland, Ohio, Michigan, New York, Arizona, California, Missouri, Texas, and Kentucky have attended CAIR's sensitivity-training sessions. The organization boasts such tight relations with law enforcement that it claims to have even been invited to monitor police raids. In July 2004, as agents from the FBI, Internal Revenue Service, and Homeland Security descended on the Institute of Islamic and Arabic Sciences in America, a Saudi-created school in Merrifield, Virginia, a local paper reported that the FBI had informed CAIR's legal director, Arsalan Iftikhar, that morning that the raid was going to take place.
CAIR is also a media darling. It claims to log five thousand annual mentions on newspapers, television, and radio, including some of the most prestigious media in the United States. The press dutifully quotes CAIR's statistics, publishes its theological views, reports its opinions, rehashes its press releases, invites its staff on television, and generally dignifies its existence as a routine part of the American and Canadian political scenes.
CAIR regularly participates in seminars on Islamic cultural issues for corporations and has been invited to speak at many of America's leading universities, including Harvard, Stanford, Johns Hopkins, and Columbia. American high schools have invited CAIR to promote its agenda, as have educationally-minded senior citizens.
Terrorists in Its Midst Perhaps the most obvious problem with CAIR is the fact that at least five of its employees and board members have been arrested, convicted, deported, or otherwise linked to terrorism-related charges and activities.
Randall ("Ismail") Royer, an American convert to Islam, served as CAIR's communications specialist and civil rights coordinator; today he sits in jail on terrorism-related charges. In June 2003, Royer and ten other young men, ages 23 to 35, known as the "Virginia jihad group," were indicted on forty-one counts of "conspiracy to train for and participate in a violent jihad overseas." The defendants, nine of them U.S. citizens, were accused of association with Lashkar-e-Taiba, a radical Islamic group designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. Department of State in 2001. They were also accused of meeting covertly in private homes and at the Islamic Center in Falls Church to prepare themselves for battle by listening to lectures and watching videotapes. As the prosecutor noted, "Ten miles from Capitol Hill in the streets of northern Virginia, American citizens allegedly met, plotted, and recruited for violent jihad." According to Matthew Epstein of the Investigative Project, Royer helped recruit the others to the jihad effort while he was working for CAIR. The group trained at firing ranges in Virginia and Pennsylvania; in addition, it practiced "small-unit military tactics" at a paintball war-games facility in Virginia, earning it the moniker, the "paintball jihadis." Eventually members of the group traveled to Pakistan.
Five of the men indicted, including CAIR's Royer, were found to have had in their possession, according to the indictment, "AK-47-style rifles, telescopic lenses, hundreds of rounds of ammunition and tracer rounds, documents on undertaking jihad and martyrdom, [and] a copy of the terrorist handbook containing instructions on how to manufacture and use explosives and chemicals as weapons."
After four of the eleven defendants pleaded guilty, the remaining seven, including Royer, were accused in a new, 32-count indictment of yet more serious charges: conspiring to help Al-Qaeda and the Taliban battle American troops in Afghanistan. Royer admitted in his grand jury testimony that he had already waged jihad in Bosnia under a commander acting on orders from Osama bin Laden. Prosecutors also presented evidence that his father, Ramon Royer, had rented a room in his St. Louis-area home in 2000 to Ziyad Khaleel, the student who purchased the satellite phone used by Al-Qaeda in planning the two U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa in August 1998. Royer eventually pleaded guilty to lesser firearms-related charges, and the former CAIR staffer was sentenced to twenty years in prison.
A coda to the "Virginia jihad network" came in 2005 when a Federal court convicted another Virginia man, Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, of plotting to kill President Bush. Prosecutors alleged that Abu Ali participated in the Virginia jihad network's paintball games and perhaps supplied one of his fellow jihadists with an assault rifle. Royer's possible role in Abu Ali's plans are unclear.
Ghassan Elashi, the founder of CAIR's Texas chapter, has a long history of funding terrorism. First, he was convicted in July 2004, with his four brothers, of having illegally shipped computers from their Dallas-area business, InfoCom Corporation, to two designated state-sponsors of terrorism, Libya and Syria. Second, he and two brothers were convicted in April 2005 of knowingly doing business with Mousa Abu Marzook, a senior Hamas leader, whom the U.S. State Department had in 1995 declared a "specially designated terrorist." Elashi was convicted of all twenty-one counts with which he was charged, including conspiracy, money laundering, and dealing in the property of a designated terrorist. Third, he was charged in July 2004 with providing more than $12.4 million to Hamas while he was running the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, America's largest Islamic charity. When the U.S. government shuttered Holy Land Foundation in late 2001, CAIR characterized this move as "unjust" and "disturbing."
Bassem Khafagi, an Egyptian native and CAIR's onetime community relations director, pleaded guilty in September 2003 to lying on his visa application and passing bad checks for substantial amounts in early 2001, for which he was deported. CAIR claimed Khafagi was hired only after he had committed his crimes and that the organization was unaware of his wrongdoing. But that is unconvincing, for a cursory background check reveals that Khafagi was a founding member and president of the Islamic Assembly of North America (IANA), an organization under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice for terrorism-related activities. CAIR surely knew that IANA under Khafagi was in the business of, as prosecutors stated in Idaho court papers, disseminating "radical Islamic ideology, the purpose of which was indoctrination, recruitment of members, and the instigation of acts of violence and terrorism."
For example, IANA websites promoted the views of two Saudi preachers, Salman al-Awdah and Safar al-Hawali, well-known in Islamist circles for having been spiritual advisors to Osama bin Laden. Under Khafagi's leadership, Matthew Epstein has testified, IANA hosted a conference at which a senior Al-Qaeda recruiter, Abdelrahman al-Dosari, was a speaker. IANA disseminated publications advocating suicide attacks against the United States, according to federal investigators.
Also, Khafagi was co-owner of a Sir Speedy printing franchise until 1998 with Rafil Dhafir, who was a former vice president of IANA and a Syracuse-area oncologist convicted in February 2005 of illegally sending money to Iraq during the Saddam Hussein regime as well as defrauding donors by using contributions to his "Help the Needy" charitable fund to avoid taxes and to purchase personal assets for himself. Dhafir was sentenced to twenty-two years in prison.
Rabih Haddad, a CAIR fundraiser, was arrested in December 2001 on terrorism-related charges and deported from the United States due to his subsequent work as executive director of the Global Relief Foundation, a charity he cofounded which was designated by the U.S. Treasury Department in October 2002 for financing Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.
Siraj Wahhaj, a CAIR advisory board member, was named in 1995 by U.S. attorney Mary Jo White as a possible unindicted coconspirator in the plot to blow up New York City landmarks led by the blind sheikh, Omar Abdul Rahman. In defense of having Wahhaj on its advisory board, CAIR described him as "one of the most respected Muslim leaders in America." In October 2004, he spoke at a CAIR dinner.
This roster of employees and board members connected to terrorism makes one wonder how CAIR remains an acceptable guest at U.S. government events—and even more so, how U.S. law enforcement agencies continue to associate with it.
Links to Hamas CAIR has a number of links to the terror organization Hamas, starting with the founder of its Texas chapter, Ghassan Elashi, as noted above.
Secondly, Elashi and another CAIR founder, Omar Ahmad, attended a key meeting in Philadelphia in 1993. An FBI memo characterizes this meeting as a planning session for Hamas, Holy Land Foundation, and Islamic Association of Palestine to find ways to disrupt Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy and raise money for Hamas in the United States. The Philadelphia meeting was deemed such strong proof of Islamic Association of Palestine's relation to Hamas that a federal judge in Chicago in December 2004 ruled the Islamic Association of Palestine partially liable for US$156 million in damages (along with the Holy Land Foundation and Mohammad Salah, a Hamas operative) for having aided and abetted the Hamas murder of David Boim, an American citizen.
Third, CAIR's founding personnel were closely linked to the Islamic Association of Palestine, which was founded by Ibrahim Abu Marzook, a senior Hamas operative and husband of Elashi's cousin; according to Epstein, the Islamic Association of Palestine functions as Hamas's public relations and recruitment arm in the United States. The two individuals who established CAIR, Ahmad and Nihad Awad, had been, respectively, the president and public relations director of the Islamic Association of Palestine. Hooper, CAIR's director of communications, had been an employee of the Islamic Association of Palestine. Rafeeq Jabar, president of the Islamic Association of Palestine, was a founding director of CAIR.
Fourth, the Holy Land Foundation, which the U.S. government has charged with funneling funds to Hamas, provided CAIR with some of its start-up funding in 1994. (See $5,000 money transfer, figure 1.) In the other direction, according to Joe Kaufman, CAIR sent potential donors to the Holy Land Foundation's website when they clicked on their post-September 11 weblink, "Donate to the NY/DC Disaster Relief Fund."
Fifth, Awad publicly declared his enthusiasm for Hamas at Barry University in Florida in 1994: "I'm in support of Hamas movement more than the PLO." As an attorney pointed out in the course of deposing Awad for the Boim case, Awad both supported Hamas and acknowledged an awareness of its involvement in violence.
Impeding Counterterrorism A class-action lawsuit brought by the estate of John P. O'Neill, Sr. charges CAIR and its Canadian branch of being, since their inception, "part of the criminal conspiracy of radical Islamic terrorism" with a unique role in the terrorist network:
both organizations have actively sought to hamper governmental anti-terrorism efforts by direct propaganda activities aimed at police, first-responders, and intelligence agencies through so-called sensitivity training. Their goal is to create as much self-doubt, hesitation, fear of name-calling, and litigation within police departments and intelligence agencies as possible so as to render such authorities ineffective in pursuing international and domestic terrorist entities.
It would be hard to improve on this characterization; under the guise of participating in counterterrorism, CAIR does its best to impede these efforts. This approach can be seen from its statements.
CAIR encourages law enforcement in its work—so long as it does not involve counterterrorism. Wissam Nasr, the head of CAIR's New York office, explains: "The Muslim community in New York wants to play a positive role in protecting our nation's security, but that role is made more difficult if the FBI is perceived as pursuing suspects much more actively than it is searching for community partners."  Nasr would have the FBI get out of the unpleasant business of "pursuing suspects" and instead devote itself to building social good will—through CAIR, naturally.
Likewise, on the eve of the U.S. war with Iraq in March 2003, CAIR distributed a "Muslim community safety kit" that advised Muslims to "Know your rights if contacted by the FBI." It tells them specifically, "You have no obligation to talk to the FBI, even if you are not a citizen. … You do not have to permit them to enter your home. … ALWAYS have an attorney present when answering questions." On the other hand, when it comes to protecting Muslims, CAIR wants an active FBI. The same "Muslim community safety kit" advised: "If you believe you have been the victim of an anti-Muslim hate crime or discrimination, you should: 1. Report the incident to your local police station and FBI office IMMEDIATELY." In January 2006, CAIR joined a lawsuit against the National Security Agency demanding that the U.S. intelligence agency cease monitoring communications with suspected Islamist terrorists. Part of its complaints concerned a belief that the U.S. government monitored its communications with Rabih Haddad, the suspected Al-Qaeda financier who has since moved to Lebanon. Upon learning that CAIR was a fellow plaintiff in the suit, political writer Christopher Hitchens said, "I was revolted to see who I was in company with. CAIR is a lot to swallow."
Finally, CAIR discourages Americans from improving their counterterrorism skills. Deedra Abboud, CAIR's Arizona director, approves of police learning the Arabic language if that lowers the chances of cultural and linguistic misunderstandings. "However, if they're learning it in order to better fight terrorism, that concerns me. Only because that assumes that the only fighting we have to do is among Arabic speakers. That's not a long-term strategy."
Apologizing for Islamist Terrorism CAIR has consistently shown itself to be on the wrong side of the war on terrorism, protecting, defending, and supporting both accused and even convicted radical Islamic terrorists.
In October 1998—months after Osama bin Laden had issued his first declaration of war against the United States and had been named as the chief suspect in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa—CAIR demanded the removal of a Los Angeles billboard describing Osama bin Laden as "the sworn enemy," finding this depiction offensive to Muslims. CAIR also leapt to bin Laden's defense, denying his responsibility for the twin East African embassy bombings. CAIR's Hooper saw these explosions resulting from "misunderstandings of both sides." Even after the September 11 atrocity, CAIR continued to protect bin Laden, stating only that "if [note the "if"] Osama bin Laden was behind it, we condemn him by name." Not until December 2001, when bin Laden on videotape boasted of his involvement in the attack, did CAIR finally acknowledge his role.
CAIR has also consistently defended other radical Islamic terrorists. Rather than praise the conviction of the perpetrators of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, it deemed this "a travesty of justice." It labeled the extradition order for suspected Hamas terrorist Mousa Abu Marzook "anti-Islamic" and "anti-American." CAIR has co-sponsored Yvonne Ridley, the British convert to Islam who became a Taliban enthusiast and a denier that Al-Qaeda was involved in 9-11. When four U.S. civilian contractors in Falluja were (in CAIR's words) "ambushed in their SUV's, burned, mutilated, dragged through the streets, and then hung from a bridge spanning the Euphrates River," CAIR issued a press release that condemned the mutilation of the corpses but stayed conspicuously silent on the actual killings.
During the 2005 trial of Sami Al-Arian, accused of heading Palestinian Islamic Jihad in the United States, Ahmed Bedier of CAIR's Florida branch emerged as Al-Arian's effective spokesman, providing sound bytes to the media, trying to get his trial moved out of Tampa, commenting on the jury selection, and so on.
More broadly, TheReligionofPeace.com website pointed out that "of the more than 3100 fatal Islamic terror attacks committed in the last four years, we have only seen CAIR specifically condemn 18."
Ties to Extremists, Left and Right The Council on American-Islamic Relations has affinities to extremists of both the left and right, sharing features with both. Its extensive ties to far-left groups include funding from the Tides Foundation for its "Interfaith Coalition against Hate Crimes"; endorsing a statement issued by Refuse & Resist and a "National Day of Protest … to Stop Police Brutality, Repression and the Criminalization of a Generation." CAIR supported the "Civil Liberties Restoration Act," legislation drafted by Open Society Policy Center, an organization founded by George Soros that would obstruct U.S. law enforcement from prosecuting the "War on Extremism." Far-left members of Congress such as Dennis Kucinich (Democrat, Ohio) and Jim McDermott (Democrat, Washington) have turned up as featured speakers at CAIR fundraising events.
Its neo-Nazi side came out most clearly in CAIR's early years. In 1996, according to testimony by Steven Emerson, Yusuf Islam—the Muslim convert formerly known as the singer Cat Stevens—gave a keynote speech at a CAIR event. The contents of the speech itself are not known but Islam wrote a pamphlet published by the Islamic Association of Palestine, CAIR's stepparent, which included these sentences:
The Jews seem neither to respect God nor his Creation. Their own holy books contain the curse of God brought upon them by their prophets on account of their disobedience to Him and mischief in the earth. We have seen the disrespect for religion displayed by those who consider themselves to be "God's Chosen People."
In 1998, CAIR co-hosted an event at which an Egyptian Islamist leader, Wagdi Ghunaym, declared Jews to be the "descendants of the apes."
CAIR continues to expose its fascistic side by its repeated activities with William W. Baker, exposed as a neo-Nazi in March 2002. Even after that date, CAIR invited Baker to speak at several events, for example in Florida on August 12, 2003 and New Jersey on October 18, 2003. CAIR liked Baker's work so much, it used the title of his book, More in Common Than You Think, in one of its ad campaigns in March 2004 and as the title of an Elderhostel lecture.
Foreign Funding According to filed copies of its annual Internal Revenue Service Form 990, CAIR's U.S. chapters have more than doubled their combined revenues from the $2.5 million they recorded in 2000 to $5.6 million in 2002, though the number dipped slightly to $5.3 million in 2003, the most recent year for which figures are available. That CAIR has recorded at least $3.1 million on its year-end combined balance sheets since 2001, combined with its minimal grant-making ($27,525 was the total that all CAIR chapters granted in 2003), suggests that CAIR is building an endowment and planning for the long term.
The Internal Revenue Service filings claim that the bulk of its funds come from "direct public support" and its website explicitly denies that CAIR receives support from foreign sources: "We do not support directly or indirectly, or receive support from, any overseas group or government." However, this denial is flatly untrue, for CAIR has accepted foreign funding, and from many sources.
A press release from the Saudi Arabian embassy in Washington indicates that in August 1999, the Islamic Development Bank—a bank headquartered in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia—gave CAIR $250,000 to purchase land for its Washington, D.C. headquarters. CAIR's decision to accept Islamic Development Bank funding is unfortunate, given the bank's role as fund manager of the Al-Quds and the Al-Aqsa Funds, established by twelve Arab countries in order to fund the Palestinian intifada and provide financial support to the families of Palestinian "martyrs."
According to records made public by Paul Sperry, CAIR purchased its national headquarters in 1999 through an unusual lease-purchase transaction with the United Bank of Kuwait. The bank was the deed holder and leased the building to CAIR; yet despite not owning the building, CAIR recorded the property on its balance sheet as a property asset valued at $2.6 million. This arrangement changed in September 2002 when CAIR bought out the Kuwaiti bank with funds provided, at least in part, by Al-Maktoum Foundation, based in Dubai and headed by Dubai's crown prince and defense minister, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum. The markings on the deed indicate that the foundation provided "purchase money to the extent of $978,031.34" to CAIR, or roughly one-third the value of the property. One only wonders what a more complete investigation of its real estate transactions would turn up.
In December 1999, the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), an organization benefiting from Saudi patronage, announced at a press conference in Saudi Arabia that it "was extending both moral and financial support to CAIR"  to help it construct its $3.5 million headquarters in Washington, D.C. WAMY also agreed to "introduce CAIR to Saudi philanthropists and recommend their financial support for the headquarters project." In 2002, CAIR and WAMY announced, again from Saudi Arabia, their cooperation on a $1 million public relations campaign. The Saudi Gazette, which reported the story, said that CAIR's leader, Nihad Awad, "had already met leading Saudi businessmen" in order to "brief them about the projects and raise funds."
Later that week on the same fundraising trip through the Middle East, CAIR reportedly received $500,000 from Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, reputed to be one of the world's richest men. Waleed also, in May 2005, stated that he is "more than prepared" to work with organizations such as CAIR, "and to provide needed support" to them.
CAIR has received at least $12,000 from the International Relief Organization (also called the International Islamic Relief Organization, or IIRO), which itself was the recipient of some $10 million from its parent organization in Saudi Arabia. (See a 1994 check from the IIRO for $5,000, figure 2.) The International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) gave CAIR's Washington office $14,000 in 2003. According to a court-filed affidavit, David Kane of the U.S. Customs Service determined that the IIIT receives donations from overseas via its related entities. Law enforcement is looking at the IIIT connection with Operation Green Quest, the major investigation into the activities of individuals and organizations believed to be "ardent supporters" of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and Al-Qaeda. CAIR, not surprisingly, criticized the probe of its donor, telling the Financial Times of London that the investigation is an attack on "respected Islamic institutions."
Despite these many foreign sources, CAIR still claims to receive no funds from outside the United States.
An Integral Part of the Wahhabi Lobby CAIR has a key role in the "Wahhabi lobby"—the network of organizations, usually supported by donations from Saudi Arabia, whose aim is to propagate the especially extreme version of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia. For one, it sends money to other parts of the lobby. According to CAIR's Form 990 filings for 2003, its California offices invested $325,000 with the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT). The NAIT was established in 1971 by the Muslim Student Association of the U.S. and Canada, which bills itself as the precursor to the Islamic Society of North America, now the largest member of the Wahhabi lobby. According to Newsweek, authorities say that over the years "NAIT money has helped the Saudi Arabian sect of Wahhabism—or Salafism, as the broader, pan-Islamic movement is called—to seize control of hundreds of mosques in U.S. Muslim communities." J. Michael Waller, a terrorism expert, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that NAIT is believed to own 50 to 79 percent of the mosques in North America. According to Waller, NAIT was raided as part of Operation Green Quest in 2002, on suspicions of involvement in terrorist financing.
CAIR affiliates regularly speak at events sponsored by the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an umbrella organization of the Wahhabi lobby. Nabil Sadoun, a director of CAIR-DC, spoke at the ISNA's regional conference in 2003. Hussam Ayloush, executive director of CAIR's Southern California chapter, and Fouad Khatib, the CAIR-California chairman, spoke at an ISNA-sponsored event. Safaa Zarzour, president of CAIR-Chicago, was also an ISNA speaker, as was Azhar Azeez, a board member of CAIR-Dallas, who has spoken at several ISNA conferences.
In January 2003, the Saudi newspaper Ar-Riyadh reported that Nihad Awad appeared on a panel along with ‘Aqil ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz al-‘Aqil, secretary-general of the Saudi charity Al-Haramain Foundation—despite that organization's well-known ties to terrorism and the fact that already in March 2002, long before Awad's visit with Al-Haramain, the U.S. and Saudi governments had jointly designated eleven of its branches "financial supporter[s] of terrorism." The U.S.-based branch of the organization was also subsequently designated in September 2004.
To fully appreciate what it means that more than half of U.S. mosques are promoting Saudi Islam, we refer to the Freedom House report, "Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Invade American Mosques." It explains that Saudi documents disseminated at U.S. mosques are telling America's Muslims that it is a religious obligation for them to hate Christians and Jews and warning that Muslims should not have Christians and Jews as friends, nor should they help them.
The Freedom House report indicates that Saudi publications disseminated by U.S. mosques: say it is lawful for Muslims to physically harm and steal from adulterers and homosexuals; condemn interpretations of Islam other than the strict "Wahhabi" version preached in Saudi Arabia; advocate the killing of those who convert out of Islam; assert that it is a Muslim's duty to eliminate the State of Israel; and promote the idea that women should be segregated and veiled and, of course, barred from some employment and activities. But not to worry; CAIR's spokesman, Ibrahim Hooper, tells us, "The majority of the stuff they picked is in Arabic, a language that most people in mosques don't read."
Muslim Supremacism CAIR's personnel are normally tight-lipped about the organization's agenda but sometimes let their ambitions slip out. CAIR's long-serving chairman, Omar Ahmad, reportedly told a crowd of California Muslims in July 1998, "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran ... should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth." Five years later, Ahmad denied having said this and issued a press release saying he was seeking a retraction. But the reporter stood behind her story, and the newspaper that reported Ahmad's remarks told WorldNetDaily it had "not been contacted by CAIR."
In 1993, before CAIR existed, Ibrahim Hooper told a reporter: "I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future." On the Michael Medved radio show in 2003, Hooper made the same point more positively: if Muslims ever become a majority in the United States, it would be safe to assume that they would want to replace the U.S. Constitution with Islamic law, as most Muslims believe that God's law is superior to man-made law.
Other CAIR personnel also express their contempt for the United States. Ihsan Bagby of CAIR's Washington office has said that Muslims "can never be full citizens of this country," referring to the United States, "because there is no way we can be fully committed to the institutions and ideologies of this country." Ayloush said that the war on terror has become a "war on Muslims" with the U.S. government the "new Saddam." He concluded: "So let's end this hypocrisy, this hypocrisy that we are better than the other dictator."
In a bizarre coda, Parvez Ahmed, the current CAIR chairman, touted the virtues of Islamic democracy in 2004 by portraying the Afghan constitutional process as superior to the U.S. one:
The new Afghan constitution shows that the constitution of a Muslim nation can be democratic and yet not contradict the essence of Islam. During my meeting with a high-ranking Afghan delegation during their recent visit to the United States, I was told that the Afghan constitutional convention included Hindu delegates despite Hindus accounting for only 1 percent of the population. Contrast this with our own constitutional convention that excluded women and blacks.
Intimidation CAIR attempts to close down public debate about itself and Islam in several ways, starting with a string of lawsuits against public and private individuals and several publications. CAIR's Rabiah Ahmed has openly acknowledged that lawsuits are increasingly an "instrument" for it to use.
In addition, CAIR has resorted to financial pressure in an effort to silence critics. One such case concerns ABC radio personality Paul Harvey, who on December 4, 2003, described the vicious nature of cock fighting in Iraq, then commented: "Add to the [Iraqi] thirst for blood, a religion which encourages killing, and it is entirely understandable if Americans came to this bloody party unprepared." CAIR responded a day later with a demand for "an on-air apology." CAIR then issued a call to its supporters to contact Harvey's advertising sponsors to press them to pull their ads "until Harvey responds to Muslim concerns." Although Harvey quickly and publicly retracted his remarks, CAIR continued its campaign against him.
Another case of financial intimidation took place in March 2005, when CAIR campaigned to have National Review remove two books—Serge Trifkovic's The Sword of the Prophet and J.L. Menezes' The Life and Religion of Mohammed—as well as the positive reviews of those books, from its on-line bookstore. CAIR claimed the books defame Islam and the Prophet Muhammad. When it did not get immediate satisfaction from National Review, it instructed its partisans to pressure the Boeing Corporation to withdraw its advertisements from the magazine. National Review briefly took down both books but then quickly reposted the one by Trifkovic. Trifkovic himself argued that CAIR's success here "will only whet Islamist appetites and encourage their hope that the end-result will be a crescent on the Capitol a generation or two from now."
CAIR resorted to another form of intimidation versus Florida radio show host and Baptist pastor Mike Frazier. Frazier had criticized local and state officials in September 2004 for attending a CAIR awards dinner because, as he put it, "If these people would have bothered to check CAIR out beforehand they would have seen that it is a radical group." He termed what followed "absolutely unbelievable." Within a month, he says he received six death threats and forty-seven threatening phone calls, was accosted by strangers, was labeled an "extremist" and a "fundamentalist zealot," and accused of "propagating fear, terror and disunity" by the St. Petersburg Times. Several members of his church fled his congregation because, according to Frazier, "they were afraid."
Other CAIR targets of intimidation have included the Simon Wiesenthal Center for juxtaposing a picture of the Ayatollah Khomeini next to Adolf Hitler, and the Reader's Digest for an article, "The Global War on Christians," which CAIR found "smears Islam" by citing well-documented cases of Christian persecution. CAIR's Nihad Awad faulted the Reader's Digest for leaving the impression that "Islam somehow encourages or permits rape, kidnapping, torture, and forced conversion."
In December 2003, CAIR ruined the career of an army officer and nurse, Captain Edwina McCall, who had treated American soldiers wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan but ended up resigning under a cloud of suspicion. Her crime? Using her military e-mail address on an Internet discussion board concerning the Islamist agenda. CAIR sent the comments to the secretary of defense, calling attention to her allegedly "bigoted anti-Muslim comments" and demanding that her "extremist and Islamophobic views" be investigated and then followed by "appropriate action." The Army immediately cast the officer under suspicion, leading her to resign from a career she had loved.
At times, CAIR inspires its attack dogs to make threats and sits back when they follow through. After Daniel Pipes published an article in July 1999 explaining the difference between moderate and radical Islam, CAIR launched fifteen separate attacks on him in the space of two months, attacks widely reprinted in Muslim publications. Dozens of letters followed to the newspapers that carried Pipes' articles, some calling him harsh names ("bigot and racist"), others comparing him to the Ku Klux Klan and the neo-Nazis, or characterizing his writings as an "atrocity" filled with "pure poison" and "outright lies." More alarmingly, the letter-writers accused the author of perpetrating a hate crime against Muslims or of promoting and abetting such crimes. One threatened: "Is Pipes ready to answer the Creator for his hatred or is he a secular humanist ...? He will soon find out."
CAIR metes out even worse treatment to Muslim opponents, as the case of Khalid Durán shows. Durán taught at leading universities and wrote about Islam for think tanks; he was commissioned by the American Jewish Committee to write Children of Abraham: An Introduction to Islam for Jews. Fourteen scholars of Islam endorsed the manuscript prior to publication; it won glowing reviews from such authoritative figures as Cardinal William Keeler of Baltimore, the eminent church historian Martin Marty, and Prince Hassan of Jordan. Then, before the book was even released, CAIR issued two press releases insulting Durán personally and demanding that the Children of Abraham be withheld until a group of CAIR-approved academics could review the book to correct what it assumed (without having read the manuscript) would be its "stereotypical or inaccurate content." Islamist publications quickly picked up CAIR's message, with Cairo's Al-Wafd newspaper announcing that Durán's book "spreads anti-Muslim propaganda" through its "distortions of Islamic concepts." A weekly in Jordan reported that ‘Abd al-Mun'im Abu Zant—one of that country's most powerful Islamist leaders—had declared that Durán "should be regarded as an apostate," and on this basis called for an Islamic ruling to condone Durán's death. Days later, Durán's car was broken into, and a dead squirrel and excrement were thrown inside. CAIR, far from apologizing for the evil results of its handiwork, accused the American Jewish Committee of fabricating the death edict as a "cheap publicity stunt to boost book sales."
Deceit CAIR has a long record of unreliability and deceit even in relatively minor matters. To begin with, it has the audacity to claim to be "America's largest civil rights group," ignoring much larger groups by far, such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the Anti-Defamation League.
In May 2005, CAIR published its annual report on the violations of Muslim civil rights in America which purported to document a significant rise in the number of hate crimes directed at Muslims. According to the report, "anti-Muslim hate crimes in the United States" have gone up dramatically: from 42 cases in 2002, to 93 cases in 2003, to 141 in 2004. The mainstream media dutifully recycled CAIR's press release, effectively endorsing this study by reporting it as a serious piece of research. But closer inspection shows that of twenty "anti-Muslim hate crimes" for which CAIR gives information, at least six are invalid.
David Skinner points out a further problem with the 2004 report: its credulity in reporting any incident, no matter how trivial, subjective or unsubstantiated. One anecdote concerns a Muslim college student who encountered "flyers and posters with false and degrading statements about the Qur'an and the prophet Muhammad"; another concerns a student at Roger Williams in Rhode Island who wrote that "a true Muslim is taught to slay infidels." Also, any reluctance to accommodate Muslim women wearing a headscarf or veil was tallied as a bias incident, even in the case of genuine quandaries (such as veiled athletes or drivers applying for their licenses).
Nor is this the first unreliable CAIR study. Referring to the 1996 version, Steven Emerson noted in congressional testimony that "a large proportion of the complaints have been found to be fabricated, manufactured, distorted, or outside standard definitions of hate crimes." Jorge Martinez of the U.S. Department of Justice dismissed CAIR's 2003 report, Guilt by Association, as "unfair criticism based on a lot of misinformation and propaganda."
CAIR's manipulative habits assert themselves even in petty ways. For example, CAIR is not above conducting straw polls in an effort to forward its political agenda and may even be willing to exaggerate its own outreach efforts. This seems to be the case in CAIR's library project, where it claims to have sent thousands of packages of books and tapes to American libraries. An inquiry turned up the curious fact that while CAIR claimed the District of Columbia had received thirty-seven such packages, records showed only one such copy being recorded. Maybe the mailmen lost the remaining thirty-six?
In September 2005, CAIR indulged in some Stalinist revisionism: as Robert Spencer revealed, CAIR doctored a photo on its website to make it more Islamically correct by manually adding a hijab onto a Muslim woman. Despite all this, CAIR's statements continue to gain the respectful attention of uncritical media outlets.
The Establishment's Failure The few hard-hitting media analyses of CAIR generally turn up in the conservative press. Otherwise, it generally wins a pass from news organizations, as Erick Stakelbeck has documented. The mainstream media treat CAIR respectfully, as a legitimate organization, avoiding the less salutary topics explored here, even the multiple connections to terrorism.
One telling example of the media's negligence in investigating CAIR occurred when Ghassan Elashi—a founding board member of CAIR's Texas chapter—was indicted and convicted of supporting terrorism by sending money to Hamas and Mousa Abu Marzook. Reporting on this, not one single mainstream media source mentioned Elashi's CAIR connection. Worse, the media went to CAIR and quoted it on Elashi's arrest, without noting their close connection.
The Washington Post seems particularly loath to expose CAIR's unsavory aspects. For example, on January 20, 2005, it ran a story about the opening of CAIR's new Virginia office on Grove Street in Herndon. The article not only passed up the opportunity to consider CAIR's presence in a town notorious for Islamist organizational connections to Al-Qaeda and to the Wahhabi network, but it was also remarkably similar in tone and style to CAIR's own press release on the same subject. (A later Washington Post article did mention that the new CAIR offices are located on the very street where federal agents had conducted a major raid in March 2002.)
There is much else for the press to look into. One example: CAIR-DC lists the Zahara Investment Corporation as a "related organization" on its IRS Form 990. Curiously, Zahara Investment Corporation was listed as a tax-exempt entity in 2002; in 2003, it became a non-tax-exempt entity. This prompts several questions: how is a tax-exempt like CAIR related to an investment company, much less a corporation? How does an investment corporation become a tax-exempt? And how does it change itself into a non-exempt? And why did CAIR-DC invest $40,000 of the public's money in 1998 in securities that it would have to write off less than three years later? Whose securities were these? The usual databases have nothing on Zahara Investment Corporation; all this took place under the radar screen.
That the U.S. government, the mainstream media, educational institutions, and others have given CAIR a free pass amounts to a dereliction of duty. Yet, there appear to be no signs of change. How long will it be until the establishment finally recognizes CAIR for what it is and denies it mainstream legitimacy?
Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum. Sharon Chadha is the co-author of Jihad and International Security.
CAIR Founded by "Islamic Terrorists"? by Daniel Pipes and Sharon Chadha FrontPageMagazine.com July 28, 2005
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, Inc., filed a defamation lawsuit against Andrew Whitehead, of Anti-CAIR (or ACAIR), a grass-roots project whose name explains its mission: to expose the largest, most vocal, and dangerous Islamist organization in North America.
CAIR's March 2004 lawsuit is part of what seems to be a policy of using the legal process to silence or chill critics. In this case, CAIR claimed it had been harmed by six statements on ACAIR's website, including CAIR's being founded by Hamas supporters, being partially funded by terrorists, and intending to impose Islamic law on the United States.
Then, on June 20, 2005, CAIR filed an amended motion that substantially cut back on its libel claims, retaining just portions of two of the original six statements. With original misspellings retained, the offending passages are:
Let their be no doubt that CAIR is a terrorist supporting front organization…. [CAIR] seeks to overthrow constitutional government in the United States…. Why did CAIR drastically reduce its claims versus Whitehead?
It might have to do with Whitehead, admirably represented by Reed Rubinstein of Greenberg Traurig LLP, having responded to CAIR's lawsuit with an extensive and well informed set of discovery requests and documents. These filings perhaps established for CAIR the depth of Whitehead's knowledge and the soundness of his opinions. If so, then CAIR's leadership concluded that the bulk of its case against Whitehead would collapse in court.
CAIR's filing an amended motion has two apparent implications: that CAIR has tacitly acknowledged the truth of Whitehead's deleted assertions; and those assertions can now be repeated with legal impunity.
We list here the key statements that CAIR no longer deems legally improper, followed by some speculations as to why it might have decided not to contest them in court.
[CAIR is an] organization founded by Hamas supporters…. CAIR was started by Hamas members…. CAIR … was founded by Islamic terrorists. CAIR's leadership must have stretched its collective memory back to 1994 and recalled (along with counterterrorism expert Matthew Epstein) that Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad, former officials of the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP), founded the organization, while IAP's president, Rafeeq Jabar, was (according to Steve Emerson) one of CAIR's founding directors.
Former FBI counterterrorism chief Oliver "Buck" Revell has described the IAP as "a front organization for Hamas." This linkage between the IAP and Hamas was decisively established in 2004, when a federal judge in Chicago found it partially liable for $156 million in damages for its role in aiding and abetting Hamas in the murder of David Boim, a 17-year-old American citizen.
And, CAIR no doubt remembered that it had been caught by Joe Kaufman exploiting the 9/11 attacks to raise funds for two Hamas-linked fundraising organizations, the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) and the Global Relief Foundation.
[CAIR] is partially funded by terrorists… Terrorists themselves don't literally give out money, but organizations that fund terrorism also fund CAIR.
The Saudi-based Islamic Development Bank gave CAIR $250,000 in August 1999. The IDB also manages funds (Al-Quds, Al-Aqsa) which finance suicide bombings against Israeli civilians by providing funds to the families of Palestinian "martyrs."
The International Institute of Islamic Thought, an organization linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, gave CAIR's Washington office $14,000 in 2003, according to IIIT tax filings. David Kane, who investigated IIIT as part of Operation Green Quest's probe into some one hundred companies and organizations, described in a sworn affidavit the various ways in which it may have funded suspected terrorist-front organizations.
The International Relief Organization (also called the International Islamic Relief Organization, or IIRO), a Saudi-financed organization being investigated by the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance for terrorism financing donated at least $12,000 to CAIR.
CAIR receives direct funding from Islamic terrorist supporting countries. CAIR has received funds from Saudi Arabia, such as the $250,000 from the Islamic Development Bank noted above. In addition, the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), a Saudi-sponsored charity (and another one suspected of financing terror), announced in December 1999 that it "was extending both moral and financial support to CAIR" to help it construct its $3.5 million headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Saudi Arabia, the homeland Osama bin Laden and fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers, is reasonably described as "terrorist supporting." The 9/11 Commission staff describes Saudi Arabia as having an environment where "fund-raisers and facilitators throughout Saudi Arabia and the Gulf" raised money for al Qaeda. In July 2005, U.S. Treasury Undersecretary Stuart Levey stated that "even today, we believe that Saudi donors may still be a significant source of terrorist financing, including for the insurgency in Iraq."
CAIR has proven links to… Islamic terrorists. It's easy to understand why CAIR chose to leave this one alone, what with five current or former CAIR affiliates arrested, convicted, or deported on terrorism-related charges:
Randall Royer, CAIR's communications specialist and civil rights coordinator, was indicted on charges of conspiring to help Al-Qaeda and the Taliban to battle American troops in Afghanistan. He later pled guilty to lesser firearm-related charges and was sentenced to twenty years in prison.
Ghassan Elashi, the founder of CAIR's Texas chapter, was convicted in July 2004 along with his four brothers of having illegally shipped computers from their Dallas-area business, InfoCom Corporation, to Libya and Syria, two designated state sponsors of terrorism. In April of 2005, Elashi and two brothers were also convicted of knowingly doing business with Mousa Abu Marzook, a senior Hamas leader and Specially Designated Terrorist. He continues to face charges that he provided more than $12.4 million to Hamas while he was running the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), America's largest Islamic charity.
Bassem Khafagi, CAIR's community relations director, pleaded guilty in September 2003 to lying on his visa application and for passing bad checks for substantial amounts in early 2001, for which he was deported. Khafagi was also a founding member and president of the Islamic Assembly of North America (IANA), an organization under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice for terrorism-related activities.
Rabih Haddad, a CAIR fundraiser, was arrested on terrorism-related charges and deported from the United States due to his subsequent work as executive director of the Global Relief Foundation, a charity he co-founded; in October 2002, GRF was designated by the U.S. Treasury Department for financing Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. According to a CAIR complaint, Homam Albaroudi, a member of CAIR's Michigan chapter and also a founding member and executive director of the IANA also founded the Free Rabih Haddad Committee.
Siraj Wahhaj, a CAIR advisory board member, was named in 1995 by U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White as a possible unindicted co-conspirator in connection with the plot to blow up New York City landmarks led by the blind sheikh, Omar Abdul Rahman.
CAIR is a fundamentalist organization dedicated to the overthrow of the United States Constitution and the installation of an Islamic theocracy in America. CAIR wishes nothing more than the implementation of a SHARIA law in American. [CAIR seeks to replace the government of the United States] with an Islamist theocracy using our own Constitution as protection.... CAIR is here to make radical Islam the dominant religion in the United States and to convert our country into an Islamic theocracy along the lines of Iran. CAIR's goals are clear, as indicated by its leaders' sometimes revealing comments:
Ihsan Bagby, a future CAIR board member, stated in the late 1980s that Muslims "can never be full citizens of this country," referring to the United States, "because there is no way we can be fully committed to the institutions and ideologies of this country."
Ibrahim Hooper, the future CAIR spokesman, told the Minneapolis Star Tribune on April 4, 1993: "I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future."
Omar Ahmad, CAIR's chairman, announced in July 1998 that "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran . . . should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."
These facts suggest why CAIR felt it had to drop most of its libel claims against Andrew Whitehead. Should this case go to court, we will watch with interest how Whitehead's two remaining opinions (that CAIR is a terrorist-supporting front organization and that it seeks to overthrow the constitutional government of the United States) fare.
Mr. Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org) is director of the Middle East Forum and author of Miniatures (Transaction Publishers). Ms Chadha is the co-author of two forthcoming books on the Middle East.
CAIR Says We Shouldn't Call Muslim Terrorists - Muslim Terrorists ... That we should not identify terrorists with their religion, that when people rob banks, we don't call them Jewish or Christian bank robbers, and such.
So suicide bombings for a religion equates to robbing banks?
Let CAIR rest assured that when we hear about Jewish or Christian suicide bombers, they will be duly reported as such, and we at Hyscience and our friends at Freedom's Zone will be among the first to do so.
Only in the mind of CAIR (a terrorist-supporting organization) and their spokesperson - the Muslim convert Ibrahim Hooper (Fox News interview), and other Islamist-supporting Muslim groups in the West that accuse the government and the press of Islamophobia.
Not calling a spade a spade, flies in the face of responsibility to identify the root cause of terrorism - a radical Muslim ideology and it's perpetuation, and is an injustice to some 60% or so of the peace-loving Muslims on the planet (estimates of Muslims that follow or are in support of the radical Muslim ideology vary from 15% to 50% - and the number is growing thanks to the vast number of radical clerics, Iran, and Saudi Arabia-funded Wahabbist mosques). CAIR's Islamist apologia is not a proper representation of moderate Muslims, but of course CAIR does not truly represent moderate Muslims, it represents an Islamist agenda - the Islamization of America and the perpetuation of radical Islamic ideology. While there have been occasions when truly moderate Muslims have been responsible for thwarting terrorist plots, CAIR and its ilk have never, I repeat - never, taken any action to thwart a terrorist attack or to even aggressively condemn it in anything but token language highly indicative of the exercise of al-Taqiyya, as when CAIR issued a fatwa against terrorism (excerpt from The CounterTerrorism Blog):
In fact, the fatwa is bogus. Nowhere does it (CAIR) condemn the Islamic extremism ideology that has spawned Islamic terrorism. It does not renounce nor even acknowledge the existence of an Islamic jihadist culture that has permeated mosques and young Muslims around the world. It does not renounce Jihad let alone admit that it has been used to justify Islamic terrorist acts. It does not condemn by name any Islamic group or leader. In short, it is a fake fatwa designed merely to deceive the American public into believing that these groups are moderate. In fact, officials of both organizations (... the Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA) and the Council on American - Islamic Relations (CAIR)) have been directly linked to and associated with Islamic terrorist groups and Islamic extremist organizations. One of them is an unindicted co-conspirator in a current terrorist case; another previous member was a financier to Al-Qaeda. By the way, I carefully checked every single name on the list of the British Muslim terrorists. And, as I might have guessed, there was not a single Goldberg, Finklestein, O'hara, Smith, or the like among them. Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and even atheists - don't do suicide bombings, nor does any civilized, sane, human being that's a member of the modern world. I guess that says a lot about fundamentalist Muslims, that is, Muslim terrorists, Islamic fascists.
Even the Muslim converts changed their names to Muslim names, attended a mosque, and in fact, word, and deed had become radical Muslims. Come on, CAIR, Ibrahim - we've never even been near a turnip truck, much less having had the opportunity to fall off one.
And for Ibrahim Cooper's enlightenment (remember, Hooper's the guy that made news when he was quoted by the Minneapolis Star Tribune as wanting to see the United States governed by sharia law), I seriously doubt, nor should there be, a bank robber identified as a Muslim bank robber. There is a difference between robbing a bank and acts of terror. Terrorism requires that we identify the source and the cause - it's too much of a human catastrophe to do otherwise.
And while we're on the subject of identifying sources and causes of terrorism, CAIR springs to mind as a supporter and an apologist for radical Islam, and a proponent of the Islamization of America, along with the establishment of sharia, Islamic law, in America. As Daniel Pipes has said, CAIR is particularly worrisome because it claims to be nothing but a mild public affairs organization promoting "interest and understanding among the general public with regards to Islam and Muslims in North America," and is widely seen as such. However, in fact, it is radical to the core; to quote its chairman, Omar M. Ahmad (as reported by the San Ramon Valley Herald in July 1998), "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran . . . should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."
CAIR's record includes the following unpleasantries:
* Apologizing for killers such as Hamas (a group associated with the murder of 7 Americans) and Usama bin Ladin (charged with the devastation of September 11, 2001).
* Helping promote terrorism: In the words of Steve Pomerantz., a former Chief of Counterterrorism for the FBI, "CAIR, its leaders, and its activities, effectively give aid to international terrorist groups."
* Intimidation of patriotic Muslims who disagree with CAIR's militant agenda: In one case (Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani), the FBI has looked into charges that he received death threats after renouncing the chauvinists. In another (Khalid Durán), CAIR's attack on a writer led to a death edict against him - which CAIR has never denounced. (For details on this latter case, see http://www.danielpipes.org/article/384.)
* Associating with terrorism: Siraj Wahaj, a potential unindicted co-conspirator in the World Trade Center bombing of 1993, sits on its advisory board.
* Bias against women: When a prosecutor in Cleveland argued that two Muslim men had engaged in the "honor killing" of their female cousin, CAIR accused him of "ethnic and religious stereotyping" and demanded he be investigated.
* Sponsorship of blatant antisemitism: At a May 1998 rally at Brooklyn College co-sponsored by CAIR, one speaker referred to Jews as "descendants of the apes."
In short, CAIR represents not the great civilization of Islam but a radical utopian movement originating in the Middle East that seeks to impose its ways on the United States. Americans should consider themselves warned: a new danger exists in their midst.
CAIR Backs Down from Anti-CAIR April 21, 2006 By Daniel Pipes FrontPageMagazine.com
In a stunning setback, the Council on American-Islamic Relations' defamation suit against Andrew Whitehead of Anti-CAIR has been dismissed with prejudice.
The Anti-CAIR website, www.anti-cair-net.org, reports a "mutually agreeable settlement," the terms of which are confidential. However, Whitehead notes that he issued no public apology to CAIR, made no retractions or corrections, and left the Anti-CAIR website unchanged, so that it continues to post the statements that triggered CAIR's suit. Specifically, CAIR had complained about Whitehead calling it a "terrorist supporting front organization … founded by Hamas supporters" that aims "to make radical Islam the dominant religion in the United States." It also objected to being described as "dedicated to the overthrow of the United States Constitution and the installation of an Islamic theocracy in America."
That clears the decks; no additional actions are pending between these two parties. In brief, Whitehead won a sweet victory, while CAIR suffered a humiliating defeat.
CAIR initially filed suit in a Virginia Circuit Court on March 31, 2004, claiming six of Whitehead's statements were false, that Whitehead made them "with knowledge of their falsity," and that the statements were actionable because "they impute the commission of a criminal offense." CAIR further claimed injury to its "standing and reputation throughout the United States and elsewhere," and sought $1 million in compensatory damages, $350,000 in punitive damages, plus legal fees and interest. It did so despite Whitehead's telling a reporter "I haven't got any [money]."
The original five statements as quoted in CAIR's complaint were:
"Let their [sic] be no doubt that CAIR is a terrorist supporting front organization that is partially funded by terrorists, and that CAIR wishes nothing more than the implementation of Sharia law in America." CAIR is an "organization founded by Hamas supporters which seeks to overthrow Constitutional government in the United States and replace it with an Islamist theocracy using our own Constitution as protection." "ACAIR reminds our readers that CAIR was started by Hamas members and is supported by terrorist supporting individuals, groups and countries." "Why oppose CAIR? CAIR has proven links to, and was founded by, Islamic terrorists. CAIR is not in the United States to promote the civil rights of Muslims. CAIR is here to make radical Islam the dominant religion in the United States and convert our country into an Islamic theocracy along the lines of Iran. In addition, CAIR has managed, through the adroit manipulation of the popular media, to present itself as the ‘moderate' face of Islam in the United States. CAIR succeeded to the point that the majority of its members are not aware that CAIR actively supports terrorists and terrorist supporting groups and nations. In addition, CAIR receives direct funding from Islamic terrorists supporting countries." "CAIR is a fundamentalist organization dedicated to the overthrow of the United States Constitution and the installation of an Islamic theocracy in America." In January 2005, Whitehead's counsel, Reed D. Rubinstein of Greenberg Traurig LLP's Washington, D.C. office, submitted 327 discovery requests of CAIR; I have posted this important, well-informed discovery document at http://www.danielpipes.org/rr/3511_1.pdf. Whitehead sought extensive information regarding CAIR's finances, its relationship to Hamas, its ties to Saudi Arabia, and ties to other Islamists.
Signs of CAIR's problems came in June 2005, when – perhaps realizing how much was available in the public record about its activities, perhaps wishing to curtail some of the discovery process – it amended its complaint by dropping nearly all of its original claims. The amended complaint alleged only two brief statements to be false and defamatory:
"Let their [sic] be no doubt that CAIR is a terrorist supporting front organization." CAIR "seeks to overthrow constitutional government in the United States." (For an analysis of this amended complaint, see Sharon Chadha and my article, "CAIR Founded by ‘Islamic Terrorists'?")
In anticipation of a court hearing regarding discovery, Rubinstein filed papers in the Virginia Circuit Court in October 2005 and December 2005 alleging extensive links between CAIR's organizers and control group with Hamas and other foreign and domestic Islamists. Among other things, these papers alleged:
CAIR's lineage goes back to a key Hamas leader (Musa Abu Marzook), and that CAIR has long been connected with, and "exploited" the 9/11 attacks to raise money for the Holy Land Foundation, a Hamas front group. CAIR is heavily supported, financially and otherwise, by suspect Saudi and UAE-based individuals and groups. CAIR states that the U.S. judicial system has been "kidnapped by Israeli interests," and claims that anti-terror law enforcement action against the Holy Land Foundation was "an anti-Muslim witch hunt" promoted by "the pro-Israel lobby in America." CAIR refused to respond to Anti-CAIR's discovery requests in its November 2005 response to Rubinstein. For example, it did not admit that Hamas murders innocent civilians, it refused to disclose the identities of its Saudi donors, it declined to answer whether it aims to convert American Christians to Islam, and it avoided questions about the anti-Semitic and anti-American activities of its founder and executive director, Nihad Awad, including his communications with Hamas terrorists, speeches supporting suicide bombings, and advocacy of violence against Jews.
In March 2006, shortly before a scheduled court hearing to decide on several of Whitehead's requests (compelling CAIR to disclose its financial data, to answer questions about its relationship with Hamas and other Islamists, and to provide information regarding its leaders' activities and intentions), the case was settled and then dismissed with prejudice by stipulation (meaning, the plaintiff has agreed to forever drop all of the claims that were in, or could have been in, the complaint).
Asked about these developments, CAIR's spokesman, Ibrahim Hooper, confirmed to the New York Sun that the libel case was dismissed at the request of both parties and added that "It was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount." Asked if he implied that Whitehead had paid the organization to drop the case, Hooper replied, "We filed the suit." Asked the same question again, Hooper repeated the same answer.
Comment: (1) I had a role in this story, for it was my article, "Why Is CAIR Suing Anti-CAIR?" published only a week after CAIR's initial filing, that brought this case to Reed Rubinstein's attention and led to Greenberg Traurig LLP's serving as Whitehead's wonderfully capable, pro-bono legal counsel.
(2) In that initial article, I expressed puzzlement why CAIR would voluntarily expose itself to discovery. Did it file this case expecting to steamroll Whitehead, whom CAIR may have perceived as an easy target, and thereby intimidate its critics? What seemed early on to be a mistake by CAIR is now confirmed as such; it ran into a litigation buzz-saw, and it seems to have cut and run. CAIR preferred the ignominy of walking away from the case it initiated rather than open to public scrutiny its finances, its list of supporters, and the beliefs and intentions of its key leaders.
(3) CAIR's November 2005 brief to the court contains several statements of note:
"CAIR has established a status of enviable prestige within highest echelons [sic] of the ‘Washington establishment'" (p. 3). That is correct and it neatly sums up Sharon Chadha's and my extensive analysis in "CAIR: Islamists Fooling the Establishment." CAIR "stands up for America and speaks out against terrorism in pronouncements to the general public, thereby earning the enmity of the very terrorists Whitehead claims CAIR supports" (p. 6). Sounds good, but CAIR did not provide any evidence in its brief of such "enmity." "CAIR has communicated with various members of the United States Senate concerning" both the Holy Land Foundation and the Global Relief Foundation. (pp. 27-8) This comes as news. One wonders what information on these two terrorism-funding groups CAIR provided. CAIR states that it "advised Frontpagemag.com of possible legal action concerning a doctored photograph it employed to illustrate an article" written by Whitehead (p. 28). It's amusing that CAIR, which itself famously doctored a photograph, accuses FPM of doing this; in fact, FPM merely posted a graphic, as it often does, one showing Hooper with Hamas figures in the background. (4) Hooper stated the case settled for "an undisclosed amount" but did not disclose in which direction that amount went. The terms being confidential, one can only speculate. Perhaps CAIR desperately wanted out of the burdensome, embarrassing, and harmful case it foolishly had initiated? Rubenstein hinted as much when he observed that CAIR became more disposed to settle in late 2005, when a judge was considering what CAIR would have to divulge about its financing and its ties to Hamas and other terrorist groups. Rubenstein told the New York Sun that the lawsuit "would have opened up CAIR's finances and their relationships and their principles, their ideological motivations in a way they did not want to be made public."
(5) According to CAIR's own analysis of Whitehead's initial statements, they "impute the commission of a criminal offense" by CAIR, in that these suggest CAIR "actively supports" terrorists, and advocates the "overthrow" of the U.S. Constitution in favor of Islamic law. It bears noting that none of these words were found to be false, they were not retracted, and they remain posted on Anti-CAIR's website.
(6) The collapse of this lawsuit, combined with the even more recent ending of two other CAIR legal actions (versus Cass Ballenger and David Harris), suggests that CAIR is no longer the plaintiff in any court cases; more broadly, what I in 2004 called its pattern of growing litigiousness seems finished.
(7) With CAIR's hopes of defeating its opponents in the legal arena at least temporarily defeated, the next step for those of us in North America unwilling to live under Islamic law is to thwart the organization's social and political ambitions. I am doing my part by announcing today the establishment of "Islamist Watch," a new project to combat the ideas and institutions of nonviolent, radical Islam in the United States and other Western countries.
In Defense of the Constitution News & Analysis 045/06 December 30, 2006
CAIR: Prostitutes for Radical Islam
Once again, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is demanding respect for Islam … radical Islam, that is.
Just what caused CAIR to roll out the charges of “Islamophobia” and, as usual, go off acting like a spoilt child?
Sen. Barbara Boxer, well known Democrat Senator representing California, recently rescinded an honor called a “certificate of accomplishment” awarded to Basim Elkarra, an officer in the local CAIR chapter. Among Boxer’s concerns? According to Boxer spokeswoman Natalie Ravitz, Boxer is concerned that CAIR “gives aid to international terrorist groups”.
While the accusation that CAIR gives aid to international terrorist groups certainly seems to be a surprise for CAIR’s executive director Nihad (“I am in support of the Hamas movement”) Awad, it isn’t a surprise to anyone with the slightest interest in radical Islam. Perhaps Awad should climb down off his high horse and examine his own past a bit?
Awad, true to form and right from the CAIR playbook, immediately goes on the offensive to defend CAIR’s so-called “honor”. Awad denied the charges that CAIR has any links to terror groups and claims a “deliberate smear campaign” by individuals whom support Israel are behind efforts to smear the Muslim community and silence its voice.
So, CAIR is the legitimate voice of Islam in America? While we agree that CAIR is the voice for radical, terrorist Islam in America, we seriously doubt that CAIR has done anything constructive to polish the image of Islam in America.
Consider: (From a July 2003 article by Dr. Daniel Pipes in the New York Post)
American Muslims: In November 2001, they had positive views from 59 percent of the public. That number fell to 54 percent in March 2002 and now stands at 51 percent.
Shared values: Asked if "the Muslim religion and your own religion have a lot in common," 31 percent answered affirmatively in November 2001, 27 percent in March 2002, and just 22 percent this year. 
While the article is dated, we believe that the "fall in respect" by the average American for Islam as a religion can be directly tied to activities by CAIR to undermine our country, prepare North America for conversion to an Islamic thugocracy, and CAIR’s obvious ties to radical Islam.
CAIR is an insult to the North American Islamic community and represents a very small number of Muslims who either do not know CAIR very well or refuse to see CAIR for what it is: a malignant cancer on the Muslim community that must be destroyed.
CAIR’s southern California executive director, Hussam Ayloush, believes Boxer's move is an "attempt to marginalize the largest and most mainstream Muslim organization in the country" and that “This is absolutely unacceptable”.
If so, just what is Ayloush going to do about it? Demand a meeting with Boxer? Demand the award is re-instated? Hold his breath until he gets his way?
Ayloush and the rest of the CAIR gang had better get used to hearing a new word:
But what really has CAIR so upset over what is just another award, commonly issued by politicians to groups and organizations recognizing everything from literacy campaigns to get-out-the-voter drives?
Joe Kaufman, the man behind “Americans Against Hate” is Jewish. It was through his efforts to put pressure on Boxer that the award was revoked.
This would explain Awad’s weird statement:
"The entire issue is going back to Israel … if you love Israel, you're OK ... if you question Israel, you're not … if that is the litmus test, no American Muslim and no freedom-loving person is going to pass that test."
Now we understand.
A lone Jew from southern Florida rose up, stuck his finger in CAIR’s eye and the bigots of CAIR are incensed and blame it all on Israel.
How pathetic. This is the best CAIR can do?
No wonder most North American Muslim’s want nothing to do with CAIR.
CAIR, North America’s greatest prostitute for radical Islam, has once again been exposed for what they are…and they don’t like it.
"Tough" (No one ever said the life of a gutter-common street whore was easy.)
Word to CAIR: "Get used to it."
Anti-CAIR salutes Joe Kaufman for his hard work and welcomes Senator Boxer’s enlightened stand against CAIR.
It Matters What Kind of Islam Prevails by Daniel Pipes Los Angeles Times July 22, 1999
Islam is said to have 6 million adherents in the United States and to be the fastest-growing religion in this country; in 1960, there were an estimated 100,000 Muslims living here. In important ways, this is a unique community, unlike any that came before, and it faces choices that are likely to have a major impact both on the United States and on Muslims around the world.
American Muslims -- immigrants and native-born converts alike -- look at the United States in one of two predominant ways. Members of one group, the integrationists, have no problem being simultaneously patriotic Americans and committed Muslims. Symbolic of this positive outlook on the United States, the Islamic Center of Southern California displays an American flag.
These integrationists insist that the West's norms -- neighborly relations, diligence on the job, honesty -- are essentially what Islam teaches. Conversely, they present Islam as the fulfillment of American values and see Muslims as a very positive force to improve America. As one integrationist put it, to be a good Muslim, you have to be a good American and vice versa. Or, as the American black leader W. Deen Mohammed put it, "Islam can offer something to the West, rather than represent a threat to the West." Integrationists accept that the United States will never become a Muslim country and are reconciled to living within a non-Islamic framework; they call for Muslims to immerse themselves in public life to make themselves both useful and influential.
In contrast, chauvinists aspire to make the United States a Muslim country, perhaps along the Iranian or Sudanese models. Believing that Islamic civilization is superior to anything American, they promote Islam as the solution to all of the country's ills. In the words of their leading theorist, Ismail Al-Faruqi, "Nothing could be greater than this youthful, vigorous and rich continent [of North America] turning away from its past evil and marching forward under the banner of Allahu Akbar [God is great]." Or, in the words of a teacher at the Al-Ghazly Islamic School in Jersey City, N.J., "Our short-term goal is to introduce Islam. In the long term, we must save American society. Allah will ask why I did not speak about Islam, because this piece of land is Allah's property."
Some of this ilk even talk about overthrowing the U.S. government and replacing it with an Islamic one. Although it sounds bizarre, this attitude attracts serious and widespread support among Muslims, some of whom debate whether peaceful means are sufficient or whether violence is a necessary option. (Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the World Trade Center bombing figure, clearly belongs among those who believe violence is necessary.)
In short, integrationists are delighted to live in a democratic country where the rule of law prevails, whereas chauvinists wish to import the customs of the Middle East and South Asia. If one group accepts the concept of an Americanized Islam as no less valid than an Egyptian or Pakistani Islam, the other finds very little attractive in American life.
Which of these two elements prevails has great significant for the United States and for the world of Islam. If the great majority of American Muslims adopt the integrationist approach, the Muslim community should fit well into the fabric of American life. There is also the added benefit that the well-educated, affluent and ambitious community of American Muslims will spread their version of a modern and tolerant Islam to the Middle East, South Asia and elsewhere.
But if the chauvinists are numerous and (as today) run most of the Muslim institutions in the United States, the consequences could be bitter indeed. Take the March 1996 incident when Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf, a black 27-year-old convert Islam then playing in the National Basketball Assn., decided to sit down as the American national anthem was played before each game. As a Muslim, he said, he could not pay such respect to the American flag, which he considered a "symbol of oppression, of tyranny." The disaffection of this wealthy and successful Muslim has dire implications if it becomes widespread.
There's a role here for everyone -- Muslim, non-Muslim, business executive, Hollywood producer, journalist, teacher, religious leader -- to explain what it means to be an American and to argue against Muslim chauvinism. One might think it obvious that life in this country is immeasurably preferable to that in Iran or Sudan, but that's clearly not obvious to everyone. Those of us who understand this simple truth must explain it to our fellow citizens.
There Are No Moderates: Dealing with Fundamentalist Islam by Daniel Pipes National Interest Fall 1995
[N.B.: The following reflects what the author submitted, and not exactly what was published. To obtain the precise text of what was printed, please check the original place of publication.]
In early February 1995, newspapers around the world featured a photograph taken in Cairo, which showed, for the first time ever, the prime minister of Israel standing side-by-side with the king of Jordan, the chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, and the president of Egypt.
These gentlemen ostensibly met to discuss the faltering peace process between the Arabs and Israel. Yet this unprecedented event of an Israeli leader in conclave with Arab colleagues sent another signal too: four leaders who share a common problem -fundamentalist Islam - are ready to work together. According to one account of the meeting, Rabin said that Israelis are the target of the fundamentalist attacks. Arafat jumped in and said, "Me too. They have threatened my life." At that point, Mubarak and Husayn both nodded their heads and said they too had personally been threatened by the radicals.
The photograph neatly symbolizes a great shift now taking place in Middle Eastern politics. Arab-Israeli issues remain formally the main item on the agenda but fundamentalist violence has become the greatest worry of nearly every government in the region. This shift marks a deep transformation for the Middle East. Through six decades, a politician's stance on the Arab-Israeli conflict defined more than anything else his standing in Middle East politics. No longer. Now, his position on fundamentalism, the single greatest threat to the region, primarily determines his allies and his enemies.
Why do Middle Eastern leaders feel so threatened by fundamentalist movements? Are they perhaps exaggerating the threat? And how is the U.S. government dealing with this novel issue?
A Variety of Threats
Though anchored in religious creed, fundamentalist Islam is a radical utopian movement closer in spirit to other such movements (communism, fascism) than to traditional religion. By nature anti-democratic and aggressive, anti-Semitic and anti-Western, it has great plans. Indeed, spokesmen for fundamentalist Islam see their movement standing in direct competition to Western civilization and challenging it for global supremacy. Let's look at each of these elements in more detail.
Radical utopian schema. Outside their own movement, fundamentalists see every existing political system in the Muslim world as deeply compromised, corrupt, and mendacious. As one of their spokesmen put it as long ago as 1951, "there is no [sic] one town in the whole world where Islam is observed as enjoined by Allah, whether in politics, economics or social matters." Implied here is that Muslims true to God's message must reject the status quo and build wholly new institutions.
To build a new Muslim society, fundamentalists proclaim their intent to do whatever they must; they openly flaunt an extremist sensibility. "There are no such terms as compromise and surrender in the Islamic cultural lexicon," a spokesman for Hamas declares. If that means destruction and death for the enemies of true Islam, so be it. Hizbullah's spiritual leader, Muhammad Husayn Fadlallah, concurs: "As Islamists," he says, "we seek to revive the Islamic inclination by all means possible."
Seeing Islam as the basis of a political system touching every aspect of life, fundamentalists are totalitarian. Whatever the problem, "Islam is the solution." In their hands, Islam is transformed from a personal faith into a ruling system that knows no constraints. They scrutinize the Qur'an and other texts for hints about Islamic medicine, Islamic economics, and Islamic statecraft, all with an eye to creating a total system for adherents and corresponding total power for leaders. Fundamentalists are revolutionary in outlook, extremist in behavior, totalitarian in ambition.
Revealingly, they vaunt Islam as the best ideology, not the best religion-thereby exposing their focus on power. Whereas a traditional Muslim would say something like, "We are not Jewish, we are not Christian, we are Muslim," the Malaysian Islamist leader Anwar Ibrahim made a very different comparison: "We are not socialist, we are not capitalist, we are Islamic." While fundamentalist Islam differs in its details from other utopian ideologies, it closely resembles them in scope and ambition. Like communism and fascism, it offers a vanguard ideology; a complete program to improve man and create a new society; complete control over that society; and cadres ready, even eager, to spill blood.
Anti-democratic. Like Hitler and Allende, who exploited the democratic process to reach power, the fundamentalists are actively taking part in elections; like the earlier figures, too, they have done dismayingly well. Fundamentalists swept municipal elections in Algeria in 1990 and won the mayoralties of Istanbul and Ankara in 1994. They have had success in the Lebanese and Jordanian elections and should win a substantial vote in the West Bank and Gaza, should Palestinian elections be held.
Once in power, would they remain democrats? There is not a lot of hard evidence on this point, Iran being the only case at hand where fundamentalists in power have made promises about democracy. (In all other fundamentalist regimes - Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Sudan - military leaders have dominated.) Ayatollah Khomeini promised real democracy (an assembly "based on the votes of the people") as he took power. Once in charge, he partially fulfilled this pledge: Iran's elections are hotly disputed and parliament does have real authority. But there's an important catch: parliamentarians must subscribe to the principles of the Islamic revolution. Only candidates (including non-Muslims) who subscribe to the official ideology may run for office. The regime in Tehran thus fails the key test of democracy, for it cannot be voted out of power.
Judging by their statements, other fundamentalists are likely to offer even less democracy than the Iranians. Indeed, statements by fundamentalist spokesmen from widely dispersed countries suggest an open disdain for popular sovereignty. Ahmad Nawfal, a Muslim Brother from Jordan, says that "If we have a choice between democracy and dictatorship, we choose democracy. But if it's between Islam and democracy, we choose Islam." Hadi Hawang of PAS in Malaysia makes the same point more bluntly: "I am not interested in democracy, Islam is not democracy, Islam is Islam." Or, in the famous (if not completely verified) words of 'Ali Belhadj, a leader of Algeria's Islamic Salvation Front (FIS), "When we are in power, there will be no more elections because God will be ruling."
Anti-moderate. Fundamentalist Islam is also aggressive. Like other revolutionaries, very soon after taking power fundamentalists try to expand at the expense of neighbors. The Khomeinists almost immediately sought to overthrow moderate (meaning here, non-fundamentalist) Muslim regimes in Bahrain and Egypt. For six years (1982-88) after Saddam Husayn wanted to quit, they kept the war going against Iraq; and they occupied three small but strategic islands in the Persian Gulf near the Straits of Hormuz. The Iranian terrorist campaign is now fifteen years old and reaches from the Philippines to Argentina. The mullahs are building an arsenal that includes missiles, submarines, and the infrastructure for unconventional weaponry. In like spirit, Afghan fundamentalists have invaded Tajikistan. Their Sudanese counterparts reignited the civil war against Christians and animists in the south and, for good measure, stirred up trouble at Halayib, a disputed territory on Sudan's border with Egypt.
So aggressive are fundamentalists that they attack neighbors even before taking power. In early February of this year, as Algeria's FIS was fighting to survive, some of its members assaulted a police outpost along the Tunisian border, killing six officers and seizing their weapons.
Anti-Semitic. Consistent with Hannah Arendt's observation about totalitarian movements necessarily being anti-Semitic, fundamentalist Muslims bristle with hostility to Jews. They accept virtually every Christian myth about Jews seeking control of the world, then add their own twist about Jews destroying Islam. The Hamas charter sees Jews as the ultimate enemy: they
have used their wealth to gain control of the world media, news agencies, the press, broadcasting stations, etc.... They were behind the French revolution and the Communist revolution.... They instigated World War I.... They caused World War II.... It was they who gave the instructions to establish the United Nations and the Security Council to replace the League of Nations, in order to rule over the world through them. Fundamentalists discuss Jews with the most violent and crude metaphors. Khalil Kuka, a founder of Hamas, says that "God brought the Jews together in Palestine not to benefit from a homeland but to dig their grave there and save the world from their pollution." Tehran's ambassador to Turkey says that "the Zionists are like the germs of cholera that will affect every person in contact with them." Such venom is common coin in fundamentalist discourse. Nor is violence confined to words. Especially since the September 1993 White House signing of the Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles, Hamas and Islamic Jihad have repeatedly targeted Israelis and other Jews, killing some hundred and fifty individuals.
Anti-Western. Unnoticed by most Westerners, war has been unilaterally declared on Europe and the United States. Fundamentalists are responding to what they see as a centuries-long conspiracy by the West to destroy Islam. Inspired by a Crusader-style hatred of Islam and an imperialist greed for Muslim resources, the West has for centuries tried to neuter Islam. It has done so by luring Muslims away from Islam through both its vulgar culture (blue jeans, hamburgers, television shows, rock music) and its somewhat higher culture (fashion clothes, French cuisine, universities, classical music). In this spirit, a Pakistani fundamentalist group recently deemed Michael Jackson and Madonna "cultural terrorists" and called for the two Americans to be brought to trial in Pakistan. As Bernard Lewis notes, "It is the Tempter, not the Adversary, that Khomeini feared in America, the seduction and enticement of the American way of life rather than the hostility of American power." Or, in Khomeini's own words: "We are not afraid of economic sanctions or military intervention. What we are afraid of is Western universities."
Fearful of Western culture's hold over their own people, fundamentalists respond with vitriolic attacks denigrating Western civilization. It is crassly materialist says `Adil Husayn, a leading Egyptian writer, seeing man is seen "as nothing but an animal whose major concern is to fill his belly." To dissuade Muslims from Westernizing, they portray our way of life as a form of disease. Kalim Saddiqui, the main Iranian polemicist in the West, deems Western civilization "not a civilization but a sickness." And not just any sickness but "a plague and a pestilence" Belhadj of Algeria's FIS ridicules Western civilization as "syphilization."
Operationalizing this hatred, fundamentalist groups have since 1983 resorted to anti-Western violence. Americans have been targeted in two bombings of the U.S. embassy in Beirut, the Marines barracks in Beirut, the embassy in Kuwait, and the World Trade Center. Lesser incidents include the killing of American passengers on several airliners, many hostages seized in Lebanon, and several fatal incidents on United States territory. We can only guess how many incidents (like the plan to go after the Holland tunnel and other New York landmarks) were foiled; or how many lie yet in store.
While the World Trade Center gang has pretty much held its tongue, a Tunisian named Fouad Salah conveyed the views of this violent element. Convicted in 1992 of setting off bombs that killed thirteen Frenchmen in terrorist campaign during 1985-86, Salah addressed the judge handling his case: "I do not renounce my fight against the West which assassinated the Prophet Muhammad.... We Muslims should kill every last one of you [Westerners]." He is hardly alone in harboring such sentiments.
Not willing to co-exist. Hatred against the West inspires a struggle with it for cultural supremacy. Fundamentalists see the rivalry as cultural, not military. "It is a struggle of cultures," a Muslim Brethren leader explains, "not one between strong countries and weak countries. We are sure that the Islamic culture will triumph." But how is this victory to be achieved? By producing better music or coming up with a cure for cancer? Hardly, as Saddiqui, the Iranian spokesman in London, vividly makes clear: "American GIs clutching photos of their girl friends would be no match for the soldiers of Islam clutching copies of the Qur'an and seeking shahadah [martyrdom]." Islam will triumph, in other words, through will and steel.
Fundamentalists do not restrict their sights to the Muslim quintile of the world's population but aspire to universal dominance. Saddiqui announces this goal somewhat obliquely: "Deep down in its historical consciousness the West also knows that the Islamic civilization will ultimately replace it as the world's dominant civilization." Men of action share the same ambition. The gang that bombed the World Trade Center had great plans. `Umar `Abd ar-Rahman, the Egyptian sheikh who guides them, stands accused in a Manhattan court of seditious conspiracy, that is, trying to overthrow the government of the United States. However bizarre this sounds, it makes sense from `Abd ar-Rahman's perspective. As he sees it, the mujahidin in Afghanistan brought down the Soviet Union; so, one down and one to go. Not understanding the robustness of a mature democracy, `Abd ar-Rahman apparently thought a campaign of terrorist incidents would so unsettle Americans that he and his group could take over. A Tehran newspaper hinted at how the scenario would unfold when it portrayed the February 1993 explosion at the World Trade Center as proof that the U.S. economy "is exceptionally vulnerable." More than that, the bombing "will have an adverse effect on Clinton's plans to rein in the economy." Some fundamentalists, at least, really do think they can take on the United States.
U.S. Policy: The Record
Mischief by fundamentalists on U.S. territory pales, however, in comparison to the danger they pose in the Middle East; their seizure of power in just a few cantons there would likely create a new political order in the region, with disastrous consequences. Israel would probably face a return to its unhappy condition of days past, beleaguered by terrorism and surrounded by enemy states. Civil unrest in oil-producing regions could lead to a dramatic run-up in the cost of energy. Rogue states, already numerous in the Middle East (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya) would multiply, leading to arms races, more international terrorism, and wars, lots of wars. Massive refugee outflows to Europe could well prompt a reactionary political turn that would greatly increase the already worrying appeal of fascists such as Jean-Marie Le Pen, who won 15 percent of the French vote in the recent presidential election.
What steps has the Clinton administration taken to protect Americans from such prospects? On the plus side, it has made efforts to isolate and weaken Iran; unfortunately, no other industrial power has agreed to commit itself in like fashion, virtually negating the impact of U.S. sanctions. Washington has also focused world attention on atrocities committed by the Sudanese regime.
But if the Clinton administration is sound on fundamentalists already in power, it has terribly misguided ideas about fundamentalists in opposition. Rather than oppose them, it has initiated dialogue with the Palestinian, Egyptian, and Algerian movements, and perhaps others. Why meet with these groups? As President Clinton, James Woolsey, Peter Tarnoff, Martin Indyk, and others have all explained, American policy opposes terrorism, not fundamentalist Islam. Most fundamentalists are decent people, serious individuals espousing (in the words of Robert Pelletreau, assistant secretary of state for the Middle East) "a renewed emphasis on traditional values." So long as a group has no connections to violent activities, both we and its government should encourage it to pursue the political process.
We are in combat only with the violent extremists, they say. Actually, look closely and you'll see that these elements are not even good Muslims, but criminals exploiting the faith for their own malign purposes. "Islamic extremism uses religion to cover its ambitions," national security advisor Anthony Lake has said. In other words, those who use violence in the name of Islam are not just marginal to the fundamentalist movement; they are frauds whose activities go against its praiseworthy aims.
This distinction between good and bad fundamentalist Muslims leads to an important policy implication: that the U.S. government work with the former and against the latter. Yes: even as fundamentalists accuse the United States and Israel of the most horrible crimes and announce their hatred of us, the American government decides that these are people with whom we can do business. Hence the political relations with Hamas, Egypt's Muslim Brethren, and FIS.
This is poor judgment and leads to bad policy. It would seem that the U.S. government has gotten some bad advice. Hence the hopeful political relations with Hamas, Egypt's Muslim Brethren, and FIS. It would almost always be better not to work with such groups, the only exceptions being those of dire necessity.
In part, the blame for the misguided U.S. policy must fall on the shoulders of the usual suspects - academic specialists. While in the usual course of events, the Executive Branch tries not to rely on advice from outsiders, where it lacks expertise it does turn to specialists for help. Islam is one such issue. Since the Iranian revolution of 1978, diplomats have leaned on Iranists and Islamicists to help them develop U.S. policy.
With almost a single voice, these specialists advise the government not to worry. Some say the fundamentalist challenge has faded. The usually sensible Fouad Ajami reports that "the pan-Islamic millennium has run its course; the Islamic decade is over." Likewise, Olivier Roy, the influential French specialist, announced in 1992 that "the Islamic revolution is behind us." Other analysts go further and say it never posed any danger in the first place. John Esposito, probably the most important of the academic advisors, published a book dispelling the notion of an "Islamic threat." Leon Hadar, an Israeli associated with the Cato Institute, dubs the whole topic of fundamentalist Islam a "contrived threat."
Specialists posit at least two benefits to be gained from American dialogue with the fundamentalists. First, they assume fundamentalists are bound to reach power (an assumption no less dubious than like predictions a generation ago about the inevitability of a socialist triumph) and counsel establishing early and friendly relations with them. Second, the specialists present fundamentalist Islam as an essentially democratic force that will help stabilize politics in the region, and so deserve our support. Graham Fuller, formerly of the Central Intelligence Agency and now at RAND, makes the case for fundamentalism as a healthy development: it "is politically tamable... [and] represents ultimate political progress toward greater democracy and popular government." The Egyptian scholar Saad Eddin Ibrahim, actually goes so far as to suggest that fundamentalists "may evolve into something akin to the Christian Democrats in the West."
The trouble with all this is that the notion of good and bad fundamentalists has no basis in fact. Yes, fundamentalist Muslim groups, ideologies, and tactics differ from each other in many ways-Sunni and Shi'i, working through the system and not, using violence and not-but every one of them is inherently extremist. Fundamentalist groups have evolved a division of labor, with some seeking power through politics and others through intimidation. In Turkey, for example, the Nurcus and the Necmettin Erbakan's Refah Partisi accept the democratic process, while the Süleymancïs and the Milli Görüs do not. In Algeria, much evidence points to FIS coordinating with the murderous Armed Islamic Group (GIA).
Non-fundamentalist Muslims understand that, by aspiring to create a new man and a new society, all fundamentalists in the end must work to overthrow the existing order. Non-fundamentalists know this because they have seen the gleam in the eyes of fundamentalists, heard their rhetoric, fended off their depredations, endured their murders. Deemed traitors, non-fundamentalists like Salman Rushdie or Taslima Nasrin are first in the line of fire, even ahead of Jews or Christians.
They tirelessly try to educate Westerners on the subject of fundamentalist Islam, with dismayingly little response. As the militant Algeria secularist Saïd Sadi explains: "A moderate Islamist is someone who does not have the means of acting ruthlessly to seize power immediately." The pro-Western president of Tunisia points out that the "final aim" of all fundamentalists is the same: "the construction of a totalitarian, theocratic state." The outspoken Algerian ambassador to Washington, Osmane Bencherif, echoes this sentiment: "It is misguided policy to distinguish between moderate and extremist fundamentalists. The goal of all is the same: to construct a pure Islamic state, which is bound to be a theocracy and totalitarian." Perhaps the strongest statement comes from Mohammad Mohaddessin, director of international relations for the People's Mojahedin of Iran, a leading opposition force: "Moderate fundamentalists do not exist.... It's like talking about a moderate Nazi."
Approaches to Fundamentalist Islam
If moderate fundamentalists do not exist, then the U.S. government needs a new policy toward fundamentalist opposition groups. But before proposing specific steps, three premises must be aired: the need to draw a distinction between Islam and fundamentalist Islam; the burden on Americans to prove themselves; and the reason why we should work with the Left against the Right.
Fundamentalist Islam is not Islam. It is necessary to distinguish between Islam and fundamentalist Islam. Islam is an ancient faith and capacious civilization; fundamentalist Islam a narrow, aggressive twentieth-century ideological movement. Whatever one chooses to call the phenomenon - extremist Islam, fundamentalist Islam, militant Islam, political Islam, radical Islam, Islamism, Islamic revival - it is the problem, not Islam as such.
Distinguishing between Islam and fundamentalist Islam has two important benefits. First, it permits the U.S. government to adopt a sensible attitude toward both. A secular government cannot have an opinion on a religion, especially when it is practiced by significant numbers of its own citizens. But it most assuredly can have an opinion on an ideological movement that is hostile to its interests and values. Second, this distinction makes it possible to ally with non-fundamentalist Muslims. Many of them, including those quoted here, are fearless speakers of truth. Their insights guide those of us outside the Islamic faith; their courage inspires us; and - when the fundamentalists or their apologists accuse us of being "anti-Islam" - their agreement legitimates us.
Prove will. Fundamentalists see the West, for all its apparent strength, as weak-willed; it reminds them of the shah's regime in Iran - rich, vainglorious, corrupt, and decayed. 'Ali Akbar Mohtashemi, the Iranian hard-liner, disdains the United States as "a hollow paper tiger with no power or strength." To be sure, it disposes of wealth and missiles, but these cannot stand up to faith and resolve. Fundamentalists don't even bother to hide their contempt for Western countries. Iran's Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, for example, publicly asserts "The British today are on their death bed. Other Western countries too are in a similar state."
Such contempt obliges the West to act even more strongly and decisively than otherwise might be the case. Tough positions are needed both as an end in themselves and to show that we are not the flabby degenerates of the fundamentalist imagination. The U.S. government has to prove, however absurd it may sound, that Americans are not weaklings addicted to pornography and drugs. Quite the contrary, we are a healthy people, resolute and ready to protect ourselves and our ideals. Fundamentalists are so enthralled by their own views of the West that these simplistic points have to be made over and over again. Soheib Bencheikh, a former fundamentalist himself, explains that the West must give them some of their own medicine: "To fight the fundamentalists one has to have been a bit so oneself."
Better the Left than the Right. Until five years ago, the Left had a global network that threatened American interests, while the Right consisted of isolated and mostly weak regimes. It incontrovertibly made sense to work with the friendly tyrants of the Right against the Marxist-Leninist complex on the Left. Since 1990, these roles have, roughly speaking, been reversed, especially in the Muslim world. Today, the Left consists of the odd shipwreck of a regime: the FLN (National Liberation Front) in Algeria or a General Dostam in Afghanistan. These governments stand for no ideas or visions; their leaders merely want to stay in power. However corrupt, however nasty, they pose fewer dangers to the Middle East or to the United States than do their fundamentalist counterparts. Further, as mere tyrannies, they have a better chance of evolving in the right direction than do intensely ideological regimes.
Instead, it's the Right, made up mainly of fundamentalist Muslims, who have built what Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin of Israel calls "an international infrastructure." The network sends out practical aid; for example, the Iranians are reliably said to provide arms, money, cadres, political counseling, military training, diplomatic support, and intelligence to the Sudan. It also provides important psychological support. Fundamentalists feel much stronger for being part of a surging international alliance, somewhat as Marxist-Leninists did in previous years. This new network, like that old one, has the United States of America in its sights. For these reasons, the U.S. government should now - carefully, intelligently, selectively - join with the Left against the Right whenever circumstances suggest doing so.
What We Should Do
Turning to specific policy recommendations, the overriding goal of U.S. policy must be to keep fundamentalist Muslims from seizing power. Once they take over, as the mullahs in Tehran have so clearly shown, they will hold on tenaciously. How, then, to keep the fundamentalists from taking power?
Do not engage in official or public dialogue. Dialogue sends signals that undercut existing governments without bringing any gains. President Husni Mubarak of Egypt counsels Washington along these lines. "To engage in dialogue with radical fundamentalists is a waste of time. " Actually, it is worse than that because it works both to legitimize fundamentalists and to confirm its belief in Western weakness. The U.S. government ought not to talk to fundamentalist groups, much less ally with them; meetings with Palestinian, Egyptian, and Algeria fundamentalists should stop.
Do not appease. As a former CIA specialist on Iran notes, "fundamentalism is a war fought primarily in Muslim imaginations. Private and collective dreams are not amenable to negotiations." Like other totalitarians, fundamentalist Muslims respond to appeasement by demanding more concessions. Saïd Sadi, the Algerian secularist, advises his fellow countrymen not to give in to the fundamentalists "because if we made the slightest concession, all our freedoms would be threatened." Again, Mubarak has it right: "I can assure you," he says, fundamentalist groups will "never be on good terms with the United States." A change in foreign policy will not suffice because fundamentalists despise us not for what we do but for who we are. Short of adopting their brand of Islam, there is no hope of satisfying them.
Don't help fundamentalists. With the end of the Cold War, this goal should be easier to achieve. To get Pakistani permission to arm the Afghan mujahidin against Soviet forces in the 1980s, the CIA had disproportionately to supply the fundamentalists. Washington did as bidden, and rightly so, for it meant aligning with the lesser evil against the greater one. Now that fundamentalism is the greater evil - or, at least, the more dynamic one - this conundrum is less likely to arise. It's hard to imagine any scenario today in which the U.S. government should help fundamentalists.
Press fundamentalist states to reduce aggressiveness. The West should pressure fundamentalist states - Afghanistan, Iran, Sudan - to reduce their aggressiveness and the aid they supply to ideological brethren in such countries as Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, and Algeria as well as to Palestinians. The U.S. government and its allies have a wide range of commercial and diplomatic tools at their disposal with which to confront fundamentalist aggression, with a military option always reserved in the background if needed.
Support those confronting fundamentalist Islam. Governments in combat with the fundamentalists deserve U.S. help. We should stand by the non-fundamentalists, even when that means accepting, within limits, strong-arm tactics (Egypt, the PLO), the aborting of elections (in Algeria), and deportations (Israel). It also means supporting Turkey in its conflict with Iran and India against Pakistan on the Kashmir issue.
The same applies to institutions and individuals. As a curtain of silence and terror comes down around them, non-fundamentalists in the Middle East are losing their voice. To be celebrated by Americans would greatly boost their morale and prestige; while funds from the U.S. Information Agency, the Agency for International Development, and private sources would do much good. Again, this means working with some less-than Jeffersonian organizations, notably the People's Mojahedin of Iran, despite the controversy that would probably arouse.
Urge gradual democratization. Finally, the U.S. government must be very careful how it presses for democracy. Unfortunately, it's become common to identify democracy with elections, leading to a single-minded emphasis on elections, as an end in themselves. In fact, by "democracy" most Americans include liberty; a large set of political precepts, not just a means to elect a government.
Quick elections solve little. Often they make matters worse by strengthening fundamentalist elements, these usually being the best organized and the citizenry not being ready to make fully informed electoral decisions. Instead, we should press for more modest goals: political participation, the rule of law (including an independent judiciary), freedom of speech and religion, property rights, minority rights, and the right to form voluntary organizations (especially political parties). In short, we should urge the formation of a civil society. Elections are not the start of the democratic process but its capstone and finale, the signal that a civil society has indeed come into existence. As Judith Miller of The New York Times summarizes the point, we should encourage "Elections tomorrow and civil society today."
In the end, the ideological battle of the post-Cold War era instigated by fundamentalist Islam will be decided by Muslims, not by Americans. The fundamentalist challenge will succeed or fail depending on what they and their non-fundamentalists opponents do. Still, Americans are important bystanders who can take significant steps to help our natural allies against our inevitable adversaries.
How to End Terrorism [With Moderate Islam] by Daniel Pipes New York Sun December 5, 2006
[NY Sun title: "Moderate Islam May Be Key To Winning War on Terror"]
An effective counterterrorism strategy must focus on the fact that terrorism by Muslims in the name of Islam presents the strategic threat today to civilized peoples, whether Muslim or non-Muslim.
On the low end, this threat involves lone individuals seized by the Sudden Jihad Syndrome who unpredictably set off on a murder spree. At the high end, it involves an outlaw organization like Hamas running the quasi-governmental Palestinian Authority, or even Al-Qaeda's efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. In all, were terrorism by Muslims halted, this would be a major advance toward winning what some call World War IV.
Can this be achieved?
Yes, and partially via effective conventional counterterrorism. Individuals must be hunted down, organizations closed, networks smashed, borders monitored, money denied, WMD restricted. These steps, however, address only the symptoms of the problem, not the problem itself. "The problem itself" consists of the motivating forces that lie behind the surge of violence by Muslims in the name of Islam. Only by isolating why terrorism has emerged as so prominent a feature of Muslim life can the violence be countered.
This aggression results not from some perverse impulse to inflict damage for its own sake; nor does it flow from the religion of Islam, which just a generation ago did not inspire such murderousness. Rather, it results from political ideas.
Ideas have no role in common criminality, which has purely selfish ends. But ideas, usually ones about radically changing the world, are central to terrorism. and especially to its suicidal variety. Unlike the rest of us, who generally accept life as it is, utopians insist on building a new and better order. To achieve this, they demand all powers for themselves, display a chilling contempt for human life, and harbor ambitions to spread their vision globally. Several utopian schemas exist, with fascism and communism historically the most consequential and each of them claiming tens of millions of casualties.
By 1945 and 1991, respectively, these two totalitarianisms had been vanquished through defeat in war, one violently (in World War II), the other subtly (in the cold war). Their near demise emboldened some optimists to imagine that the era of utopianism and totalitarianism had come to end and that a liberal order had permanently replaced them.
Alas, this view ignored a third totalitarianism, growing since the 1920s, that of Islamism, most briefly defined as the belief that whatever the question, from child-rearing to war-making, "Islam is the solution." As the result of several factors – an historic rivalry with Jews and Christians, a boisterous birth rate, the capture of the Iranian state in 1979, support from oil-rich states – Islamists have come to dominate the ideological discourse of Muslims interested in their Islamic identity or faith.
Islamic law, in retreat over the previous two centuries, came roaring back, and with it jihad, or sacred war. The caliphate, defunct in real terms for over a millennium, became a vibrant dream. Ideas proffered by such thinkers and organizers as Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, Shah Waliullah, Sayyid Abu'l-A'la al-Mawdudi, Hasan al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb, and Rouhollah Khomeini aggressed successfully against traditional, modernist, and centrist approaches to Islam. To advance the poisoned vision of these utopians, their followers adopted violent means, including terrorism.
The most effective form of counterterrorism fights not the terrorists but the ideas that motivate them. This strategy involves two main steps. First, defeat the Islamist movement just as the fascist and communist movements were defeated – on every level and in every way, making use of every institution, public and private. This task falls mainly on non-Muslims, Muslim communities being generally incapable or unwilling to purge their own.
In contrast, only Muslims can undertake the second step, the formulation and spread of an Islam that is modern, moderate, democratic, liberal, good-neighborly, humane, and respectful of women. Here, non-Muslims can help by distancing themselves from Islamists and supporting moderate Muslims.
Although theoretically possible, the weakness of its advocates at present makes moderate Islam appear impossibly remote. But however dim its current prospects, the success of moderate Islam ultimately represents the only effective form of counterterrorism. Terrorism, begun by bad ideas, can only be ended by good ones.
Mr. Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org), director of the Middle East Forum, last week presented a longer version of this analysis in Brazil, at a conference hosted by the country's intelligence agency, the Agência Brasileira de Inteligência (ABIN). Original article available at: www.danielpipes.org/article/4174
Washington Finally Gets It on Radical Islam by Daniel Pipes FrontPageMagazine.com April 25, 2005
Does the Bush administration really believe, as its leadership has kept repeating since right after 9/11, that Islam is a "religion of peace" not connected to the problem of terrorism? Plenty of indications suggested that it knew better, but year after year the official line remained the same. From the outside, it seemed that officialdom was engaged in active self-delusion.
In fact, things were better than they seemed, as David E. Kaplan establishes in an important investigation in U.S. News & World Report, based on over 100 interviews and the review of a dozen internal documents. Earlier arguments over the nature of the enemy – terrorism vs. radical Islam – have been resolved: America's highest officials widely agree that the country's "greatest ideological foe is a highly politicized form of radical Islam and that Washington and its allies cannot afford to stand by" as it gains in strength. To fight this ideology, the U.S. government now promotes a non-radical interpretation of Islam.
In "Hearts, Minds, and Dollars: In an Unseen Front in the War on Terrorism, America is Spending Millions to Change the Very Face of Islam," dated today, Kaplan explains that Washington recognizes it has a security interest not just within the Muslim world but within Islam. Therefore, it must engage in shaping the very religion of Islam. Washington has focused on the root causes of terrorism – not poverty or U.S. foreign policy, but a compelling political ideology.
A key document in reaching this conclusion was the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, issued by the White House in February 2003, which served as the basis for the bolder, more detailed, Muslim World Outreach, completed in mid-2004 and now the authoritative guide. (A government discussion of this topic, dating from August 2004, is available online.) The U.S. government, being a secular and predominantly non-Muslim institution, faces many limitations in what is at base a religious dispute, so it turns to Muslim organizations that share its goals, including governments, foundations, and nonprofit groups.
The tactics for fighting radical Islam and promoting moderate Islam vary from one government department to another: it's covert operations at the CIA, psyops at the Pentagon, and public diplomacy at the State Department. Whatever the name and approach, the common element is to encourage the benign evolution of Islam. Toward this end, the U.S. government, Kaplan writes, "has embarked on a campaign of political warfare unmatched since the height of the Cold War." The goal is:
to influence not only Muslim societies but Islam itself…Although U.S. officials say they are wary of being drawn into a theological battle, many have concluded that America can no longer sit on the sidelines as radicals and moderates fight over the future of a politicized religion with over a billion followers. The result has been an extraordinary—and growing—effort to influence what officials describe as an Islamic reformation.
In at least two dozen countries, Kaplan writes:
Washington has quietly funded Islamic radio and TV shows, coursework in Muslim schools, Muslim think tanks, political workshops, or other programs that promote moderate Islam. Federal aid is going to restore mosques, save ancient Korans, even build Islamic schools…individual CIA stations overseas are making some gutsy and innovative moves. Among them: pouring money into neutralizing militant, anti-U.S. preachers and recruiters. "If you found out that Mullah Omar is on one street corner doing this, you set up Mullah Bradley on the other street corner to counter it," explains one recently retired official. In more-serious cases, he says, recruiters would be captured and "interrogated." Intelligence operatives have set up bogus jihad websites and targeted the Arab news media.
In all, various agencies of the U.S. government are active in this Islamic activity in at least 24 countries. Projects include:
the restoration of historic mosques in Egypt, Pakistan, and Turkmenistan. In Kirgizstan, embassy funding helped restore a major Sufi shrine. In Uzbekistan, money has gone to preserve antique Islamic manuscripts, including 20 Korans, some dating to the 11th century. In Bangladesh, USAID is training mosque leaders on development issues. In Madagascar, the embassy even sponsored an intermosque sports tournament. Also being funded: Islamic media of all sorts, from book translations to radio and TV in at least a half-dozen nations.
Madrassahs, or Islamic schools, are a particular concern, for these train the next generation of jihadis and terrorists. Washington deploys several tactics to counter their influence:
In Pakistan, U.S. funds go discreetly to third parties to train madrassah teachers to add practical subjects (math, science, and health) to their curriculum, as well as civics classes. A "model madrassah" program that may eventually include more than a thousand schools is also now underway.
In the Horn of Africa (defined by the Pentagon as Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen), the U.S. military finds out where Islamists plan to start a madrassah, then builds a public school in direct competition with it.
In Uganda, the U.S. embassy has signed three grant awards to fund the construction of three elementary-level madrassahs.
Kaplan quotes one American terrorism analyst saying, "We're in the madrassah business." But not all aid has an explicit Islamic theme. American money is partially funding a satellite version of the Sesame Street in Arabic stressing the need for religious tolerance.
Funds for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has nearly tripled, to more than $21 billion; and of this, more than half goes to the Muslim world. In addition to the familiar economic development programs, political projects involving Islamic groups, such as political training and media funding, are moving to the forefront. Spending on public diplomacy by the State Department has risen by nearly half since 9/11, to nearly $1.3 billion, with more expected. This largess has funded, among other programs, the Arabic-language Radio Sawa and Alhurra Television. Despite many complaints, Kaplan says they are showing signs of success. Plans ahead include making Alhurra available in Europe, and expanding programming in Persian and other key languages.
1. Working to change how Muslims understand their religion, of course, raises some difficult implications. It is one thing to want to help moderate Muslims and quite another to locate them. As I noted in "Identifying Moderate Muslims," there is great confusion over who really is a moderate Muslim and the U.S. government so far has a terrible record in this regard. I sure hope those implementing the Muslim World Outreach agenda are engaging in the necessary research to get it right.
2. The possibility exists that U.S. taxpayer dollars funding Islamic media, schools, and mosques will beef up their capabilities, for influencing Islam and promoting Islam are easily melded, especially given the pro-Islamic attitudes of American political leaders. (For this reason I have criticized the building of a mosque in Iraq and madrassahs in Indonesia.) To promote Islam contravenes the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion") and one constitutional expert, Herman Schwartz, deems the sponsorship of Islamic institutions to be "probably unconstitutional." This again points to the need for extreme care.
3. I heartily endorse the Muslim World Outreach approach; this is hardly surprising, for it closely aligns with my own recommendations. Here are excerpts from my January 2002 article, "Who Is the Enemy?":
The United States, an overwhelmingly non-Muslim country, obviously cannot fix the problems of the Muslim world. … But outsiders, and the United States in particular, can critically help in precipitating the battle and in influencing its outcome. They can do so both by weakening the militant side and by helping the moderate one…Weakening militant Islam will require an imaginative and assertive policy, one tailored to the needs of each country.
But let us not delude ourselves. If the United States has over 100 million Islamist enemies (not to speak of an even larger number of Muslims who wish us ill on assorted other grounds), they cannot all be incapacitated. Instead, the goal must be to deter and contain them…That is where the moderate Muslims come in. If roughly half the population across the Muslim world hates America, the other half does not. Unfortunately, they are disarmed, in disarray, and nearly voiceless. But the United States does not need them for their power. It needs them for their ideas and for the legitimacy they confer, and in these respects their strengths exactly complement Washington's.…
[T]he U.S. role is less to offer its own views than to help those Muslims with compatible views, especially on such issues as relations with non-Muslims, modernization, and the rights of women and minorities. This means helping moderates get their ideas out on U.S.-funded radio stations like the newly-created Radio Free Afghanistan and, as Paula Dobriansky, the Undersecretary of State for global affairs, has suggested, making sure that tolerant Islamic figures—scholars, imams, and others—are included in U.S.-funded academic- and cultural-exchange programs.
4. It is very good that David Kaplan has made available the outlines of Washington's efforts to fix Islam. This is a project too large for the government alone to work on; the body politic as a whole needs to argue it out.
How Terrorism Obstructs Radical Islam by Daniel Pipes New York Sun August 23, 2005
Do terrorist atrocities in the West, such as the attacks of September 11, 2001 and those in Bali, Madrid, Beslan, and London, help radical Islam achieve its goal of gaining power?
No, they are counterproductive. That's because radical Islam has two distinct wings - one violent and illegal, the other lawful and political - and they exist in tension with each other. The lawful strategy has proven itself effective, but the violent approach gets in its way.
The violent wing is foremost represented by the world's no. 1 fugitive, Osama bin Laden. The popular and powerful prime minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, represents the lawful wing. Even as "Al Qaeda has more state adversaries than nearly any force in history," as Daniel C. Twining observes, political imams like Yusuf al-Qaradawi instruct huge audiences on Al-Jazeera television and visit with the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone. As Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr skulks around Iraq, looking for a role, Ayatollah Sistani dominates the country's political life.
Yes, terrorism kills enemies, instills fear, and disrupts the economy. Yes, it boosts morale and recruits non-Muslims to Islam and Muslims to Islamism. It creates an opportunity for Islamists to fight for their favorite causes, such as the elimination of Israel or the disengagement of coalition forces from Iraq. It provides, as Mark Steyn notes, intelligence information on the enemy. And yes, it prompts politically correct talk about Islam being a "religion of peace," with Muslims portrayed as victims.
But for two main reasons, terrorism does radical Islam more harm than good.
First, it alarms and galvanizes Westerners. For example, the July 7 bombings took place during the G8 summit in Scotland, where world leaders were focused on global warming, aid to Africa, and macro-economic issues. In a London minute, the politicians then redirected their attention toward counterterrorism. Thus did the terrorists stiffen, as Mona Charen points out, "whatever small residue of resolve remains in flaccid Western civilization."
More broadly, Mr. Twining notes, "Al Qaeda's rise has produced the kind of great power entente not seen since the Concert of Europe took shape in 1815." (Even the Madrid bombings, an apparent exception, led to a marked strengthening of counterterrorism measures by Spain and other European countries.)
Second, terrorism obstructs the quiet work of political Islamism. In tranquil times, organizations like the Muslim Council of Britain and the Council on American-Islamic Relations effectively go about their business, promoting their agenda to make Islam "dominant" and imposing dhimmitude (whereby non-Muslims accept Islamic superiority and Muslim privilege). Westerners generally respond like slowly boiled frogs are supposed to, not noticing a thing.
Thus does the Muslim Council of Britain delight in a knighthood from the queen, enthusiastic support from Prime Minister Blair, influence within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and £250,000 in taxpayer money from the Department of Trade and Industry.
Across the Atlantic, CAIR insinuates itself into an array of important North American institutions, including the FBI, NASA, and Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper. It has won endorsements from high-ranking politicians, both Republican (Florida's governor, Jeb Bush) and Democrat (the House Democratic leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi). It has organized a meeting of Muslims with Canada's prime minister Paul Martin. It has gotten a Hollywood studio to change a feature film plot and a television network to run a public service announcement. It has goaded a radio station to fire a talk-show host.
Terrorism impedes these advances, stimulating hostility to Islam and Muslims. It brings Islamic organizations under unwanted scrutiny by the media, the government, and law enforcement. CAIR and MCB then have to fight rearguard battles. The July 7 bombings dramatically (if temporarily) disrupted the progress of "Londonistan," Britain's decline into multicultural lassitude and counterterrorist ineptitude.
Some Islamists recognize this problem. One British writer admonished fellow Muslims on a Web site: "Don't you know that Islam is growing in Europe??? What the heck are you doing mingling things up???" Likewise, a Muslim watch repairer in London observed, "We don't need to fight. We are taking over!" Soumayya Ghannoushi of the University of London bitterly points out that Al-Qaeda's major achievements consist of shedding innocent blood and "fanning the flames of hostility to Islam and Muslims."
Things are not as they seem. Terrorism hurts radical Islam and helps its opponents. The violence and victims' agony make this hard to see, but without education by murder, the lawful Islamist movement would make greater gains.
CAIR: 'Moderate' friends of terror by Daniel Pipes New York Post April 22, 2002
The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations presents itself as just another civil-rights group. "We are similar to a Muslim NAACP," says spokesman Ibrahim Hooper. Its public language - about promoting "interest and understanding among the general public with regards to Islam and Muslims in North America" - certainly boosts an image of moderation.
That reputation has permitted CAIR to prosper since its founding in 1994, garnering sizeable donations, invitations to the White House, respectful media citations and a serious hearing by corporations.
In reality, CAIR is something quite different. For starters, it's on the wrong side in the war on terrorism. One indication came in October 1998, when the group demanded the removal of a Los Angeles billboard describing Osama bin Laden as "the sworn enemy," finding this depiction "offensive to Muslims."
The same year, CAIR denied bin Laden's responsibility for the twin East African embassy bombings. As Hooper saw it, those explosions resulted from some vague "misunderstandings of both sides." (A New York court, however, blamed bin Laden's side alone for the embassy blasts.)
In 2001, CAIR denied his culpability for the Sept. 11 massacre, saying only that "if [note the "if"] Osama bin Laden was behind it, we condemn him by name." (Only in December was CAIR finally embarrassed into acknowledging his role.)
Siraj Wahhaj, unindicted and on CAIR's advisory board.
CAIR consistently defends other militant Islamic terrorists too. The conviction of the perpetrators of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing it deemed "a travesty of justice." The conviction of Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind sheikh who planned to blow up New York City landmarks, it called a "hate crime." The extradition order for suspected Hamas terrorist Mousa Abu Marook it labeled "anti-Islamic" and "anti-American."
Not surprisingly, CAIR also backs those who finance terrorism. When President Bush closed the Holy Land Foundation in December for collecting money he said was "used to support the Hamas terror organization," CAIR decried his action as "unjust" and "disturbing."
CAIR even includes at least one person associated with terrorism in its own ranks. On Feb. 2, 1995, U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White named Siraj Wahhaj as one of the "unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators" in the attempt to blow up New York City monuments. Yet CAIR deems him "one of the most respected Muslim leaders in America" and includes him on its advisory board.
For these and other reasons, the FBI's former chief of counterterrorism, Steven Pomerantz, concludes that "CAIR, its leaders and its activities effectively give aid to international terrorist groups."
Nor is terrorism the only disturbing aspect of CAIR's record. Other problems include:
Intimidating moderate Muslims. In at least two cases (Hisham Kabbani and Khalid Durán), CAIR has defamed moderate Muslims who reject its extremist agenda, leading to death threats against them.
Embracing murderers. CAIR responded to the arrest and conviction of Jamil Al-Amin (the former H. Rap Brown) by praising him, raising funds for him and then denying his guilt after his conviction for the murder of an Atlanta policeman. Likewise with Ahmad Adnan Chaudhry of San Bernardino, Calif.: Disregarding his conviction for attempting murder, CAIR declared him "innocent" and set up a defense fund for him.
Promoting anti-Semitism. The head of CAIR's Los Angeles office, Hussam Ayloush, routinely uses the term "zionazi" when referring to Israelis. CAIR co-hosted an event in May 1998 at which an Egyptian militant Islamic leader, Wagdi Ghunaym, called Jews the "descendants of the apes."
Omar Ahmad, founding chairman of CAIR.
Aggressive ambitions. As reported by the San Ramon Valley Herald, CAIR Chairman Omar M. Ahmad told a crowd of California Muslims in July 1998, "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran . . . should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."
CAIR's real record is one of extremism. North American Muslims themselves are beginning to discover - and the government, leading media, churches, and businesses should follow - that CAIR represents not the noble civilization of Islam but an aggressive and radical strain similar to that which led to the suicide hijackings last September. CAIR must be shunned as a fringe group by responsible institutions and individuals throughout North America.
Apr. 22, 2002 update: For my "CAIR package" - continuously updated information on North America's leading Islamist organization - see "Getting to Know the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)." It currently has four parts:
A brief 2003 introduction to the topic, "CAIR: 'Moderate' friends of terror." A long 2006 study, "CAIR: Islamists Fooling the Establishment." A bibliography of CAIR. My reply to CAIR's attack on me. Apr. 29. 2003 update: For more about the Omar Ahmed quote, see my weblog entry, "CAIR and the San Ramon Valley Herald."
How CAIR Put My Life in Peril by Khalid Durán Middle East Quarterly Winter 2002
On April 4, 2001, a self-described advocacy group based in Washington, D.C. by the name of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), issued a press release1 attacking my forthcoming book, Children of Abraham: An Introduction to Islam for Jews.2 CAIR's attack snowballed into a campaign of personal vilification, which eventuated in a Jordanian political leader calling me an apostate (murtadd).3 Neither CAIR nor Sheikh ‘Abd al-Mun‘im Abu Zant of Jordan's Islamic Action Front had ever read or even seen my book, but the CAIR attack prompted the latter to issue an appeal to Muslims, asking them to unite to kill me. According to most interpretations of the Shari‘a (Islamic law), an apostate from Islam must be executed.
At the time, it was not clear whether Abu Zant's outburst constituted a formal fatwa–a religious edict. But the sheikh was unequivocal in calling for my "blood to be shed." For its part, CAIR denied that Abu Zant called for my death and claimed that my American publisher concocted the death threat in order to increase sales,4 even though the threat first had been reported in a Jordanian newspaper, Ash-Shahid. Abu Zant lay low for a time, but on July 22, he again called me an apostate, and declared it lawful (halal) to shed my blood. This time Ash-Shahid expressly called his statement a fatwa and bragged about the worldwide media coverage given to Abu Zant and Ash-Shahid.5
The inflammatory language used by Nihad Awad, CAIR's executive director, to vilify my book, was bound to incite reactions like that of Abu Zant. Put differently, the accusations and the language used by CAIR in its statements, especially those in Arabic, could not but result in calls for violence against me. And so I find myself, the author of a book written to promote a wider understanding of Islam, under a death threat and in need of protection. CAIR has put my life in peril. Its actions are the culmination of a campaign meant to intimidate and silence not only me, but any Muslim in America who would speak out in favor of freedom, tolerance, and dialogue.
What is CAIR? And why me?
An Islamist Front
CAIR is the principle front organization of a coalition of Islamist (or fundamentalist Muslim) groups that have taken root in America over the past two decades. Most are spin-offs of the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP), such as the American Muslims for Jerusalem, the Holy Land Foundation, and the Islamic Institute. These are extreme groups, and some have even come under federal investigation for alleged support of Middle Eastern terrorism. But CAIR's mission has differed from the others: its special assignment is the insinuation of the Islamist agenda into mainstream American politics. Like the many front organizations established by the Soviet Union in its heyday, CAIR works to give a "white bread" image to advocates of illiberal and even radical ideas.
CAIR is run by a duo. The executive director, Nihad Awad, is a Palestinian; his associate, Ibrahim ("Dougie") Hooper, is an American convert. Awad actively propagates the cause in Arabic, while Hooper handles most of the English-language work. To create the perception that CAIR speaks for Islam in America, the two indefatigably issue position statements on anything remotely touching on Muslim or Arab affairs, reacting on everything from U.S. foreign policy to letters in college newspapers.
In fact, no one organization speaks for Islam in America, and no Islamist group ever will. Scarcely 10 percent of American Muslims can be classified as Islamists—the extremist fringe of contemporary Islam. An additional 5 percent are sympathizers, and another 5 percent agree with Islamists on certain issues. Assuming a Muslim population of up to five million,6 CAIR's total potential constituency cannot exceed one million, and its actual supporters are probably only small a fraction of that number. The overwhelming majority of American Muslims have no Islamist sympathies, and most have never even heard of CAIR.
Indeed, a very large proportion of Muslims in the United States are refugees from Islamist regimes, of the kind for which CAIR serves as an apologist. This applies to the majority of the perhaps million Iranians in the United States, as well as the majority of Sudanese in the country. Many Pakistanis came to the United States as refugees from the Islamist dictatorship of General Zia. Recently they have been joined by Afghans fleeing the tyranny of the Taliban. The agenda put forward by CAIR is anathema to this large majority.
Unfortunately, it has not always been easy for non-Muslim Americans to determine who speaks for whom in the Muslim community. CAIR and its fellow extremist organizations have had surprising success in being accepted at the highest levels of the U.S. government. The picture of Awad and Hooper in the company of then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright at a festive Ramadan dinner in the State Department's elegant diplomatic rooms (at which, to top things off, she urged them to find recruits to apply for government jobs)7 gave rise to consternation among many American Muslims. It also aroused suspicions, with some suggesting that CAIR is valued at Foggy Bottom as a back channel to Islamists in the Middle East and others concluding that the State Department is simply ignorant. In either case, there is legitimate cause for alarm.
Fortunately, some major American institutions are waking up to the real nature of CAIR. Partly as a result of the fallout from my book, the American Jewish Committee has refused to participate in any activities of which CAIR is part, followed by the American Jewish Congress and the Anti-Defamation League. These organizations are both appalled by CAIR's extremism and aware of its small constituency. There are other signs that CAIR's extremism is becoming an issue. For example, Salon.com8 and The Hill,9 two publications hitherto completely uninterested in CAIR, published powerful and widely-noted expos?s. Other media (such as The Boston Globe10 and The Weekly Standard11) noted the organization's extremism.
CAIR has attempted to build a wider following by "defending" Islam and Muslims against perceived acts of misrepresentation, defamation, and discrimination. American Muslims are rightly sensitive to manifestations of prejudice, and have every right to protest them. But CAIR goes further: it denounces offenses against Islam where there are none, and it demonizes moderate Muslims who criticize Islamist distortions.
My Open Account with CAIR
Perhaps it was only a matter of time before I became a target of such an organization. I had been involved in Muslim community affairs since high school, and have always articulated Muslim opposition to Islamist intimidation. When I settled in America in 1986, I had a long history of advocating religious alternatives to the distortions preached by extremist groups like CAIR. But it was a gradual process that brought me to the top of CAIR's blacklist.
I first came to the attention of American Islamists when I assumed the university chair of one of their leaders, Isma‘il al-Faruqi. I then provoked their ire by cooperating with journalist Steven Emerson in producing his 1994 PBS documentary, Jihad in America. That film, it will be recalled, was the first to explore the semi-clandestine network established by extreme Islamists on America's shores. Islamists were upset with me for having collected incriminating materials and for having translated them from Arabic.
Frankly, when I first saw the film—upon its release—I was somewhat disappointed. I expected a more hard-hitting expos?; I felt that the documentary barely scratched the surface of a dangerous phenomenon. I heard many complaints from Muslims that the film failed to expose economic crimes committed by Islamists in the United States, as well as Islamist infiltration of the armed forces and academe. Having produced films myself, I realized the difficulties in bringing such topics to the screen. It makes more dramatic television to show extreme preachers (like Tamim al-‘Adnani, a leader of the "Afghan Arabs," whom Emerson's documentary shows preaching jihad in a New York mosque). An American university professor on the Islamist payroll is not nearly as photogenic.
Nevertheless, American Muslims owe Emerson a debt. There is a pressing need to teach Americans about the difference between law-abiding, moderate Muslims and Islamist extremists, between the victims and their torturers. The distinction between the vast majority of peace-loving Muslims and the small minority of extremists who think jihad is the answer, is a point we ourselves have been unable to get across. Jihad in America did so in a crystal-clear manner.
I next became an object of Islamist wrath at the time of the terrorist bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, when several newspapers asked me to speculate about the identity of the culprits. I emphatically pointed to the Waco anniversary and said that I was sure the bombing would be traced to those circles. The San Francisco Chronicle reported my remarks with some accuracy.12 Alas, The Washington Times omitted what I said about Waco, creating the impression that I blamed the Oklahoma bombing on terrorists from the Middle East. CAIR then twisted this into an accusation that I had blamed "Muslims."
Islamist watchdogs went on high alert about me in 1999, when they learned that I was working with Daniel Pipes to prepare a book on Islam in America. They had already branded Pipes a "Muslim-basher," for his criticism of extremism in general, and CAIR in particular.
I first became aware of Daniel Pipes in 1979, when he sent me an article he wrote on Islamism that dovetailed with a piece I had written. It was exhilarating to see that we arrived at similar conclusions despite the enormous differences in our origins, cultural background, education, experiences, and political orientation. Pipes is a conservative, I am a liberal; his vision of Islam derives from the study of the Middle East, while my understanding is grounded in South Asia; and yet we largely share the same opinions. I am fascinated by this convergence, and our cooperation has been an intellectual exercise in the meeting of two different but like minds.
Of course, I do often hear negative comments about Daniel Pipes' alleged bias against Muslims. My sense is that these derive from the fact that he is not a Muslim and favors strong U.S.-Israel ties. But if you take what Pipes is saying and writing about contemporary Islam, and give it a blind reading, you cannot distinguish it from what hundreds of critical Muslims are saying and writing. I have always been especially taken by the similarity of his views to those of Sayyid Qudratullah Fatimi, a historian and theologian of international renown and my mentor in Pakistan. I have shared Pipes' writings with friends from Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Bosnia, Iran, Morocco, and Sudan. Even though they reject his opinions on Israeli policy, they find his writings on Islam stimulating and worthy of serious deliberation. In short, the man is no more a "Muslim-basher" than any of us critical Muslims.
Children of Abraham
All of which brings me back to the Children of Abraham. The book was commissioned by the American Jewish Committee as part of a two-volume set along with Reuven Firestone's introduction to Judaism for Muslims. There are, of course, many competent introductions to Islam, explaining faith and practice. My intent was not to duplicate these works but to complement them with a discussion of Islam as religion and history along with an assessment of contemporary Islam, all written with a Jewish audience in mind.
Jews, let there be no doubt, view Islam through a different lens than Christians. The religious tenets of Islam are closer to those of Judaism, and Jews have never shown any burning theological hostility to Islam, of the sort that inflamed Christian Europe in the Middle Ages. Indeed, Jews were among the first scholars to present the West with dispassionate and even sympathetic assessments of Islam. But over the last half-century, the Arab-Israeli conflict and the departure of Jews from Muslim lands have clouded Islam's image in the eyes of many Jews. The purpose of my book was to lift that cloud and demonstrate Islam's sublime spirituality. Above all, I sought to persuade Jews that Islam should not be blamed for its malpractice by certain contemporary Muslims.
A fair segment of the Muslim community is very sensitive to anti-Muslim or supposedly anti-Muslim statements, especially in books and films. In the past, CAIR has skillfully exploited these susceptibilities in order to create self-serving incidents. They may not have exactly waited for Children of Abraham to appear, but they certainly welcomed the opportunity to demonize both the book and its author. In this sense, there does exist a parallel between my case and the Salman Rushdie affair. In the 1980s, pro-Iranian activists explained to me that if Rushdie had not existed, they would have had to invent him: the "affair" was too useful as a means of polarization and mobilization. Some even told me (laughingly) that they had not read Rushdie's Satanic Verses, and had no intention of doing so.
But the similarity ends there. My book is the very opposite of the Satanic Verses. Rushdie's novel was an imaginative expression of his own personality. Children of Abraham is a kind of textbook, and I refrained from expressing personal opinions. I did not even mention CAIR. But CAIR needed an author and a book to demonize, and having marked me as an adversary, they pounced on the opportunity, again without reading the book. Their charge: in my discussion of contemporary extremism (in chapters on "Islamism" and "Jihadism") I had strayed from a straightforward presentation of the religion and history of Islam.13
Religion and history do constitute the major part of the book. But I could no more avoid writing about Islamist extremism, than an author of a book on Russia could avoid writing about the Soviet Union and Stalin. And I have yet to see a book about the sweep of German history and culture that omits mention of the Nazi nightmare. In any case, what would be the point of writing a book strictly on religion and pre-modern history for Jews? My audience, for obvious reasons, has a pressing interest in how Islam is presently interpreted and practiced. They are painfully aware of their own dehumanization by Islamist extremists. I had an author's duty to analyze this extremism and place it in a context.
CAIR, in order to add credibility to its campaign against me, praised Reuven Firestone's companion volume, An Introduction to Judaism for Muslims. As one of my Islamist critics put it:
While Khalid Duran concentrates on criticizing Islam and Muslims, the Jewish man of religion, David [sic] Firestone, who wrote the special book to explain Judaism to Muslims, concentrates on the normal issues of Jewish religion without any critical method, as is customary with introductory books to religion.14 This quote suggests that the people who retailed this claim did not read Firestone's book either. Except for the two chapters in my book on Islamist extremism, the two volumes are quite similar to one another. The person who first pointed this out to me was ‘Abd al-Ghani bin Ibrahim, who translated both volumes into Arabic. A Sudanese scholar who read the drafts before the books' publication went so far as to tell me that "there is no Firestone, you wrote them both. I can clearly see that they were written by one and the same person."15 He obviously did not intend me to take him literally, but this was his way of expressing amazement at the undeniable similarity of the texts.
I was very astonished when the mainstream American press, including some religion writers, picked up CAIR's claim and repeated it uncritically. One journalist went so far as to ask me point blank why I wrote a book so very different in approach, diction, and style from that of Firestone. How does one answer a journalist assigned to cover two books who has not bothered to read either of them? Not only had CAIR maligned me by presenting my book as some sort of defamation of Islam. It had also maligned Firestone by presenting his book as the bland work of a scholar devoid of critical faculties.
I invite readers to read, compare, and reach their own conclusions. For myself, the writing of this book provided me with an opportunity to express my rootedness in Islam to a wide audience. Many Jews and Christians have showered the book with praise, for which I am grateful. But the most enthusiastic and meaningful reactions for me to the Children of Abraham have been those from Muslims. The director of Pakistan's Institute of Islamic Culture, Rashid Ahmad Jullundhry, commented on the Children of Abraham in the institute's journal Al-Ma‘arif: Such an understanding of Islam as an attempt to resuscitate the original Abrahamic platform of all monotheism may appear new to some of our people who have come to conceive of Islam as a socio-political reality with a history of 1,400 years. But the author has the Qur'an on his side, and his book is richly documented with the relevant passages from Islam's holy book. It is good to know that there are still people such as Khalid Dur?n around who are able to bring the revelation across as a direct message and moving experience rather than rely on the dry-as-dust tomes of medieval scholars. The author is to be congratulated for his great sense of responsibility and the extraordinary care taken in preparing this balanced account of Islam and the way most Muslims understand it, past and present.16 Although the book was written for Jews, parts of it grew out of a Muslim-Muslim dialogue between traditionalists and reformists, also between orthodox and liberals. I confess that this dialogue has not included jihadists: my experience of almost half a century has taught me that dialogue with Islamists is an exercise in futility. In Children of Abraham, I tried to explain why that is so, and why groups like CAIR cannot possibly be considered representative of Islam, or even part of the mainstream Muslim community. I have no doubt that in relaying this message, I have rendered some small service to the image of Islam in America.
The Alternative to Extremism
Perhaps I am at a disadvantage: I would never do to Abu Zant what he has done to me. As I understand our common religion, it does not permit us to denounce someone as an apostate as long as that person says he is a Muslim.
The Congress of Muslim Americans (CMA), in which I am active, is one of several initiatives seeking to organize non-Islamist Muslims. Its purpose is to give the silent majority a voice. We protest against attempts by political bodies such as the American Muslim Council (AMC), CAIR, the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and a whole network of extremists to usurp Muslim leadership in the United States. None of these inter-related groups has a mandate from the community. The fair-minded, moderate and tolerant majority of Muslims face enormous difficulties in competing with these Islamists—not because the Islamists are more numerous, but because they float on subsidies provided by Islamist millionaires and billionaires. In the United States, the difference between Islamists and common Muslims is largely one between haves and have-nots. Muslims have the numbers; Islamists have the dollars.
In the Congress of Muslim Americans we believe that leadership of the community has to grow organically, which is to say gradually and democratically. We do not claim a mandate to speak on behalf of millions, though our efforts are directed towards the emergence of such a leadership. We respect leaders such as Imam W. Deen Mohammed of the Muslim American Society and Sheikh Hisham Kabbani of the Islamic Supreme Council, as well as a number of individual preachers and teachers. They truly represent large segments of the Muslim community in North America. By contrast, CAIR is one of several groups of parasitic imposters who have built upon the insecurities of a Muslim community only now coming into its own. That community can only take its rightful place if it builds upon hope and dialogue, not the fear and defamation retailed by CAIR. Khalid Dur?n, a former chairman of the Solidarity Committee for the Afghan People, is currently president of the IbnKhaldun Society, a cultural association and intellectual forum of independent Muslims. He began his career at Pakistan's Islamic Research Institute and the University of Islamabad, and later taught at half a dozen universities in Europe and the United States. 1 "CAIR: Muslims Question Choice of Author for Book on Islam; Writer for Jewish Group Has Mysterious Identity, Was Convicted of Defaming Islamic Center," Apr. 4, 2001, at http://www.cair-net.org/nr.asp?date=2001/04/04b. 2 Khalid Dur?n, with Abdelwahab Hechiche, Children of Abraham: An Introduction to Islam for Jews (New York: American Jewish Committee, 2001). 3 "The Author Khalid Dur?n Is an Apostate and American Muslims Call Him an Infidel," Ash-Shahid, June 6, 2001. 4 "Jewish Group's ‘Phony Fatwa' Slammed as Publicity Stunt," July 2, 2001, at http://www.cair-net.org/main/nr.asp?date=2001/07/02. 5 Ash-Shahid, July 22, 2001. 6 Alexander Rose, "How Did Muslims Vote in 2000?", Middle East Quarterly, Summer 2001, pp. 13-14. 7 "I ask your help in urging young people in your communities to think seriously about becoming part of America's foreign policy team." See "Remarks by Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, Iftar Dinner with Leaders of the American Muslim Community," Dec. 21, 1999, at http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/mena/albr1222.htm. 8 Jake Tapper, "Islam's Flawed Spokesmen," Salon.com, Sept. 26, 2001, at http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/26/muslims/. See also the exchange about this article at http://www.salon.com/news/letters/2001/10/01/cair/index.html. 9 Alexander Bolton, "Rep. Mckinney to Headline Muslim Fundraiser," Oct. 3, 2001. 10 "Speaking Out against Terror," Sept. 23, 2001. 11 "Message, I CAIR," Oct. 1, 2001. 12 The San Francisco Chronicle, Apr. 20, 1995. 13 Az-Zaytuna, May 11, 2001. 14 Ibid. 15 Mustafa al-Husayn in a conversation with the author, Oct. 17, 2000. 16 Rashid Ahmad Jullundhry, "In America a New Book on Islam," Al-Ma‘arif (Lahore), Jan.-Mar. 2001.
Hill Must Fight Terror Funding By Bryant Jordan | October 15, 2007 Congress is going to have to weigh in with the White House to encourage the Saudis to stem the flow of financial aid to terrorist groups say analysts with the Congressional Research Service in a Sept. 14 report to Congress.
The Treasury Department, meanwhile, recently added three Saudi nationals to its lengthy list of foreigners alleged to be financing terrorism or other crimes.
Abdul Rahim Al-Talhi, Muhammad Abdallah Salih Sughayr and Fahd Muhammad Abd Al-Aziz Al-Khashiban made the list for providing support to the Abu Sayyaf Group, which Treasury says in an al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group responsible for multiple bombings, kidnappings and other terrorist attacks in Southeast Asia.
"These three terrorist financiers were instrumental in raising money to fund terrorism outside of Saudi Arabia," Stuart Levey, under secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, said in a statement. "In order to deter other would-be donors, it is important to hold these terrorists publicly accountable."
To read the CRS report, however, is to wonder who is being held accountable in Saudi Arabia.
"To date, U.S. officials have continued to express their disappointment with Saudi enforcement measures, particularly with a lack of public prosecutions for individuals accused of financing terrorism outside of the kingdom," say Christopher Blanchard and Alfred Prados, authors of the CRS report.
The two cite claims that Saudi Arabia did little to interfere with al Qaeda before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks in the U.S., and only began to get serious about countering Saudi-based funding of al Qaeda after the group bombed targets in Riyadh in May 2003.
But their steps have been more preparatory than active.
For example, Blanchard and Prados cite a 2004 Financial Times article that said Saudi reforms intended to control locally-based charities - some of which have funded terrorist groups - "probably go further than any country in the world."
But the report questions the effectiveness of these and other initiatives, noting some have not even been implemented.
As recently as August, lawmakers concluded that Saudi Arabia has an uneven record in the fight against terrorism, "especially with respect to terrorist financing," and directed the Bush administration to report back by early February with a long-term strategy on how the U.S. will work with Saudi Arabia to combat terrorism, "including through effective measures to prevent and prohibit the financing of terrorists by Saudi institutions and citizens."
For its part, congressmen should support the Bush administration's efforts to encourage Saudi Arabia to implement its new laws and regulations, the authors say, and members should also consider holding hearings on the terrorist financing threats.
In the Words of Our Enemies Years before 9/11, our enemy warned us - but we weren't listening. Are we about to make the same mistake again? by Jed Babbin
We Americans are great talkers, but not often great listeners. When some dictator or terrorist threatens to end our way of life, destroy our economy, or end our influence in his region of the world, we usually find some way to ignore him or rationalize his statements. That's what we did with Osama bin Laden in his long, brazenly public buildup to 9/11 -- and it's what we risk doing again with other deadly enemies who are also making their intentions plain. Now, in In the Words of Our Enemies, bestselling author Jed Babbin (former deputy undersecretary of defense), exposes the demagogues, dictators, and death squads who openly threaten America -- with potentially devastating consequences, if we aren't alert to the danger.
Here you will find the word-for-word translations of direct threats against our nation not only from more obvious enemies such as Iran and North Korea - but even "allies" and "partners" like Saudi Arabia, China and Russia. Most of what you will read was published openly in languages other than English -- the speaker or writer confident that it would not be revealed to those unable to understand the speaker's tongue. Remember that throughout his murderous career, Yasser Arafat preached peace in English while exhorting his followers to violence in Arabic. Likewise, most of what you will read here was not meant for your eyes.
In the Words of Our Enemies reveals:
What the Islamists themselves are saying about their plans for America -- nuclear devastation, followed by Islamic sharia law
How Venezuela's Hugo Chavez is leading a radical anti-American revolution that aims to increase Iranian influence in our hemisphere
Why China's plans go beyond regional hegemony to driving the United States out of the Pacific
How even allegedly "friendly" countries, like Russia, are conspiring against us
How the most violent and hate-inspiring Islamic ideology comes from sermons written and read by our "ally" Saudi Arabia's government-backed Wahabbi clergy - which, because they are official, are tantamount to Saudi government statements
How many countries have threatened using nuclear weapons against America (it's more than you think)
How, five years before September 11, Osama bin Laden had made clear his intentions to strike the United States by any and every means
Islamic "hate factories": how from the Palestinian West Bank to the holiest mosques in Saudi Arabia and Iran -- as well as on television, radio, and from hundreds of other podiums - leading Muslim clerics preach the "right" of Muslims to commit terror and to subject all "infidels" to Muslim rule
Excerpts from some Islamist websites that beg to be read in the context of the Democrats' hell-bent desire to force the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq
What al Qaeda's official training manual teaches about beating and killing hostages
Leading Islamic clerics give their views on topics such as "The Entire Earth Must Be Subjected to Islam" and "We Have the Right to Kill 4 Million Americans"
What the al Qaeda terrorists and others are saying and doing, continuously, to foment violence in Iraq
How Islamists are trying to turn secular Turkey into an Islamist state
How dangerous is North Korea's Kim Jong Il to America and its interests abroad? Let him speak for himself
Russia's Vladimir Putin on al Jazeera -- denying that terrorists exist, defending Iran and its nuclear program, and more "This book is not a call to war or even a war warning," writes Babbin. "It is, instead, a call to listen, to study, to understand in the context of the complex world in which we live the plain words that our enemies and potential enemies say to us and to each other. It is a reminder to be vigilant. It is, I hope, a searchlight which we can use to penetrate the forest of events that surrounds us and find the narrow paths around the wars that may -- like the war against terrorists and the nations that support them -- come upon us unaware."
"What part of 'We intend to kill you!' don't we understand?"
"If you think we're not in a crisis, the following record of what our enemies are saying about us should change your mind. Jed Babbin has compiled an invaluable record of what America's enemies from Osama bin Laden to Hugo Chavez to the radical regimes of North Korea and Iran are saying about their intentions towards us. We've been warned. It's up to us now to make sure we have the leaders necessary to mount America's defense." - NEWT GINGRICH
"Osama bin Laden warned us before September 11. But few Americans listened. In this compelling manifesto, Jed Babbin urges his fellow citizens to open their ears and eyes to the words of our enemies worldwide -- from Castro and Chavez to the Taliban and the Iranian mullahcracy. Pay attention before it's too late." - MICHELLE MALKIN
"My friend Jed Babbin has carefully compiled the record of what our adversaries write and say about us -- and what they intend to do to us. This book is a must-read for all who understand the first axiom of war: 'know your enemy.'" -- OLIVER NORTH, Lt. Col. USMC (Ret.)
"What part of 'We intend to kill you!' don't we understand? As Jed Babbin documents in this sobering and necessary book, our foes around the world--from near-nuclear Iran to the insane Kim Jong-il in North Korea--not only chant 'Death to America,' but openly outline their plans for a second September 11--only this time, worse. In the Words of Our Enemies is a must-read for conservatives, and needs to be highlighted in red and given to every appeasement liberal. Osama bin Laden and company don't deserve a second chance." - MARK LEVIN (http://www.conservativebookclub.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c7080)
The Truth About Muhammad Straight from Muslim sources: the bloody life and violent teachings of Muhammad, the founder of Islam by Robert Spencer
As American and European leaders continue to assure us that true Islam is peaceful, and formulate foreign and domestic policy on that basis, it is more important today than ever before for non-Muslims to know exactly what Islam's founder, Muhammad, actually did and taught. Now, in The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion, Robert Spencer provides a frank and accurate picture of the Muhammad that Muslims around the world revere: a warlord who preached violence, ordered the assassinations of his enemies, and used his "divine revelations" for his personal self-aggrandizement.
Spencer, author of the bestselling Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and four other books on Islam and jihad, here works exclusively from the sources that Muslims themselves revere as most reliable for information about Muhammad. He explains why it matters so much today what Muhammad was like, and traces his tumultuous life in depth: from his first "revelation" from Allah (which filled him with terror that he was demon-possessed) to his deathbed (from which he called down curses upon Jews and Christians).
Spencer details Muhammad's development from a preacher of hellfire and damnation into a military leader who commanded his followers to carry out surprise raids on his opponents, and who promised his warriors luridly physical delights in Paradise if they were killed in his cause. He shows how Muhammad's faulty knowledge of Judaism and Christianity has influenced Islamic theology, and colored Muslim relations with Jews and Christians to this day. It's all here: Muhammad's multiple marriages (including one to a nine-year-old); his convenient "revelations" justifying his own licentiousness; his joy in the brutal murders of his enemies; and above all, his clear marching orders to his followers to convert non-Muslims to Islam or force them to live as inferiors under Islamic rule.
Spencer also shows how modern-day jihad terrorists frequently invoke Muhammad's example to justify their bloodlust and exhort their followers to more violence. The true nature of Islam and the prospects for large-scale Islamic reform have important implications for host of issues - notably the prosecution of the war on terror; the democracy project in Iraq and Afghanistan; and immigration and border control. That's what makes it crucial for policymakers and every citizen who loves freedom to read and ponder The Truth About Muhammad.
Meet the real Muhammad:
Muhammad's bizarre reaction to his first "revelation": "I will go to the top of the mountain and throw myself down that I may kill myself"
The heretical Christian who convinced Muhammad he was a prophet - and may have taught him his erroneous views of Christianity
Islamic borrowings from Judaism, Christianity, and Zoroastrianism - and Muhammad's enraged replies to charges that he borrowed material rather than received actual divine revelations
The "revelation" that allowed Muhammad to marry his beautiful daughter-in-law
The strange incident in Muhammad's life that makes it virtually impossible to prove rape in Islamic countries today
The real "Satanic Verses" incident (not the Salman Rushdie version): how Muhammad's attempt to win over his opponents ended with his saying he had been inspired not by God, but by Satan
How the Qur'an's teaching on warfare against unbelievers developed - with constant war to establish the hegemony of Islamic law as the last stage
The first year of the Muslim calendar: not when Muhammad was born or became a prophet, but when he became a warlord
How Muhammad used the graphic lure of Islamic Paradise to urge his warriors to fight furiously to extend his rule
"Kill every Jew who comes into your power": why Muhammad became so angry with both Jews and Christians - with disastrous consequences that are still playing out in the world today
The momentous command by Muhammad that led to good being identified with anything that benefited the Muslims, and evil with anything that harmed them --without reference to any larger moral standard
Muhammad's child bride - and the terrible consequences his marriage to a nine-year-old still has in the Islamic world
"This is the caravan of the Quraysh possessing wealth. It is likely that Allah may give it to you as booty": how Muhammad gave divine sanction to the Muslims' bloody raids
"War is deceit": the permission Muhammad gave his followers to lie in order to gain an advantage over their enemies
How Muhammad broke the principal treaty he entered into, again setting a pattern for Muslim states thereafter
Muhammad's commands to his followers to wage perpetual war against non-Muslims, including Jews and Christians
Muhammad on women's rights: women "are prisoners with you having no control of their persons"
"If justice is not to be found with me then where will you find it?" Why Muhammad still stands for Muslims as the supreme model for human behavior
"I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula, and will not leave any but Muslims" - and other statements by Muhammad that contemporary jihadists take very seriously
Islamic tolerance? The onerous tax burden and other discriminatory regulations mandated for non-Muslims under Islamic law
How Muhammad ordered the killing of apostates from Islam
The massacre of a Jewish tribe by Muhammad that was invoked by modern-day jihadists at the beginning of Israel's July 2006 operations against Hizballah in Lebanon
"Embrace Islam, and your lives and property will be safe": Muhammad's threatening letters to the rulers of the lands around Arabia
Muhammad's frequent avowals that the Muslims would overcome the empires bordering on Arabia and one day stand as masters of the world
"I have been made victorious with terror" - and other statements of Muhammad on his deathbed
Six steps that American leaders can and must take in order to protect our nation from Islamic jihad terrorism
A review: It is hard to accept if you've listened for decades to the so-called enlightened crowd but the fact of the matter is that this book reveals the truth on this subject. It is sad but also a dangerous truth that we must accept so we can protect ourselves. The Islamic way is not one of peace, it is of oppression and outright violence to the death of anyone who does not believe in their way. Kudos to Spencer for having the guts to step out and tell it like it is. (http://www.conservativebookclub.com/products/bookpage.asp?prod_cd=c6959)
The Enemy at Home How liberals foster and encourage the anti-American hatred that fuels Islamic terrorism by Dinesh D'Souza
"Why do they hate us?" Some conservatives, following President Bush, believe that Muslim anti-Americanism stems from irrational hatred of our freedom and democracy. Others lay the blame on our foreign policy. Now comes bestselling conservative author Dinesh D'Souza to argue that both views, while they contain elements of truth, miss the larger reason. In The Enemy at Home, D'Souza makes the startling claim that the 9/11 attacks and other terrorist acts around the world can be directly traced to the ideas and attitudes perpetrated by America's cultural left.
"In faulting the cultural left, I am not making the absurd accusation that this group blew up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon," D'Souza explains. "I am saying that the cultural left and its allies in Congress, the media, Hollywood, the non-profit sector, and the universities are the primary cause of the volcano of anger toward America that is erupting from the Islamic world. The Muslims who carried out the 9/11 attacks were the product of this visceral rage - some of it based on legitimate concerns, some of it based on wrongful prejudice, but all of it fueled and encouraged by the cultural left."
D'Souza uncovers the links between the spread of America's decadent pop culture, leftist ideas, and secular values and the rise of virulent Anti-Americanism throughout the world. He shows how liberals are responsible for fostering -- and exporting -- a culture that angers and repulses not just Muslim countries but also traditional and religious societies around the world. He also reveals how liberals' outspoken opposition to American foreign policy -- especially our conduct of the war on terror -- contributes to the growing hostility, encouraging people both at home and abroad to blame America for the problems of the world.
Though we are accustomed to thinking of the war on terror and the culture war as distinct and separate, D'Souza argues, they are really one and the same. Conservatives must recognize that the left is now allied with the Islamic radicals in a combined effort to defeat Bush's war on terror. A whole new strategy is therefore needed to fight both wars. It is only by curtailing the left's attacks on religion, family, and traditional values that we can persuade moderate Muslims and others around the world to cooperate with us and begin to shun the extremists in their own countries. In short, writes D'Souza, "to defeat the Islamic radicals abroad, we must defeat the enemy at home."
Why do they hate us? Here's why:
How the cultural left has fostered a decadent American culture that angers and repulses traditional societies, especially those in the Islamic world that are being overwhelmed with this culture
How the left is waging an aggressive global campaign to undermine the traditional patriarchal family and to promote secular values in non-Western cultures
How the left's war against religion and the traditional family is being waged through popular culture, the UN, and a broad range of NGOs
How this campaign has provoked a violent reaction from Muslims who believe that their most cherished beliefs and institutions are under assault
How Islamic anti-Americanism is rooted in a revulsion against what Muslims perceive to be the atheism and moral depravity of American popular culture
How the cultural left has routinely affirmed the most vicious prejudices about American foreign policy held by radical factions in the Muslim world - and then emboldened those factions to attack us with the firm conviction that "America deserves it"
Why our failure to understand our enemy helps to account for our mixed results in the war against terrorism, the stalemate in Iraq, and the seemingly inexhaustible supply of suicide bombers bent on killing Americans
Why a traditional conservative in America would have more core values in common with a traditional Muslim in Egypt or Turkey than he would have with Michael Moore or Hillary Clinton
How, thanks to Hollywood and American popular culture, Muslims see the values only of "blue America" and not "red America" - and how we can make immediate progress by showing them "the other America"
The de facto alliance between the radical Muslims and the American left, born of a shared interest in destroying Bush and defeating the war on terror
How the cultural left encourages, both in America and abroad, an America-hating foreign policy that blames America for the problems of the world
How the left is serving as bin Laden's unpaid public relations team in America - and why conservatives must have the courage to say so openly
How Bin Laden and the American left work separately but toward the same end -- the Bin Laden folk supplying the terror, and the left using the terror to demoralize the American people into supporting a retreat from Iraq
The widespread belief among Muslims - not entirely unjustified -- that America used to be Christian but is now totally secular
How even the most extreme Muslim radicals like bin Laden don't see themselves as fighting against Christianity -but against what they perceive as the America-led forces of paganism and atheism
How, historically, Islam has distinguished between monotheists, who are seen as precursors to Islam and entitled to practice their religion even in Muslim societies, and pagans, to whom all the Koranic passages about "slaying the unbelievers" apply
How, if America were to proclaim itself a Judeo-Christian society and stand up for the principles of traditional morality worldwide, this would greatly weaken the threat posed by radical Islam
Why the war on terror is really a war for the hearts and minds of traditional Muslims -- and traditional peoples everywhere
Why the only way to win the struggle with radical Islam is to convince traditional Muslims that America is on their side
Why conservatives should stop attacking Islam and the Prophet Muhammad because this only pushes traditional Muslims into the arms of the radical Muslims
How, by attacking the depravity of the left, conservatives can win friends among Muslims and other traditional people around the world
America Alone Why America will have to fight alone in the battle for Western civilization by Mark Steyn
Are you ready for a conflict between America and the rest of the world? In America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It, Mark Steyn (the most widely read and wittiest columnist in the world today) argues that that's just what's coming. European and Islamic anti-Americanism, he explains, threatens to leave us isolated in the world: the global situation is rapidly reaching a point at which America will have to confront the enemies of civilization without help from anyone else. And when the world is divided between America and the rest, all those who don't want to see the world shrouded in a new Dark Ages should hope that America wins.
Steyn argues forcefully that much of the Western world as we know it will not survive the twenty-first century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes -- including many if not most European countries. He shows how this process is already well advanced, and explains that whether we like the New Order in Europe and the world depends on whether America can summon the will to shape at least part of the emerging global picture. If not, then it will mean the end of the American moment and the beginning of the new Dark Ages: the return of much the planet to a primitive state.
America is facing this life-and-death challenge, says Steyn, because of the Western world's demographic decline; the unsustainability of the welfare state in Europe (as well as in the United States, Canada, and Australia); and the apparent exhaustion of Western civilization. Suffused with Steyn's trademark wit and piercing insights, this book calls on us to summon the will to fight this great struggle for Western civilization. In America Alone, Mark Steyn provides an enlightening primer to just how bad things are likely to get, and what we must do now to ensure that our children and grandchildren live in the bright light of freedom.
Illuminated with wit and wisdom by Mark Steyn:
The hidden reason that the problem of Islamic jihad has exploded across the world since 1970
Why the threats that the world faces today should be taken much more seriously than the environmental scare-mongering that has been going on since the 60s (and, thanks to Al Gore, continues)
The likely outcome of today's global situation, in which Islam is militarily weak but ideologically confident -- while the West is militarily strong but ideologically insecure
Disquieting implications of the fact Islam is a religion, not a race or nationality (as it is commonly portrayed in the West) -- and an explicitly political religion at that
Why the liberal talk of finding the "root causes" of terrorism in the errors and excesses of Western foreign policy is so wrongheaded
The correlation between the structural weaknesses of the social-democratic state and the rise of a globalized Islam
Why we are witnessing the end of the late twentieth-century progressive welfare democracy
What is revealed about our civilization by both the non-problems that terrify us and the real problems we pay no heed to
Why Libya's Colonel Qaddafi is probably correct when he says that "there are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe - without swords, without guns, without conquests"
How the environmentalist fantasy about the grave ecological threat America poses to the globe actually reveals how unthreatening America really is
Why the problem Europe faces today is not one of race, but of culture
How the willingness to subordinate individual liberty to the primacy of society - as expressed by Nazism, Communism, and more - has blighted Europe for over a century
The dangerous consequences that are likely to come from manifestations of "cultural sensitivity" -- such as the fact that U.S. guards at Gitmo must handle copies of the Koran only when wearing gloves because the detainees regard infidels as "unclean"
Universally ignored: the single most important fact about the early twenty-first century in Western countries
How the terrorist attacks in Madrid in 2004 and London in 2005 - along with other events such as the murder of Theo van Gogh - were the opening shots of a European civil war
The little-noticed reason why America's European "allies" failed to grasp the significance of September 11
Why the progressive Left can be in favor of Big Government or population control but not both - and how that mutual incompatibility is about to plunge Europe into societal collapse
Sobering facts about how advanced civilizational suicide already is in Japan and Russia
How mosques in the West serve as recruiters for the jihad and play an important role in ideological subordination and cell discipline
Why the Spanish government was so eager to appease the jihad terrorists after the Madrid bombings of March 2004
How oil isn't the principal Saudi export, Islamic jihad ideology is - and our oil money bankrolls its spread
Why the war against global Islamic jihad will be harder to win the longer it goes on
How Western analysts continue to fall into the error of thinking that if a violent Muslim has no ties to Al-Qaeda, he cannot be a terrorist and poses no threat
Europe's suicidal multicultural malaise -- and why jihadists understand that the Continent is ripe for the taking in a way that America isn't
Why it is so important for Americans and others who want their families to enjoy the blessings of life in a free society to understand that the life we've led since 1945 in the Western world is very rare in human history
Religion of Peace? Why we can't defeat Islamic jihad without defending the faith that built Western civilization -- Christianity magazine by Robert Spencer
Tune in almost any liberal pundit and he'll tell you: there is a religion that is bent on destroying our Constitution, stripping us of our liberties, and imposing religious rule on the U.S. And that religion is ... Christianity! About Islam, however, the Left is silent -- except to say that whatever propensity to violence that "great religion of peace" may have is more than matched by Christianity. But are such assertions true? Could the global threat of Islamic terrorism really have arisen in a Christian context as easily as in a Muslim one? Are conservative Christians really more of a threat to free societies than Islamic jihadists? Is the Bible really "just as violent" as the Qur'an? In Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is -- and Islam Isn't, bestselling author Robert Spencer not only refutes such charges, but explains why Americans and Europeans must regain an appreciation of our Christian heritage if we can ever hope to defeat Islamic supremacism.
Though Spencer is a Christian, he writes not to proselytize, but to state a fact: Christianity is a true "religion of peace," and on it Western civilization stands. Islam is a religion of the sword with more than 100 million active jihadists seeking to impose sharia not only in the Islamic world, but in Europe and the United States. And they will succeed, warns Spencer, if Westerners continue to delude themselves that Western civilization is uniquely responsible for the evil in the world, that Christianity is just as inherently violent as Islam, that all religions are equal in their capacity to inspire magnanimity, nobility, generosity, and greatness of soul. In Religion of Peace?, he calls for a grand alliance of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, and all other victims and potential victims of the global jihad -- an alliance centered around the values that the Judeo-Christian tradition has given the world.
Why the most determined enemies of Western civilization may not be the jihadists at all -- but the Leftists who, at a time of peril from global jihad, think the chief danger comes from their churchgoing neighbors
How Christianity and the Jewish tradition from which it was born are at the heart of Western civilization -- while Islam is hostile to it, historically and theologically
Why the Islamic world has never developed a distinction between religious and secular law -- and the ominous implications of this
"Love your enemies" vs. "Be ruthless to the unbelievers": the radical differences between Islamic and Christian teachings about warfare against unbelievers
Western immorality vs. Islamic Puritanism: is the Islamic world really more moral than the West?
How Christianity embraced reason from the beginning -- while Islam rejected it as a limiting factor on God
The consequences of this for the development of science, technology, and even politics
How attacks on Christianity are part of a larger effort to instill a sense of cultural shame in Europeans and Americans -- a shame that undermines the willingness to defend ourselves
How Christianity led to the abolition of the ancient practice of slavery -- while it continues even today in the Muslim world
The Crusades: just like present-day jihad? Why, in fact, they were a centuries-late and small-scale response to Islamic conquests that overwhelmed half of Christendom
Exposed: the persistent myth of a tolerant, pluralistic Muslim Spain and a tolerant, pluralistic Ottoman Empire
The myth of a "Christian theocracy" movement that seeks, Taliban-like, to crush Western freedoms
How the Left's promotion of a moral and theological equivalence between Islam and Christianity prevents people from realizing just how seriously jihadism threatens Western society and its ideals of human rights
Why, in order to defeat the jihad, we must stand up proudly for our Judeo-Christian civilizational heritage
The grand coalition that is needed between people of all faiths -- and no faith -- to defend equality of rights and freedom of conscience from the jihadist onslaught
"BRILLIANTLY WRITTEN AND ARGUED" -- ANN COULTER
"Brilliantly written and argued, Religion of Peace? is the perfect book to give liberals who fervently believe that Christianity is as dangerous -- if not more dangerous -- than Islam. Robert Spencer skewers the liberals' paranoid and suicidal hatred of Christianity while reminding us how they ignore the real threat: Islamic jihadists with bombs. This splendid book demonstrates that what Islamic terrorists hate about the West is not its MTV, not the easy availability of pornography and abortion, but its Christian tradition. This goes a long way toward explaining why liberals never wanted to fight this war in the first place. Spencer's book is well written, heavily researched, and a clarion call to America to wake up and fight back." -- Ann Coulter
"It took guts to write this book. And Robert Spencer has them to spare. He also has the scholarship, expertise, and passion to cut through the clichés and expose the jihadist cult for what it is. This is a long overdue, in-depth refutation of the Islam-is-a-religion-of-peace tommyrot. Spencer also cogently explains why Jews and Christians need to stand together against the growing menace of a creed that targets adherents of both faiths. If there were a Nobel Prize for demolishing inanities, I'd nominate Robert Spencer." --Don Feder, writer and media consultant
"If you are sick of attacks on the West, tired of Judeo-Christian-bashing, and unwilling to succumb to jihad-friendly propaganda, buy this book and spread the word. Robert Spencer's latest salvo--careful, thorough, and meticulously researched as always--offers a crash course comparison of the history and teachings of Christianity and Islam. Conclusion: ‘No, Virginia, not all religions are equal.' Armed with facts and fearlessness, Spencer stands up for Western civilization. How about you?" --Michelle Malkin, bestselling author
"Robert Spencer's meticulously researched and powerfully argued book counters the moral equivalence arguments that attempt to excuse or divert attention from the actions of radical Islamic jihadists by attacking Christianity, Judeo-Christian civilization, and the West. In Religion of Peace? Spencer critically examines the history and teachings of Islam, the history of Muslim anti-Semitism, and Muslim views of Christianity, and in so doing helps us better understand the ideological background of the anti-Semitic and anti-Western hatred and violence that the Islamic jihadists espouse. Spencer's thought-provoking book persuasively demonstrates the ways in which Western civilization, rooted as it is in the Judeo-Christian tradition, is profoundly different from the model of society dictated by Islamic sharia. Rich in its insights and analysis, this is a book that should be read and appreciated by Christians and Jews alike." -- Rabbi David G. Dalin, author of The Myth of Hitler's Pope
The Sword of the Prophet What Muslims, multiculturalists, and the media hope you never find out about Islam by Serge Trifkovic
Since the attacks of September 11, dozens of books have been rushed to market purporting to "explain" the religion in whose name the terrorists acted. Most of them strike a common theme: "true" Islam -- as opposed to the "fundamentalist" variety of the hijackers -- is a "religion of peace" that promotes charity, tolerance, freedom, and culture no less than "true" Christianity.
Such a viewpoint, argues Serge Trifkovic, foreign affairs editor of Chronicles magazine, is not only false but dangerous, since it blinds to the true nature of the enemy that threatens us. Moreover, it betrays a hidden agenda: to discredit Christianity and the West by comparison to a sanitized, idealized Islam that bears no resemblance to its actual teachings or history.
To correct this, Trifkovic gives us the unvarnished, "politically incorrect" truth about Islam -- including the shocking facts about its founder, Mohammed; its rise through bloody conquest; its sanctioning of theft, deceit, lust and murder; its persecutions of Christians, Jews, Hindus and other "infidels"; its cruel mistreatment of women; the colossal myth of its cultural "golden age"; its irreformable commitment to global conquest by any means necessary; the broad sweep of the military, political, moral, and spiritual struggle that faces us; and what we must do if we wish to survive.
Get the details and documentation for hundreds of "politically incorrect" facts about Islam -- such as:
The Koran sanctions pillage, looting, ransom, and the rape of captive women as an incentive to join in jihad or "holy war"
Mohammed kept one-fifth of all spoils of war for himself
The Koran allows a man to have up to four wives -- at any one time. He can divorce a wife by simply saying so 3 times
Mohammad had as many as 25 wives. One was six when they married; he was 54. He consummated the marriage when she was 9
At least 27 people were murdered on Mohammed's orders
Mohammed allowed temporary marriage "for three nights" or more, so that soldiers in the field could "marry" prostitutes
The Koran assures the Muslim the right to own slaves by purchasing them or as a bounty of war. Mohammad had dozens
Almsgiving and mercy is commended in Islam -- but the beneficiaries have to be Muslims only
In Islam, the definition of what is "right" or "just" is not fixed, but changeable by divine decree -- enabling the most henous sins and crimes to be declared "the will of Allah"
The joys and glories of the Islamic "paradise" are tangible and sensual and include sex with virgins -- and young boys
As Mohammad progressed from visionary and teacher to warlord and ruler, his style and message became more depraved, violent and intolerant. It is these later "revelations" that are considered definitive by Islamic authorities when they conflict with earlier ones often cited for Western consumption
The Crusades were a belated military response to three centuries of Muslim aggression against Christian lands and peoples
Islam divides the world into the House of Islam (where Islam rules) and the House of War (where it doesn't). The two are permanently at war; there may be temporary truces, but peace will come only upon the completion of global conquest
When Muslims are a minority community, the Koran permits them to adopt a peaceful attitude to deceive their neighbors, until they feel strong enough to dispense with the pretense
The massacres perpetrated by Muslims in India are unparalleled in history, bigger in sheer numbers than the Holocaust
Muslim persecution of Christians has caused suffering and death for millions over 13 centuries -- and continues today
The myth of Islam's "tolerance" of religious minorities contradicts its teaching, history, and present reality
Islam's "golden age" was parasitic on the Christian cultures and peoples it conquered, and ended when it "killed the host"
In 1993, Saudi Arabia's supreme religious authority declared that the world is flat, and that anyone who disagrees is an infidel to be punished
Like Communism, Islam cannot foster prosperity, and is always reliant on plunder or unearned wealth (e.g., from oil)
Islam recognizes no distinction between temporal and divine authority; the only "legitimate" government is a theocracy
America's "ally" Saudi Arabia remains the most intolerant Islamic regime in the world, where the practice of any religion besides Islam is as strictly prohibited as in Mohammed's day
The first imam to deliver a Muslim prayer for the U.S. House of Representatives in 1991, declared in 1997 that Muslims will eventually elect the president and replace the constitutional government with an Islamic caliphate
"The arbiters of official Islam will not tell us what Islam is, only what they want it to be. For the truth, we must turn Dr. Serge Trifkovic, a European historian of broad learning, sound philosophy and keen political insight." -- Brian Mitchell, Washington Bureau Chief, Investor's Business Daily
The Life and Religion of Mohammed Mohammed: the ugly truth about the founder of the world's most violent religion (by a priest who lived and ministered among Muslims) by J.L. Menezes
Fr. J.L. Menezes knew Islam up close: as a priest in India, he devoted his priestly life to introducing that nation's tens of millions of Muslims to Christianity. With this life of Mohammed, he left us the record of his appeals: a frank, honest, and exhaustively researched exploration of the life of the "prophet" of Islam, the development and contents of the Koran, and an introduction to various Muslim sects.
Working from the earliest Islamic sources, Fr. Menezes provides a complete account of Mohammed's life, from his days as a simple merchant to his triumphs as a leader of armies and revered prophet. Menezes delved so deeply into his subject that he was even able to describe Mohammed's physical appearance. He explains why Mohammed couldn't possibly be a true prophet, and reveals the true sources of his "revelations."
Fr. Menezes could be writing about today's Muslim terrorists when he explains that "Mohammed posed as the apostle of God, the seal of the prophets; as the destroyer of idolatry; as preacher of one true God, and the reformer of morals: while his life is marked by innumerable marriages; and great licentiousness, deeds of rapine, warfare, conquests, unmerciful butcheries, all the time invoking God's holy name to sanction his evil deeds, ordering prayers and alms deeds and at the same time propagating Islam everywhere by fire and sword."
Turning to the Koran, Fr. Menezes delineates the distinctive teachings of Islam, explaining the elements of the Muslim holy book that make it so difficult for Muslims to convert to Christianity -- and showing how the Koran, when read honestly and without Islamic preconceptions, nonetheless depends upon and leads to Christianity.
Fr. Menezes concludes with an "appeal to candor and common sense," inviting Muslims to think critically about their religion, and to embrace Christ instead. With Islam on the march everywhere and Muslims streaming into the U.S. in record numbers, the candor, common sense, and solid Christian faith of this book are needed more than ever.
Your guide into the dark mind of Mohammed:
The bizarre circumstances of Mohammed's "revelations": "it was a painful sight to behold the nervousness of his features, the distortion of his countenance and the anxiety of mind portrayed on his face"
How worldly ambition gradually blinded Mohammed's mind and overwhelmed his early searches for the true God
How Mohammed borrowed many of his ideas of Paradise from contemporary Jews and Christians -- and mixed them with base and lewd imaginings
How Mohammed again and again justified his rapine and licentiousness with new "divine revelations"
Why Mohammed grew so bitter against both Jews and Christians, after initially courting their favor
Mohammed's fateful order that all churches and synagogues in his domains be demolished
How Mohammed ordered the assassinations of several of his chief opponents
How even Mohammed's replies to his critics in the Koran are insufficient to refute the charge that he was a false prophet who fabricated revelations
Why Mohammed adopted -- and later discarded -- many Jewish customs and ritual observances
Islamic tolerance: Mohammed let Jews and Christians live in his domains -- if they paid tribute and accepted second-class status
What the Koran really teaches about Christianity and Christ
What Mohammed learned from heretical Christian sects -- and incorporated into the Koran
The early history of Islam: just as bloody as the life of its founder
How the Koran doesn't limit Muslims to four wives, as is widely believed, but actually sets no real limit
Why the new religion Mohammed taught became so commonly identified with war and politics
The crisis caused in Islam by the death of Mohammed's only son -- which continues to this day
The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Islam (and the Crusades) by Robert Spencer
The whole "politically incorrect" truth about Islam's violent teachings, bloody history, backward culture, and morally depraved founder -- PLUS: Why the Crusades were justified wars of Christian self-defense against centuries of Muslim aggression
Exclusive hardcover edition -- not available in stores!
When PC propagandists assure us that jihadist terror doesn't reflect "true," "peaceful" Islam, they're not only wrong, they're dangerous -- because they lull America and the West into letting their guard down against their mortal enemy. And not only do self-appointed "experts" lie elaborately and persistently about Islam -- they have also replaced the truth about Christian Europe and the Crusades with an all-pervasive historical fantasy that is designed to make you ashamed of your own culture and heritage -- and thus less determined to defend it. But now there's a remedy: in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), Robert Spencer reveals all the disturbing facts about Islam and its murderous hostility to the West that other books ignore, soft-pedal -- or simply lie about.
Click here to see The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History and here to view both books, available together at a special discount.
This book is a unique guide to the bloody teachings and history of Islam, and to the Crusades that still stand today as the Western world's most sustained and successful defense against the warrior hordes who were inspired by those teachings. Exposing myth after myth of the "Islam means peace" establishment, Spencer (director of JihadWatch.com and the bestselling author of Islam Unveiled and Onward Muslim Soldiers) here tackles all the hot-button issues regarding Islam and the Crusades.
Not "politically correct" -- just true:
The Crusades: unprovoked Western aggression? How, in fact, Muslims armies overran the predominantly Christian Middle East, then drove deep into Europe long before any Crusade was even contemplated -- and did so in obedience to core teachings of the Islamic faith
How the much-ballyhooed (and grossly exaggerated) "Golden Age" of Islamic culture was largely inspired by non-Muslims
Muhammed: the "Perfect Man"? That's how Muslims regard him. Details about his licentiousness, cruelty, and ruthless ambition that make him a dangerous role model
Muhammad as "Prophet": how he received convenient "revelations" that justified his insatiable lusts and numerous marriages -- including one to a 9-year-old girl
How Muhammad ordered -- and rejoiced in -- the assassinations of his enemies. How he lied and broke treaties as a matter of course
Muhammad vs. Jesus: proof that Christianity teaches peace and Islam violence -- and that there is nothing in the Bible that rivals the Qur'an's exhortations to warfare
The stifling effect Islam has on science and free inquiry, accounting for its failure to prosper -- and hence for its murderous envy of the West
The ghastly lure of Islam's X-rated Paradise for suicide bombers and jihad terrorists
Islamic law: how it institutionalizes oppression of Christians, Jews, and other non-Muslims in Islamic societies
How the Qur'an and Islamic law treat women as nothing more or less than possessions of men
Islam's only overarching moral principle: "if it's good for Islam, it's right"
Why Western leaders who think non-Muslims can "win hearts and minds" among Islamic jihadists are naïve
Why modern-day jihad warriors despise democracy and will do all they can to resist it
Filmmaker Theo van Gogh: murdered on an Amsterdam street in broad daylight for offending Muslims -- and other signs that violent Islamic intimidation has come to the West
Why Europe could be Islamic by the end of the twenty-first century
Above all, Spencer details how the jihad that the non-Muslim world faces today is in direct continuity with the one the Crusaders fought against. It continues today in Europe and even in America while pressure groups intimidate the media into silence about the real nature and goals of Islam. The whitewashed Islam they present, argues Spencer, hinders our ability to defend ourselves against Islamic terror. Spencer also explains here what we must do to stop the jihad onslaught not only militarily, but culturally. He maintains that we will not be able to defeat today's Islamic jihad without recovering pride in the superiority -- yes, superiority -- of Western, Christian civilization. If we surrender our culture, he warns, soon we will be surrendering our homes. But here at last is a book that helps you reclaim the glorious past of our civilization -- and thereby defend that civilization more effectively in the present.
"A clarion call for the defense of the West" "The jihad that the Western world faces today is identical in its motivations and goals to that which Europe managed to stave off almost a thousand years ago - thanks in large part to the Crusades of which the West is now ashamed. Today's jihad, as Spencer illustrates here, is proceeding on two fronts: one of violence and terror, and another of cultural shaming and the rewriting of history. Here is a devastating riposte to that revisionism -- and a clarion call for the defense of the West, before it is too late." -- Ibn Warraq, author, Why I Am Not a Muslim, editor, Leaving Islam and What the Koran Really Says
"Sweeping away the politically correct myths about a tolerant, peaceful Islam brutalized by demonic Christian Crusaders, Robert Spencer in this powerful, important book lets the facts of history speak for themselves. Spencer's rousing, straight-talking book is a much-needed antidote to the poisonous propaganda that compromises our current battle against jihadist murder." -- Bruce S. Thornton, author, Greek Ways: How the Greeks Created Western Civilization
"Spencer reminds us of the consequences of our failure to come to grips with the message and implications of Islam. And he warns against the spirit of masochistic self-loathing that permeates the Western elite class. In a sane world Spencer's recommendations -- notably that the upholders of sharia should be treated as political radicals and subjected to appropriate supervision - would not be deemed 'politically incorrect' but eminently sensible." -- Serge Trifkovic, author, The Sword of the Prophet (http://www.conservativebookclub.com/products/bookpage.asp?prod_cd=c6805)
The Suicide of Reason How getting it all wrong about Islam made us get it all wrong about Iraq by Harris, Lee
How could leaders and policy-makers have been so far off the mark about the viability of democracy in Iraq, and so fatally wrong about a quick invasion and reconstruction? In The Suicide of Reason: Radical Islam's Threat to the West Lee Harris argues that when it comes to radical Islam, Western style liberal democracies are hard-wired to get it wrong unless we dramatically change our views. "Since 9/11, I have been astonished at the lack of bold and original thinking on both the left and right. Instead there has been a re-cycling of the old and comfortable clichés." Harris rejects the comfort of conventional thinking and delivers a daring argument about the inherent conflict between Western civilization and Islamic fanaticism.
According to Harris, the West is singularly ill-equipped to fight radical Islam, a foe that is resistant to normal methods of conflict resolution such as negotiation, economic sanctions, or conventional armed confrontation. Harris argues that modern liberal societies, whose political theories are based in the ideas of the Enlightenment, have grown unfamiliar with the nature of mass fanaticism where intolerance may be a virtue. He contends that we think of history as an inevitable progress toward enlightenment and modernization and discount fanaticism as a social pathology, a failure to modernize, rather than as what it is: a variety of social order that is not only fully viable in the modern world but that possesses weapons to which the West is uniquely vulnerable.
Finally, Harris offers strategies by which liberal internationalism can defend itself without becoming a mirror of the tribal forces it seeks to defeat. But there is no time to waste, writes Harris: radical Islam has already seized the historical momentum from the West, while the West's position becomes increasingly reactive and defensive.
"Once again Lee Harris throws cold water on thinking Americans' tendency to view Islamist terrorists as noble freedom fighters in the vein of black Americans during the Civil Rights movement or East Timorese throwing off the Indonesian yoke. Harris understands that we are faced with an enemy who seeks not reasoned negotiation but the destruction of the Western way of life, and that holding to self-critical, multi-culti pieties during this crisis will spell self-sabotage." -- John McWhorter, author of Winning the Race: Beyond the Crisis in Black America
World War IV Norman Podhoretz explains: What we are fighting against, what we are fighting for, and why we must win by Norman Podhoretz
The war on terror has been termed a "bumper sticker" by a presidential candidate and anti-terror efforts are routinely derided by the liberal media. But those who love our nation and fear for its future need not despair! Now, the renowned political analyst and thinker Norman Podhoretz has laid out the most compelling case yet for the Bush Doctrine -- and for the necessity for all to wake up and face the magnitude of the challenge that Islamic terrorists present to our nation and the world. In World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism, he makes the first serious effort to set 9/11 itself, the battles that have followed it in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the war of ideas that it has provoked at home into a broad historical context.
Telling this sweeping, epic story with brilliance and flair, Podhoretz shows that the global war against Islamofascism is as vital and necessary as were the two World Wars and the cold war (which he identifies as "World War III"). He offers a spirited defense of the Bush Doctrine, demonstrating that its new military strategy (preemption) and its new political strategy (democratization) represent the only viable ways to fight and win the strange war into which we were so suddenly plunged on that sunny morning in September 2001.
Podhoretz details how World War IV didn't really start on that day: past administrations, both Republican and Democratic, responded sluggishly, if at all, to numerous pre-9/11 attacks by Islamic terrorists on American citizens -- and Slick Willie even cavalierly treated the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 as a criminal act rather than an act of war. But on 9/11, most Americans woke up to the fact that war had been declared on us long ago, and that it was time to fight back. Podhoretz shows how since then, of course, anti-terror efforts have become a political football, and have been obscured by numerous myopic policymakers who have hindered our defense in the name of their own short-term political benefit.
Podhoretz argues passionately, however, that that must end: for although the Islamofascists differ in significant ways from the Nazis and Communists we fought and vanquished decades ago, they are just as dedicated as were Hitler and Stalin -- if not more so -- to the destruction of the freedoms for which America stands and by which it lives. That's why, he declares, the key to victory in World War IV will be a willingness to endure occasional reverses without losing sight of who our enemy is, why we are fighting, and why our very survival depends on an American victory.
Norman Podhoretz reveals:
How George Kennan's containment doctrine applies superbly to today's geopolitical realities
The 1990s: how U.S. passivity and inaction -- among both Republicans and Democrats -- emboldened Osama bin Laden and other jihad terrorists
Antipathy to the "neocons": its thinly-disguised anti-Semitic undertones
Why the antiwar, anti-Bush Doctrine factions gained so much attention and influence so quickly -- and the three schools of thought feeding the domestic insurgency
The ignominious response of mainstream Democrats to the most effective demagogic tool of the antiwar radicals, Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11
"Mistakes" made in the war on terror: how they amount to much less than the antiwar forces have tried to make of them
Why the liberals who excoriated Bush for recklessness and overreaching in his implementation of the Bush Doctrine were wrong
Why the neoconservatives who have pressed for a more aggressive implementation of the Bush Doctrine than even Bush is willing to commit himself to are wrong
The United States: an international bully? How the record of the Bush Administration's pursuit of the war on terror shows that this is not so
Why the damage to America's "moral standing" will be greater if we don't aggressively oppose Islamic terrorism than if we do
Islamic reform: why it is possible -- and how it can be effectively begun
Why democratization is the only viable challenge to terrorism
How the Bush Administration "neocons," contrary to myth, never actually said that the reconstruction of Iraq would be a "cakewalk" -- and why it must be pursued despite its difficulty
"World War IV will make a lot of people unhappy. Thank goodness. With any luck, it will wake up many more." -- John R. Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations
"Norman Podhoretz's book is an antidote to the attempt to return to the denial of the 1990s. It forcefully argues for an America truly on offense against Islamic terrorism." -- Rudolph Giuliani, former mayor of New York
"In this compelling book, Norman Podhoretz convinced me that using the term Third World War to describe the war on terror is wrong. This is the fourth world war (with the cold war as a third great struggle between freedom and tyranny), and it is a war we can win and must win. Every citizen interested in our survival as a free and safe country should read World War IV." -- Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House
"You must read this forceful analysis of where we are -- at war -- and why we must remain engaged and be ready to act in defense of our national security." -- George P. Shultz, former U.S. secretary of state
"Stunning, brutally honest, indispensable -- a huge service to truth and history, and to our prospects for prevailing." -- R. James Woolsey, director of the CIA, 1993-1995
"Norman Podhoretz has always had the gift of moral -- and linguistic -- clarity. This new book is true to his passion and craft, a work that counsels patience and fortitude against e/ncircling radicalisms. A terrific and rewarding read." -- Foaud Ajami, director of the Middle East Studies Program, The Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies
Radical Eye for the Infidel Guy Ryan, Kevin J.
Hardly a week goes by without more Islamic terror arrests, with Muslims plotting to murder as many "infidels" as possible. And then we hear it again: Islam is a religion of peace, hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists. If you're fed up with this grotesque whitewashing of the grim realities of contemporary Islam, you'll love Radical Eye for the Infidel Guy. Author Kevin J. Ryan here exposes the murderous ideology of jihad and Islamic supremacism, but he also goes much farther: with sardonic and irreverent humor, Ryan has a field day lampooning the patent absurdities espoused by Islamic jihadists.
Unafraid of ridiculing the most sacred of Islamic sacred cows, Ryan sets the tone with chapter headings like "How to Found a Religion of Peace and Declare War on the Rest of the World," "Women's Rights, or What Size Stick to Use to Beat Your Wife," and "Tolerance and Diversity, or the Right to Practice Any Religion as Long as It's Islam."
He also discusses issues including Islam's "amputation-friendly criminal justice system," the reason why Muslim hardliners still think slavery is a "holy institution," and offers a detailed description of just how the average American Joe and Jane would look like after the jihadists have given them a full Islamic makeover.
"Informative and provocative." -- Publishers Weekly
"Kevin Ryan manages to pull off the impossible: he tells the truth about Islam and Sharia while keeping a light, humorous touch. Gallows humor, sure, but it packs a punch: this book will go a long way toward waking up sleeping infidels to the magnitude of the problem we face." - Robert Spencer, author, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)
"It takes considerable courage to write anything remotely critical of Islam. It takes even greater courage to write anything satirical or humorous about a religion that has no sense of irony, as the Danish cartoon affair recently reminded us. Hence Kevin Ryan's irreverent and hilarious look at Islam is doubly welcome, though the humor should not blind us to the underlying grim reality that Ryan documents so well." - Ibn Warraq, author, Why I Am Not A Muslim
From Dinesh D'Souza: How liberals foster and encourage the anti-American hatred that fuels Islamic terrorism
Infidel The astonishing life story of a Muslim girl who survived brutal beatings and forced marriage to become a champion of human rights against Islamic oppression by Ayaan Hirsi Ali
When Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was cruelly murdered in Amsterdam in 2004 by a Muslim enraged at his criticism of Islam, it was a stark reminder of the dangers of challenging a hard-line Islamic worldview - even in Western countries. It also changed the life of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, van Gogh's collaborator on the film about the institutionalized Islamic oppression of women that had offended his murderer. Van Gogh's murderer attached a note to the body quoting Koran verses and threatening Hirsi Ali's life also; she was placed under round-the-clock armed guard in her adopted country, the Netherlands.
But soon she was hounded out of Holland by politically correct Leftist politicians enraged by her straight talk about Islam and honest criticism of the Islamization of the Netherlands. Now, in Infidel, Ayaan Hirsi Ali tells her amazing life story, explaining how a girl raised in a traditional Muslim household in Somalia could become one of the most outspoken critics of Islamist oppression in the world today.
In this profoundly affecting memoir, Ayaan Hirsi Ali vividly recalls her traditional Muslim childhood in Somalia, Saudi Arabia, and Kenya, and recounts in gripping detail her intellectual awakening and activism in the Netherlands, as well as her current life fighting for human rights under armed guard in the United States. With a gimlet eye and measured, often ironic, voice, Hirsi Ali recounts the evolution of her beliefs, her ironclad will, and her extraordinary resolve to fight injustice done in the name of Islam.
Raised in a strict Muslim family and extended clan, Hirsi Ali details in this book how she survived civil war, genital mutilation according to Islamic custom, brutal beatings, adolescence as a devout believer during the rise of the jihadist group the Muslim Brotherhood, and life in four troubled, unstable countries largely ruled by despots. She tells the heart-stopping story of how, in her early twenties, she escaped from a forced marriage and sought asylum in the Netherlands, where she earned a college degree in political science and fought for the rights of Muslim immigrant women and the reform of Islam as a member of Parliament - all the while dealing with personal hardship and tragedy. And today in the U.S., even though she is still under constant threat -- demonized by reactionary Islamists and politicians, disowned by her father, and expelled from her family and clan -- she refuses to be silenced.
Hirsi Ali is not a conservative in the conventional Western sense, and in her journey comes to more than a few conclusions with which you're likely to disagree. Nevertheless, her story is a profoundly conservative one: it's a testament to the power of the human spirit to overcome tyranny, no matter how firmly entrenched that tyranny may be. As Western governments struggle to balance democratic ideals with increasing pressure from Islamic groups, Hirsi Ali's story is not only timely and significant - it's a primer for every politician, public figure, and private citizen who wants to speak out about the evils of Islamic oppression of women and others without being cowed by political correctness and fear.
From Ayaan Hirsi Ali's harrowing and heroic memoir:
One little-noted practical reason why so many Muslims sincerely but wrongly believe that Islam means peace
Hands cut off, men flogged and beheaded, women stoned to death: daily life in Saudi Arabia in the late 1970s
"The Quran says on almost every page that Allah is just, but this is not just": why Ayaan began to question core Islamic beliefs - and how she suffered for doing so
Surprising ways Ayaan had to adjust from life in Africa and Arabia to life in Europe
The surprising reasons why fundamentalist Islam is newly resurgent around the world today
Why Holland's unstinting respect for Muslim customs and practices was an abject failure for both the Dutch and their Muslim community
"If you tell a Dutch person it's racist he will give you whatever you want": how Muslim immigrants in Holland learned to manipulate political correctness for their own advantage
"Fairy tales, nothing to do with the real world I knew": Ayaan's jaundiced view of the "Islam is peaceful and tolerant" party line that still dominates Western public discourse
Did the 9/11 attacks stem from true belief in the true Islam? How Ayaan arrived at the answer, amidst a blizzard of Western analyses that focused on the symptoms, not the root causes, of the bin Laden phenomenon
Ayaan's efforts to get the Dutch to wake up and stop tolerating the oppression of Muslim women in their midst - which they did, of course, under the banner of multiculturalism
Ayaan's clear-sighted assessment of the prospects for - and necessity of - real reform within Islam
"When are they going to look at Islam?" Ayaan's trenchant critique of the "experts" whose remedies for the ills of Europe never touched on the real problems created by the massive immigration and non-integration of Muslims
Why, as a member of the Dutch Parliament, Ayaan advocated a drastic reduction of welfare benefits
Ayaan's stinging response to those who charge that she attacks her own culture out of self-hatred, and because she "wants to be white" "Ayaan Hirsi Ali is one of Europe's most controversial political figures and a target for terrorists. A notably enigmatic personality whose fierce criticisms of Islam have made her a darling of conservatives…" - Boston Globe
"Too potent a social critic to be tolerated any longer [in her home country]…an unflinching advocate of women's rights and an unflinching critic of Islamic extremism." - New York Times
"Crammed with harrowing details, Hirsi Ali's account is a significant contribution to our times." - Kirkus Reviews
A victim of Islamic jihad terror calls on Americans to wake up to the threat we face Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America by Brigitte Gabriel Brigitte Gabriel was ten years old when the jihadists came. Bloodthirsty Islamic warriors poured into her native Lebanon in the 1970s, intent on waging jihad against Lebanese Christians - including Brigitte's family. For seven years, Brigitte and her parents lived in an underground bomb shelter, with no running water or electricity and very little food - at times, they had to boil and eat grass just to survive. Now that those same Islamic jihadists have made it abundantly clear that they intend to take their war to the entire world, Brigitte Gabriel has a message for non-Muslims: the jihadists will stop at nothing short of domination of all non-Muslim countries, and if we don't soon wake up to the full magnitude of their threat, they will succeed.
In Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America, Gabriel tells the full story of her ordeal, and explains why she refuses to stand by silently as the same jihad terrorists who menaced her family for so long and destroyed her childhood are now acting against her adoptive homeland of America. Lulled into complacency by political correctness and general ignorance about the motives and goals of jihad terrorists, all too much of the American public, notes Gabriel, is weak, asleep or careless in the face of the Islamic jihad against America and the world. She also points out many of the mistakes that all too many Western analysts have made in assessing the jihad threat - including persistently believing that jihadists can be bought off with negotiations and concessions, and underestimating the single-mindedness with which jihadists are pursuing their goals worldwide.
Gabriel also recommends some solutions that policymakers would do well to note, including a fearless call for profiling and for the banning of hate education in Islamic institutions. Articulate, passionate, and knowledgeable, Gabriel here situates her personal story within the history, social movements, and religious aspects of the Islamic jihad that plagues the world today - making Because They Hate an eye-opening guide to today's global conflicts.
Among Brigitte Gabriel's revelations:
Why it is so crucial that the Western powers come to understand and take seriously the goal of Islam to dominate the world - and how the refusal to confront this leads to numerous policy errors
The common phrase among Muslims, "First comes Saturday, then comes Sunday" - and why it bodes ill for Jews and Christians
Moderate Muslim groups in the U.S. that are not in fact as moderate as they would have you believe
Two momentous international events that have led to the global resurgence of the Islamic jihad today
One attack strategy of Islamic jihadists today that most analysts miss, and how we must confront it
Repulsive lies and fabrications about Jews, the United States, and other perceived "enemies of Islam" that circulate in the mainstream media in the Islamic world
Nine things ordinary American citizens can and must do to counter the jihad threat
"Eloquently reminds America what is truly at stake in this struggle against terrorism: our families, our way of life, and our hopes. Ms. Gabriel's personal account of her own experience is riveting, compelling and spellbinding. This is a must read for the entire American public.... This book contains monumental revelations that will shock and disturb you. But it is also a story of an indomitable spirit -- Brigitte's -- that will move you." -- Steve Emerson, author of American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Amongst Us
"A compelling and captivating personal story with a powerful lesson about threats to freedom in our time." -- R. James Woolsey, Director of Central Intelligence, 1993-95
"At once intensely personal and possessing global significance... the story of her family and her childhood encapsulates the threat that faces the entire free world today. Brigitte Gabriel's words should be read, and studied carefully, by all the law enforcement and government officials of the West -- as well as by everyone who values freedom." -- Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad
"Should be read by all to understand radical Islam.... gives dire warning of what is to come if the democratic and Western world does not take responsible action to protect its people and societies." -- Paul E. Vallely, Maj. General US Army (Ret.), coauthor of Endgame: The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror
Secret Believers In the Islamic world, just becoming a Christian gets you a death sentence - but these heroic believers still give all for Christ by Brother Andrew, Al Janssen
Nowhere else in the world is it harder to be a Christian today than in the Islamic world, where converts from Islam face an automatic death sentence, and all believers face random and often ruthless persecution while the authorities look the other way. Now Secret Believers: What Happens When Muslims Believe in Christ lays bare the whole story of the harsh realities that Christians, and those who want to follow Christ, must deal with every day in Muslim countries - and tells the thrilling story of the Christians who meet these challenges with indomitable faith and breathtaking courage.
Brother Andrew, the fearless missionary and author of the international bestseller God's Smuggler, and coauthor Al Janssen tell the amazing stories of Muslims who encounter Christ and determine to become Christians, despite ostracism and death threats, and of Christians struggling to become mature in their faith in the midst of a hostile and increasingly violent Muslim society. Brother Andrew and Janssen, who both work with Open Doors International (an organization dedicated to strengthening the persecuted church) introduce you to Christian missionaries who risk torture and death every day by bearing witness to Christ among Muslims. They recount the interactions of all these people with convinced Muslim believers, converts from Christianity to Islam, and even members of the jihad terror groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. The stories in Secret Believers are all true, although the names have been changed to protect the lives of these intrepid believers.
Amid all these accounts of awe-inspiring Christian heroism, Brother Andrew and Janssen explore forthrightly the question of why Christian communities in the Islamic world remain so small and weak, and how Christians can bear witness to the truth of Jesus Christ to Muslims most effectively. Issuing a stirring challenge to Western Christians to change their hearts and actions towards Muslims, Brother Andrew and Janssen reveal a daring new plan for more successfully engaging Muslims, and even call for a "new jihad" - of a very different kind from the one Islamic jihadists envision!
With implications for everything from political policy to personal prayer, Secret Believers is an inspiration and a challenge for Christians - and a guide to how to support their embattled brethren in the Islamic world.
Enter the world of the Secret Believers:
Why it's dangerous for Christians in Muslim countries to reach out to Muslims - and more dangerous if they don't
Why, in the words of one Middle Eastern Christian, "an effective church is the biggest threat to Islam"
"The Christians have no rights. What can they do?" How governments in Islamic countries frequently treat Christians as second-class citizens
"In our culture when someone hits us, we hit him twice. But Jesus says if someone slaps you, you turn the other cheek" - and other striking testimonies of converts from Islam to Christianity
"This is what happens to apostates. Allah will reward us for wiping you off the face of the earth": the awful sufferings of Muslim converts to Christianity
The member of the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood organization who experienced a mystical encounter with Jesus Christ
"We stole from the Christians - we didn't call it stealing but jihad": how Christians in the Islamic world face not only hostile officials, but dangerous armed thugs eager to prey on them
How Christians suffer daily persecution even in officially secular Muslim countries, which trample upon their commitment to the United Nations charter guaranteeing freedom of religion
How officials in Muslim countries sometimes delay for years in granting Christians permits to build new churches or repair old ones - while new mosques are built right next to churches, with loudspeakers pointed right at the church
The Muslim official who admitted: "Christians make the best citizens" but still termed Christian commitment in the Islamic world "treason"
"Tell me where you cannot go as a Christian, and I will tell you how you can get in": the astounding courage of Christian missionaries in the Middle East
How suffering Christians in the Islamic world have felt strengthened and emboldened by the prayers of the faithful elsewhere in the world
How Christians can bear witness to Christ among Muslims despite the increasingly un-Christian messages of Western popular culture
Why Christian witness in the Islamic world is more imperiled today than ever
A letter from Afghan Christians to President Bush, asking him to help ease the grip of Islamic law that legitimizes the persecution of Christians in Afghanistan
"A must read for those who want to understand the jihad radical Islamists are waging against democracies." - Oliver North
The War of Ideas by Walid Phares From the morning of the 9/11 attacks onward, ordinary citizens started to wonder how all this could have happened so suddenly. But in fact, writes Walid Phares in The War of Ideas, it hadn't been sudden at all. Jihadism had been resurging throughout the Islamic world for decades, and its murderously anti-Western intentions were plain for all to see. Then why did it come as news to Americans? Because, Phares argues, for more than a decade, our intellectual elites had ignored it - or, worse, "spun" it as a benign spiritual tradition, like yoga. Even now, he says, academics and media professionals - some in thrall to Saudi money, others to political correctness -- softpedal the truth about jihadism. Meanwhile, particularly in the Arab Muslim nations, it continues to transform millions into militants and demonstrators, and some into suicide bombers. The time has come - if it isn't already too late - to face the truth about our enemy's ideology, and begin challenging it openly and fearlessly, as we once did Communism. And in this challenging book, Phares shows us how.
"During the fall of 2001," writes Phares, "Osama bin Laden said on al Jazeera that as long as he can reach the next generation of Muslims, he will be winning the war against his enemies. In fact, the central point in the entire war between Jihadism and democracy is this: All it takes for the jihadists to make progress is to continue to implant their ideology in the minds of the younger waves of followers. And all it takes for the supporters of the radicals within international society (and particularly inside Western democracies) is to prevent the public, especially youth, from understanding this equation."
Based on Phares' years of following the evolution of the main players in world politics and closely analyzing the strategies of the two main camps in the current War on Terror, The War of Ideas describes in detail the intellectual and other forces - the big picture - behind the ongoing world conflict. What are the aims of the jihadists and their allies, and how do they intend to reach them? How do they want their enemies to think, and are their strategies working? Phares answers to questions like these are as fascinating as they are troubling. To end his discussion, he leaves the reader with seven strategic recommendations which can be made to governments, international organizations and NGOs as a way to rebalance the debate - and recover for the West its advantage in what is shaping up as a war for civilizational survival.
"A must read"
"'From China's borders to the Atlantic Ocean, masses are being taught to hate the other side of the world and blame it for all evil.' Phares, a Lebanese-born policy analyst and television commentator, is no alarmist; in public discussions of U.S.-Middle Eastern affairs, he is a voice of calm and reason. Yet, he urges, there really is such a thing as a terrorist Muslim enemy, a class of person he calls a jihadist, who takes literally Islam's call for jihad, or war against the infidel. This term, Phares argues, has been denatured and defused: An academia friendly to Saudi interests (because it's funded by them) has assured worried Americans that ‘jihad is essentially a spiritual experience,' just as Harvard think-tankers once called the Taliban ‘elements of stability.' ‘Since 9/11,' he concludes, ‘many Western political and academic establishments have generally caved in to the jihadi intellectual offensive.' Well, jihad is jihad, the author says, wrapped up in a pan-Arabist, Islamist (though jihadists and Islamists aren't necessarily one and the same), Baathist, generally fascist ideology that demands the restoration of the caliphate to wage endless war against all nonbelievers." - Kirkus Reviews
"A beacon that helps us to see and understand the extent of the Jihadist threat the World is facing. Nobody who reads his analysis will have any doubt left about the existential peril posed by the radical Islamists and Jihadi terrorists to democracies. A must read." -Jose Maria Aznar, Former Prime Minister of Spain
"A pioneering work in history and politics. It shows clearly how Jihadism has become a strategic threat to democracy worldwide.' - Paulo Casaca, Chairman of the NATO commission to the European Parliament
"Phares' book puts fifty years of Cold War and Jihadi offensives against democracies in an ultimate global perspective." - Col. Kenneth Allard, USA (Ret.), former dean of the National War College
By an ex-member-turned-spy: the first insider account of life inside al Qaeda Inside the Jihad by Omar Nasiri
What draws Muslim men - and women -- into the ranks of al Qaeda? How does the movement motivate and train its members to kill others - and themselves? What are its plans? Ultimate goals? Only someone who was in al Qaeda and its training camps can give authoritative answers to such questions - and now, at last, one such former member is telling everything he knows. In Inside the Jihad: My Life with Al Qaeda, A Spy's Story, Omar Nasiri (a pseudonym to protect his identity) gives a detailed account how he fought for Al Qaeda - and then against it, as a spy -- over the course of seven years. Nasiri offers a vantage point rarely glimpsed: a portrait of the growing strength of Islamic terrorist groups in the 1990s, of what it takes to infiltrate these groups, and how inadequately authorities understood the emerging threat.
Inside the Jihad reveals:
How, in the 1990s, Nasiri became involved in what would become known as al Qaeda just as they were raising their sights from local conflicts to the "far enemy" of the United States and the West
How Nasiri's unusual upbringing, divided between North Africa and Belgium, provided him with the means to lead a double life
How al Qaeda in the '90s was far better organized and far more determined than previously understood
How Nasiri's own mother was involved in terrorism - and how a raid of his family home turned up a treasure trove of information about al Qaeda and bin Laden
How, after signing on as a spy for French and British intelligence, Nasiri entered jihadist circles and made his way into the heart of Al Qaeda
Inside the Afghan training camps: the remarkable discipline of the training - and the remarkable range of nationalities represented
How the Bosnian and Chechnya conflicts of the 1990s provided a focus for radicalization, combat training, and networking that was not fully appreciated then
How recruits learned how to use a wide variety of weapons and explosives as well as carry out assassinations, bombings, kidnappings, and urban guerrilla warfare -- much of it based on U.S. training manuals obtained during the fight against the Soviets
How religious training was considered a central aspect of jihad, more important than the physical training
How the camps were crucial to developing and disseminating a theologically grounded justification for the use of extreme violence, even against civilians
How Nasiri infiltrated London's notorious Finsbury Park mosque just after its notorious preacher, Abu Hamza, began to turn it into Europe's premier recruitment center for groups allied to Al Qaeda "As a micro-level description of the whole training process within the camps, Nasiri's account has, I believe, no peer in the publications of the American intelligence community." -- Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's Osama bin Laden Unit
"A chillingly detailed portrait of life inside the Afghan training camps." -- Ahmed Rashid, author of the #1 New York Times bestseller Taliban
PROOF: Islam is a violent, expansionist ideology that seeks the subjugation and destruction of other faiths, cultures, and systems of government Religion of Peace? Islam's War Against the World by Gregory M. Davis
While non-Muslim leaders and Islamic apologists in the U.S. and Europe continue to insist that Islam is a religion of peace, every day Muslims commit more violence in the name of Islam. Now, in Religion of Peace? Islam's War Against the World, author and filmmaker Gregory M. Davis reveals why. Setting out the shocking teachings of the Qur'an and other Islamic holy books, Davis shows that the Muslims who commit violence in the name of Islam are not distorting the teachings of a great religion -in fact, they're carrying them out faithfully. Davis proves beyond any shadow of doubt that the jihadists the Leftist media has assured us are "extremists" are actually in the mainstream.
Davis, the coproducer and codirector of the eye-opening documentary Islam: What the World Needs to Know, also rebuts the notion that Islam is a great faith in desperate need of a Reformation. In traditional, mainstream Islam, he explains, religion and politics have from the beginning been intertwined and inseparable --and no higher law exist beyond Muhammad's bloody teachings and example. Davis details how Islamic theology divides the world into two spheres locked in perpetual combat: the "House of Islam" and the "House of War." He shows why Islam is not a religion in the way Westerners usually understand the term, but rather a form of totalitarianism, a cruel and ferocious belief system that orders its adherents to conquer and subdue all those outside the fold. He demonstrates that Muhammad's words and deeds, and the Islamic law that has been formulated from them, have far more in common with Nazism than with the tenets of Christianity or Judaism.
Concise and thorough, this carefully reasoned book elucidates why most of the world's modern conflicts are connected to Islam --and makes all the more urgent the question of why Western elites refuse to acknowledge Islam's violent nature. Religion of Peace? Islam's War Against the World is nothing less than a wake-up call to all civilized nations --and one they ignore at their peril.
Not a religion of peace by a long shot:
How, when it is correctly understood and practiced, Islam actively seeks the destruction of everything that is not itself
The Christian notion of absolute standards of morality and justice: conspicuously absent from Islam
Muhammad, Islam's prophet: how he forever established war and killing as acceptable -indeed, holy and noble -endeavors for all Muslim believers (and is responsible for killing hundreds, and possibly thousands, himself)
Why the Western intellectual establishment simply cannot consider the possibility that Islam seeks global hegemony and the destruction of other faiths, cultures and civilizations
The jarring reason why Islamic civilization, once great and powerful, lost its cultural, economic, and military superiority
The new wave of Islamic violence in the modern era: not an innovation in Islam, but an Islamic exercise in "getting back to basics"
Why it simply makes no sense to fight a "war on terror" -and what we must do to defeat today's Islamic jihad
Straight from the Qur'an: the Islamic justification for suicide bombing
How even rape is justified in Islamic law -as long as the victim is non-Muslim
Why non-Muslims so often misunderstand the Qur'an and other core texts of Islam, and underestimate the violence and ferocity those texts inspire
How Islamic apologists twist the truth when they quote ostensibly peaceful verses of the Qur'an to explain that Islam is a religion of peace
Muhammad's marriage to a nine-year-old girl and his vicious, murderous cruelty: not crimes to be condemned in Islamic theology, but moral precedents to be followed
How modern non-Muslim scholars ignore Muhammad's bellicosity, cruelty, and licentiousness while describing him as a "moral and social reformer"
Totalitarian Islam: why the question of "What would Muhammad do?" applies as much to military strategy, international diplomacy, and social policy as it does to prayer and ritual
How Islamic jihad differs in its fundamental character from Christian actions during the Crusades or any other time
The Islamic principle that renders impossible any negotiated settlement between Muslim and non-Muslim states -as well as any honest communication between pious Muslims and non-Muslims
The great waves of Islamic expansion: how they proceeded according to Muhammad's instructions and in imitation of his example
Why, although our own time has been marred by numerous spectacular acts of jihadist violence, awareness of Islam's violent nature was much greater in times past
The chief barrier today to a better, more realistic public understanding of Islam "Fascinating." - William F. Buckley Jr.
"A valuable, well-argued contribution to the public understanding of Islam...it manages to convey in a short space what the West needs to know about Islam: that its violent aspects are not the result of deviance but of orthodoxy"' - Robert Spencer, author, The Truth About Muhammad and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and The Crusades)
"A very important work at a very important time. Anyone interested in understanding the growing violence on the world scene today must read this book. Its message for America and the West is, `Wake up before it's too late.'" - Gary Bauer, President, American Values
"This book provides a timely reality check to those still inclined to believe in the dichotomy between a ‘real' Islam and its allegedly aberrant violent fringe. That delusion costs lives and threatens the very existence of those affected by it. The refusal of the elite class to open its eyes to reality and protect Western nations from the threat is the biggest betrayal in history. It reflects a problem of cultural and spiritual decay that is the synthesis of all others." - Serge Trifkovic, author, The Sword of the Prophet and Defeating Jihad
Islamic Imperialism: A History The real "root causes" of Islam's war against the West . . . in the teachings and traditions of Islam itself by Efraim Karsh
The upsurge of Islamic jihad around the world has inspired two diametrically opposed -- yet equally false -- interpretations regarding its "root causes," writes Middle East expert Efraim Karsh in Islamic Imperialism. In one view, modern jihad represents a backlash by a deeply frustrated civilization reluctant to come to terms with its long-standing decline. In the other, it is a response to America's arrogant foreign policy by fringe extremists whose violent interpretation of Islam has little to do with the religion's actual spirit or teachings. But, as Professor Karsh demonstrates conclusively in this myth-busting book, the real "root cause" of Islamic jihad is the teachings and traditions of Islam itself.
"From the first Arab-Islamic empire of the mid-seventh century to the Ottomans, the last great Muslim empire," writes Karsh, "the story of Islam has been the story of the rise and fall of universal empires and, no less important, of imperialist dreams." With brilliant scholarship, Karsh shows how this dream of a global Islamic empire has inspired every Muslim jihadist from Muhammad himself ("I was ordered to fight all men until they say 'There is no god but Allah'") to the 12th-century conqueror Saladin ("I shall cross the sea to their islands to pursue them until there remains no one on the face of the earth who does not acknowledge Allah") to Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini ("We will export our revolution throughout the world . . . until the calls 'There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah' are echoed all over the world") to Osama bin Laden ("I was ordered to fight the people until they say there is no god but Allah and his prophet Muhammad").
September 11, Karsh demonstrates, must be seen as simply the latest expression of this dream, and such attacks have little to do with U.S. international behavior or policy in the Middle East. "America's position as the preeminent world power," argues Karsh, "blocks Arab and Islamic imperialist aspirations. As such, it is a natural target for aggression. Osama bin Laden and other Islamists' war is not against America per se but is rather the most recent manifestation of the millenarian jihad for a universal Islamic empire (or umma). This is a vision by no means confined to a disillusioned and extremist fringe of Islam, as illustrated by the overwhelming support for the 9/11 attacks throughout the Arab and Islamic worlds. In the historical imagination of many Muslims and Arabs, bin Laden represents nothing short of the new incarnation of Saladin. The House of Islam's war for world mastery is a traditional, indeed venerable, quest that is far from over."
The religious roots, and shocking history, of Islamic imperialism -- from Muhammad to Bin Laden
How Islam envisages a global political order in which all humankind will live under Muslim rule as either believers or subject communities (dhimmis)
How, in order to achieve this goal, it is incumbent on all free, male, adult Muslims to carry out an uncompromising struggle (jihad) "in the path of Allah"
Why this, in turn, makes all those parts of the world that have not yet been conquered by the House of Islam an abode of permanent conflict (Dar al-Harb, the House of War) which will only end with Islam's eventual triumph>
Why, in the meantime, there can be no peace between Islam and the rest of the world -- only the temporary suspension of hostilities to allow Islam to regain the advantage
How even Islam's earliest conquests were imperial in nature, aimed not at ridding itself of foreign occupiers (as often maintained) but at establishing universal Islamic rule
How, unlike Christianity, Islam made no distinction between temporal and religious powers, which were combined in the person of Muhammad -- allowing him to cloak his political ambitions with a religious aura
How Muhammad, unlike Jesus, used God's name to build an earthly kingdom -- and spent the last ten years of his life fighting to unify Arabia under his reign
The watershed event in Islamic history that transformed Muhammad from a private preacher into a political and military leader -- and Islam from a persecuted cult into a major religion with imperialist ambitions
How Muhammad pioneered the "fusion of the sacred and the profitable" - amassing astounding wealth for himself and his followers -- which was endorsed by future generations of Islamic leaders
Muhammad's massacre of the Medina Jews, who refused to acknowledge his revelations: how it set the pattern for Muslim Jew-hatred down to the present day
How, in a single century following Muhammad's death in 632, Islam created its first great empire -- much of it carved from the formerly Christian lands of the Middle East, North Africa, and the Byzantine Empire
How Islam provided a moral sanction to territorial conquest, theft, and enslavement of captives
How, despite Muhammad's vision of a universal Islamic community free of racial distinctions, the first Islamic empire was an military autocracy run by Arabs solely for the benefit of Arabs
The quest for booty: a central impetus behind the Islamic conquests, from the first Arab conquerors to the Ottomans
Slaves: the primary trade commodity in the Islamic empire
The crusades: how, unlike the early Islamic conquests, they were not a drive for world mastery but a limited endeavor geared toward stemming the tide of Muslim aggression and liberating the Christian holy places
How, to this day, many Muslims unabashedly pine for the reconquest of Spain, and consider their 1492 expulsion from the country a grave historical injustice
How contemporary scholars falsely idealize the Ottoman empire as a shining example of tolerance, in contrast with their scathing indictment of Western colonialism
The historic blunder that led to the destruction of the Ottoman empire by the British army -- and the creation of the new Middle Eastern state system on its ruins
The post-colonial rise of "pan-Arabism" and the Arab imperial dream
Why, for all its professed secularism, pan-Arabism has been effectively Muslim in its ethos, worldview, and imperialist vision
Why the 12th-century Muslim conqueror Saladin, a quintessential imperialist seeking territorial and political self-aggrandizement, became the ultimate role model for generations of pan-Arab leaders
The Arabs vs. Israel: Why it is not concern for the rights of Palestinians, but a desire to fend off a perceived "neo-crusader" encroachment on pan-Arab imperial patrimony, that chiefly motivates the pan-Arab rejection of the Jewish state
How Osama bin Laden and other modern jihadists model themselves on Islam's early conquerors -- and aspire to nothing less than the substitution of Allah's universal empire for the existing international system
Alarming signs -- cultural, demographic and political -- that Europe may come under Islamic domination by the end of the twenty-first century
Between Pacifism and Jihad Are Christians called to be pacifists? by J. Daryl Charles
Is war ever justifiable for Christians? Doesn't Jesus require an ethic of nonviolence? In the midst of the War Against Terror, questions like these are once again on the minds of faithful Christians. But they are hardly new ones: great Christian thinkers have agonized over them for centuries, leading to a consensus known as the "Just War Tradition." Now, in Between Pacifism and Jihad, theologian and ethicist Daryl Charles mines that tradition in order to offer much-needed political-moral wisdom for our time.
Challenging the knee-jerk pacifism of today's liberal Christian establishment, Charles leads us to reconsider the traditional Christian view that force not only can, but should be used to maintain or reestablish justice. He shows how, properly understood, the just-war teaching of the Church strikes a balance between pacifism on the one hand and jingoistic militarism on the other. Professor Charles also addresses the unique challenges for Christians of dealing with international terrorism.
"An excellent resource for evangelicals who desire to reacquaint themselves with the 'consensus' tradition on the ethics of justified war." -- J. Budziszewski, author of Written on the Heart: The Case for Natural Law and What We Can't Not Know: A Guide
"Few people are reconsidering the just-war theory in light of the threat of radical Islam. Fewer still are doing it with the biblical insight, historical depth and careful moral analysis of J. Daryl Charles. An indispensable book in our age of terror." -- Joseph Loconte, Heritage Foundation
"An intelligent, articulate presentation of just-war thinking by a leading evangelical scholar." -- Timothy George, executive editor, Christianity Today
"Wise counsel about how we are to reappropriate just-war theory for the unprecedented challenges of our own day." -- Richard J. Mouw, Fuller Theological Seminary
The West's Last Chance Europe could soon be conquered by Islam. Will America be next? by Tony Blankley
Tony Blankley on how we can stop the global jihad and save Western civilization. Islamic jihadists are far closer than most people realize to taking over Europe. If they do, they'll impose governments there that would threaten the United States far more than Nazi Germany ever did. But there is still hope to save both Europe and America: in The West's Last Chance: Will We Win the Clash of Civilizations?, Tony Blankley explains what we must do now in order to survive the jihadist infiltration and subversion that now threatens Europe's very life.
Blankley confronts the blind denial that holds sway in the corridors of power and among the mainstream media in both Europe and America -- denial that jihadist Islam is transforming the world. He demonstrates that the European elites, and far too many American politicians and journalists, believe that our challenges are business and politics as usual, when in fact we face a challenge that is certain to transform our civilization one way or the other. He emphasizes that, amid the official rush after every Islamic terror attack to exonerate Islam and Muslims from any responsibility for it, Europe and America are in mortal danger from Islamic radicalism -- and despite the negative signs, he is still optimistic that we can win.
The real threat: not "terror," but resurgent Islam The threat, as Blankley details, is not merely from Osama bin Laden and a few thousand terrorists. Rather, he maintains, we are confronted with a newly militant and expansionist Islam -- a global phenomenon the world has not seen for centuries. Islam today poses a radical threat to the values, culture, and traditions that began to form in Europe 1,500 years ago under the influence of early Christianity. Blankley explains why the West's response to this challenge has been so feeble up to now, and why analysts and observers should not be fooled into assuming that the more or less benign trends of the recent past will continue. It's time for bold, imaginative new recommendations, such as those Blankley details here. He asks the hard questions -- and gives the straight answers -- that our country needs to hear.
The West's Last Chance reveals:
Why the threat of jihadists taking over Europe in the near future is every bit as great a threat to the U.S. as was the threat of the Nazis taking over Europe in the 1940s
How far too much of what we hear about the War on Terror is not about facts that will help us know our enemy -- an essential element of winning the war -- but about domestic partisan politics or political ideology
What would really happen if Islamic terrorists acquired weapons of mass destruction (it's worse than you think)
How Europe is already well on its way to being a launching pad for global Islamic terrorism
Why it is in America's deepest strategic interests for a non-Islamic Europe to survive and recover its strength
Europe's death wish: the plummeting birthrates that could devastate the Continent -- and how the United States could soon face a similar fate Why both our government and the European Union are hesitating to fight against the Islamic jihad threat with all their might
Why there is no margin for error in the War on Terror, and small mistakes or errors of judgment could have catastrophic consequences
Liberalism: how it has degenerated from the war-winning policies of FDR to an ideology of Western suicide
Why, if insurgent Islam had arisen even a generation earlier, Europe would doubtlessly have put it down with her traditional confidence, acumen, and ruthlessness
Secular Europe: why it cannot save itself -- Europeans must return to the Church if they hope to defeat the jihad threat
Multiculturalism and political correctness: advocated in media and academe and institutionalized in national and European Union laws and regulations for half a century -- and now threatening Europe's very survival
The West's Last Chance is disquieting reading, but all the more necessary for that. This is an essential exposition of what we must do now in order truly to win the War on Terror -- not in Iraq or Afghanistan, but on our very own doorstep. In 1941, the West stood together against the forces of barbarism. We need to do so again. This urgently needed book explains why, and how. "A great book. To win the War on Terror, you have to include Tony Blankley's The West's Last Chance and its antidote to the blame-America-first liberals and their suicidal complacency. Buy it, read it, and use it." -- Rush Limbaugh, host of The Rush Limbaugh Show
"Tony Blankley treats the Islamist threat with the gravity and urgency it deserves. Not enough of our leaders do. The West's Last Chance is an incisive and invaluable book." -- Michelle Malkin, author of In Defense of Internment
"Tony Blankley gets it! The enemy is much more than al Qaeda and the stakes are much higher than most people realize. A timely, thoughtful, and provocative read." -- Governor Tom Ridge, former secretary of the Department of Homeland Security
"An extremely controversial, thought-provoking treatment of an important subject." -- Henry Kissinger, former national security adviser and secretary of state
"For anyone interested in an uncertain world and our nation's place in it, current and future events make Tony Blankley's exceptional book, The West's Last Chance, a must-read." -- Senator Bob Dole, former Senate leader and author of One Soldier's Story
"Tony Blankley's breadth of vision and understanding are breathtaking: Few others have the courage or insight needed to tell you just how deep a fix the Western world is in, or to offer practical and useful solutions for its salvation. Blankley does all this and more with admirable eloquence, erudition, and wit." -- Robert Spencer, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)
"The tree of liberty must be watered periodically with the blood of tyrants and patriots alike. It is its natural manure." -- Thomas Jefferson. "The tree of liberty only grows when watered by the blood of tyrants." -- Bertrand Barere de Vieuzac, one of the leaders of the French Revolution.
"The Islamists have threatened to kill Fallaci because of her courage in speaking out against the Islamization of Europe. But now she is not alone. Brigitte Bardot, the famous French film star, writes in her new book, "A Scream in the Silence," "I am against the Islamization of France….For centuries our forefathers, the ancients, our grandfathers, our fathers gave their lives to chase all successive invaders from France."
I have just finished reading Oriana Fallaci's passionately written book, "The Rage and the Pride," in which she warns us, loudly and clearly, of the Islamic Reverse Crusade which has as its goal the conquest of the West. The attack on 9/11 was the Pearl Harbor of the Crusade. "It is a war of religion," she writes. "A war they call Jihad. If we do not defend ourselves, if we do not fight, the Jihad will win. … It will cancel our culture, our art, our science, our identity, our morals, our values, our pleasures…. Europe is no longer Europe. It is a province of Islam….It hosts almost 16 million Muslim immigrants and teems with mullahs, imams, mosques, burqas, chadors. It lodges thousands of Islamic terrorists whom governments don't know how to identify and control"
Oriana Fallaci, the dauntless, uncompromising Italian journalist, made her mark as an international writer by her incisive interviews with such world leaders and politicians as the Dalai Lama, the Ayattolah Khomeini, Kissinger, Arafat, Golda Meir, Ariel Sharon, Indira Gandhi, Ali Bhutto, Willy Brandt, and many others. She lives in Manhattan where for the last ten years she has been working in seclusion on a historical novel.
She was at home on September 10th when she had a premonition of something terrible happening. On the next day, hearing the sirens of police cars and fire trucks, she turned on the TV and, she writes, "don't ask me what I felt at that moment or soon after….I was ice-frozen. Even my brain was ice-frozen. I don't even remember if I saw certain things on the first tower or on the second. The people who jumped from the windows on the eightieth and ninetieth and hundredth floors so as not to burn alive, to begin with. Who broke the glass of the windows, climbed over the windows, and jumped the same way we jump from a plane with a parachute. By dozens. And they came down so slowly. Slowly tossing their arms and their hands, slowly swimming in the air….And, finally, they dropped like stones and bang!"
She didn't know what to do, until, six days later, when the editor of a major Italian newspaper came to New York and asked her to write about what had happened in the form of a letter to him. She wrote the article, and the paper sold a million copies. She decided to expand the article into a small book. "It was born all of a sudden. It burst like a bomb. Unexpectedly like the catastrophe that on September 11 disintegrated thousands of creatures and destroyed two of the most beautiful buildings of our time: the Towers of the World Trade Center." Writing nonstop, "The Rage and the Pride" was completed in two weeks.
It caused a sensation in Italy and elsewhere in Europe. In France, a Moslem group tried to get the French edition banned because they considered it racist. But the judge saw no point in banning a book that had already sold 45,000 copies in France and about a million in Italy. Besides, the book has nothing to do with racism. It has everything to do with the war between religions. Fallaci writes:
All the so-called Revolutions of Islam began in the mosques. Not in the universities, as the [liberals] want us to believe. Behind every Islamic terrorist there is an Imam, and Khomeini was an Imam.… And I declare that many Imams (too many) are spiritual guides of terrorism….[The Saudi Ministry of Religion] is the mighty organism that divulges Fundamentalist theories throughout the world. That throughout the world builds mosques and schools where the unlucky Moslem students learn nothing but the 6,236 Koran's verses by heart.… And where they are recruited to fight the Holy War.
The Islamists have threatened to kill Fallaci because of her courage in speaking out against the Islamization of Europe. But now she is not alone. Brigitte Bardot, the famous French film star, writes in her new book, "A Scream in the Silence," "I am against the Islamization of France….For centuries our forefathers, the ancients, our grandfathers, our fathers gave their lives to chase all successive invaders from France." There are now five million Muslims living in France. But the situation in Italy is worse, since it is like a land bridge from Africa to the European Union. Fallaci writes:
Because out cultural identity has been well defined for thousands of years we cannot bear a migratory wave of people who have nothing to do with us … who are not ready to become like us, to be absorbed by us….Who, on the contrary, aim to absorb us. To change our principles, our values, our identity, our way of life. And who in the meantime molest us with their retrograde ignorance, their retrograde bigotry, their retrograde religion. I am saying that in our culture there is no room for the muezzins, for the minarets, for the phony abstemious, for the humiliating chador, for the degrading burkah.
Fallaci, a passionate defender of Western Civilization, vows to fight to the death. She tells the Islamic enemy, "War you wanted, war you want? Good. As far as I am concerned, war is and war will be. Until the last breath."
ARE WE REALLY SO GULLIBLE? Lynn M. Stuter February 17, 2003 NewsWithViews.com
Dear American Citizen: We believe that a terrorist attack on America is imminent, using chemical and/or biological weapons of mass destruction. We don't know where or when this attack will occur, but we are encouraging every citizen to be prepared by having at hand plastic sheeting and duct tape sufficient to seal your home or a portion of it, water to drink, food to eat, a flashlight, radio and batteries sufficient to run both for at least three days. Signed, Department of Homeland Security.
Are we really so gullible as to believe that chemical and biological agents, strong enough and powerful enough to penetrate a gas mask or protective clothing, are going to be warded off by plastic sheeting and duct tape? Are we really so gullible as to believe that once we are exposed to a chemical or biological agent that said exposure can be nullified or reversed by running into our homes, closing the door, and applying plastic and duct tape? Are we really so gullible as to believe that once a chemical or biological agent is introduced in an area, that we will have time enough and forewarning enough to apply plastic and duct tape?
Apparently so. People are buying both, along with water, batteries and food, at an alarming rate. Rather mindful of the Y2K scare. No doubt the manufacturers of plastic sheeting and duct tape are enjoying the upturn in their business profits.
And are we really so gullible as to believe our government is doing everything in its power to protect we citizens? Or do we just want to believe that?
It would seem that the latter is the case, judging from the fact that very little has been said by either the government or the media about the multitude of illegal aliens (or as it has been so aptly put, illegal invaders) being allowed to walk across the border between Mexico and the United States without fear of being apprehended.
If President Bush is so concerned about the security and safety of America and Americans, why hasn't he moved to secure our borders? Why are these illegals being allowed into the United States with such wanton disregard for the safety and well-being of U.S. citizens? Several US citizens have already been killed by these illegals, including National Park Ranger Kris Eggle. Crime in the areas where these illegals are coming in is rampant. Recently, the brother of Congressman Jim Kolbe, Arizona, found a backpack near his farm buildings that contained a diary written in Arabic and Spanish. The implications could not be more clear.
Why all the hype about homeland security when this breach of our borders is going on daily, hourly? Could it be that "homeland security" is a fraud, a deception to justify, among other things, the consolidation of all federal law enforcement agencies into one agency, having more to do with controlling American citizens then dealing with any threat to America and Americans from outside?
Could it be that people are so frightened of the truth that they will grasp on to any ray of hope, any straw, any tidbit thrown out by the government?
Under systems governance, homo sapien is not more than "human capital" or a "human resource," to be used and discarded at the discretion of the system. Does that really conjure up visions of a system that cares about the human condition beyond the benefit reaped therefrom?
Instead of running out to buy duct tape and plastic sheeting, people would be better off arming themselves. While President Bush and the media are diligent in their efforts to convince the American public that our greatest enemy is beyond the borders of our nation, the perception doesn't align with the reality, thus making it apparent that our greatest enemy is within the borders of our nation.
Written by Dr. Jack Wheeler
Friday, 28 March 2008
This past Sunday, March 23, 2008, was the most extraordinary Easter we may see in our lives. To begin with, we'll never see an earlier one.
Because Easter is dated via the ancient Hebrews' lunar calendar used to identify Passover, it is celebrated on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the Spring equinox of March 20th. This year, the moon reached full one day later, March 21st, which happened to be a Saturday. Thus Easter was the next day.
You can't have an Easter much earlier than March 23rd. One day earlier, in fact, March 22nd. The last time Easter fell then was 1818; the next time in 2285. The last time Easter fell on March 23rd was in 1913, and the next time will be in 2228.
So unless you are at least 95 years old, you've never seen an Easter as early as last Sunday, and unless some Durk Pearson life extension technology keeps you around for another 220 years, you'll never see another.
So this Easter was chronologically special - but it was also special for a far deeper reason than that. In fact, it is the combination of two specific events taking place during this Easter Week that may well signify the resurrection of a dormant Christianity and its resultant defeat of militant Islam.
The first is Pope Benedict XVI publicly baptizing, in St. Peter's Basilica , a Moslem apostate converting to Christianity, Magdi Cristiano Allam. The second is the public releasing of Geert Wilder's anti-Islam film Fitna on the Internet.
For me personally, it is deeply rewarding to see my prediction made three years ago (April 2005) coming true. In Miracle Max in Europe, I predicted that Benedict's strat! egy towa rds Islam would be one of 'respectful competition, rather than appeasing conciliation,' that where he will make his stand is on 'the twin issues of apostasy and evangelization.' Thus:
While native Europeans simply refuse to have children and are committing demographic suicide, Moslem immigrants are breeding like bunnies. Right now, in many European cities, 30 to 40 percent of all the children are Moslem. It seems all but inevitable that Europe will become Eurabia with a majority Moslem population in most metropolitan areas within a generation.
There are only two ways to prevent this: eviction or conversion. Either evict those illegal Moslem immigrants out of Europe and back to their country of origin - or convert them to Christianity. Benedict XVI will advocate the latter path. The obstacle in this path is that Islamic law or Sharia views apostasy or irtidad as a crime punishable by death. The murtadd or apostate, by 'turning his back on Allah' deserves to be killed.
You can expect Benedict XVI to publicly demand that Moslems be free of any punishment should they choose to convert to Christianity, citing Article 18 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that 'Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief.'
You can further expect him to promote efforts by Christians to evangelize Moslems, making positive efforts to persuade them to convert to Christianity. First in Europe - and then in Islamic countries around the world.
Magdi Allam was no ordinary Moslem - he was the most famous Moslem in all of Italy, a famous writer for Italy's biggest newspaper who pleaded for a 'moderate Islam,' who came to sadly realize Islam is at root at religion of hate - which is why he forsake it for a religion of love and forgiveness.
For Benedict to baptize this man in front of the world is to declare that Christianity is now in direct competition with Islam. Magdi Allam himself makes it clear, in his public letter explaining his conversion, that:
His Holiness has sent an explicit and revolutionary message to a Church that until now has been too prudent in the conversion of Moslems, abstaining from proselytizing in majority Moslem countries and keeping quiet about the reality of converts in Christian countries. Out of fear. The fear of not being able to protect converts in the face of their being condemned to death for apostasy and fear of reprisals against Christians living in Islamic countries. Well, today Benedict XVI, with his witness, tells us that we must overcome fear and not be afraid to affirm the truth of Jesus even with Moslems.
With exquisite timing just four days after Allam's conversion, Geert Wilders gets his film up on the Net - albeit with difficulty. So far, Fitna is on a site called LiveLeak, but you may also find it here. (Also viewable here, here, and here. Related videos are here and here.) It is fantastic, a chilling clarion call to rip the pages of hate from the Koran which make it comparable to Hitler's Mein Kampf.
The synergy between these two events this week will result in an evangelical movement of Christians proselytizing Moslems in Europe. Initiating it will be the Catholic youth movement Communion and Liberation or more properly in Italian, Comunione et Liberazione. Protestant youth movements will follow.
It is Young Europe that will regenerate Old Europe, save it from becoming Moslem Europe, and keep it Christian. For it is Christianity, as exemplified by this Pope, that will fill the spiritual emptiness felt so deeply by both Europe's secular and Islamic youth.
For as I noted in Miracle Max in Europe, like President Reagan, Pope Benedict is a conservative revolutionary aiming to overthrow the entrenched modern orthodoxies of secularism and relativism, and rescue Western Civilization from a massive alien threat.
In Allah Is Dead (September 2006), we discussed Benedict's theological rescue, how he revealed at Regensburg that Allah is a space alien having nothing in common with humanity: 'Islam is inhuman - because its god, Allah, is inhuman.'
Now starts the actual rescue. Thanks to a German Pope and a Dutchman with bleached hair, the resurrection of Christianity against Islam in Europe has begun.
 The week between Easter Sunday and the following Easter Saturday six days later, not to be confused with Holy Week, the week prior starting with Palm Sunday and continuing through Maundy Thursday and Good Friday to Easter.