"We are Mujahideen for the sake of our nation"

A communiqué on "Rumsfeld's Comments" from the Mujahideen Army General Headquarters in Iraq. Note the religious language: "victory or martyrdom" -- yet the learned analysts will still refuse to take them at their word, to understand the intransigence of the jihad ideology that is behind those words, and will eventually call for negotiations with these people. They will decline to learn that negotiations are for the mujahedin only another way to attain their goal, not a setting in which they moderate or change that goal. They will dismiss the religious language here as meaningless boilerplate, not realizing how key it is to understanding this properly.

And then the learned analysts will wave their hands in their cocktail parties and say, "Spencer? Jihad Watch? Pah!" But come see me in ten years and we'll see who was right. From Uruknet.info, with thanks to Designnut:

June 28, 2005

This communiqué is post as is without changes.

The Mujahideen Army General Headquarters
Baghdad
The Republic Of Iraq

Urgent Release

Subject: Rumsfield's Comments

Oh great sons of Iraq!

We confirm to you, as well as the generally known media which as usual herd behind what comes out from these war criminals and these liars by profession. They lie so often that it has become the diseases, which with god's will, bring their end.

We have not entered in any negotiations with the occupiers or anyone who represent them or the puppet government.

The Mujahideen Army is in full adherence to the military doctrine of the of the Mujahideen Central Command MCC, and the Political views of Rafidan - The Political Committee of the MCC.

We are Mujahideen for the sake of our nation. And our aim is either victory or martyrdom in it's path.

And god is witness to our oath!

God is greater than all, God is greater than all, God is greater than all!

And Glory to God, his prophet, and the believers!

The Mujahideen Army
Baghdad on the 19th of Jamadi the first 1426
The 26th of june 2005

Hostage Roeder: "Ahmadinejad Threatened to Kidnap My Son"

More on Iran's thuggish new President from Spiegel Online, with thanks to Simon:

The newly elected president of Iran has been accused of being involved in the 1980 American hostage crisis. Former hostage David Roeder, 66, told SPIEGEL ONLINE, that Ahmadinejad threatened to kidnap his son and cut off his fingers and toes. "You don't forget someone like that," the former Assistant Air Force Attache says. SPIEGEL ONLINE: You are claiming that the newly elected president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was one of those involved in taking and holding you hostage in Iran from November 1979 to January 1981. How can you be sure?

Roeder: He was present at at least a third of my personal interrogations, which took place nightly for a little over a month early on in the hostage-taking situation. He seemed to be calling the shots, but from the background. The interrogators would ask a question and it would then be translated from Farsi into English by a woman interpreter.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Did they try to exert force on you to answer the questions or did you cooperate freely?

Roeder: I decided that initially I wasn't going to respond in any way, shape or form. They had me handcuffed to a chair and at least during the first few sessions, blindfolded as well. But once the blindfold came off, they had developed a plan that Ahmadinejad was instigating. Because I was not cooperating, they threatened that they were going to kidnap my handicapped son and send various pieces of him -- fingers and toes is what they mentioned -- to my wife if I didn't start cooperating. You don't forget somebody who is involved in something like that....

SPIEGEL ONLINE: You don't think you could have forgotten him after all these years?

Roeder: No, absolutely not. Not when he was involved in threatening my son.

Islamic states demand Muslim permanent seat on UN Security Council

Why? What does the UN deny them now? "Islamic states want permanent seat on UN Security Council," from AFP, with thanks to EPG:

SANAA (AFP) - Foreign ministers of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) opened a meeting with a call for a Muslim permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

OIC secretary general Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu urged a greater role for Muslim countries in world affairs and demanded a "permanent representation for the Islamic world on the UN Security Council".

"The Islamic world, which represents one fifth of total mankind, cannot remain excluded from the activities of the Security Council which assumes a fundamental role in keeping security and peace in the world," he said Tuesday.

Ihsanoglu announced on Monday that ministers would discuss proposals for the representation of the 57-member Islamic body on the Security Council during their three-day conference in the Yemeni capital.

Pakistan: 17 ex-Guantanamo prisoners released

Another one from the Which Side Are You On Department, from Pakistan's Daily Times, with thanks to Nicolei:

LAHORE: Al Qaeda suspect Hafiz Ehsan Saeed's father died during Ehsan's detention in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but Ehsan said that although he mourned the loss, he would go for Jihad again if given the chance.

Great! Free him!

"I was quite upset when I heard the news (of my father's death) but I will sacrifice anything for Islam," Saeed told Daily Times on Monday. Saeed is one of the 17 jihadis released by the Punjab government after keeping them imprisoned for nine months after their return from Guantanamo Bay.

Talking to Daily Times, most of the freed men reiterated Saeed's resolve to "go for Jihad again." They said they would sacrifice anything for Islam even though they were tortured at Guantanamo.

Yeah, like the old naked women on the chest torture. The horror! The horror!

Their relatives rejoiced that their kindred had been released, but added that the men remain committed to their faith. The men were between the ages of 25 to 30 years and seemed to be in good health. They were released after their relatives submitted affidavits and sureties that they would not be involved in anti-state activities.

United States authorities arrested the men from Afghanistan on suspicion of being linked to Al Qaeda and kept them in Guantanamo prison for three years. Nine months ago, they were found innocent of these charges and given to Pakistani authorities. Authorities here detained these men while intelligence agencies investigated them further. The men were found not involved in any crime in Pakistan.

All right. Then what jihad are going to "again"?

Asked why the men were kept in Pakistani prisons after being cleared by US authorities, Maulana Tahir Mahmood Ashrafi, the Punjab chief minister's adviser on religious affairs, said local authorities wanted to investigate whether the men had been brainwashed and were still involved in any terrorist activity...

Yep. Gotta watch out for that brainwashing. It's unfortunately common in Pakistan.

If it ain't Ahmadinejad, it's his twin brother

Some of the 1979 hostages say that Iran's new President Ahmadinejad was one of their captors. Others say he wasn't. Thanks to PAR, I have here put a recent photo of Ahmadinejad next to the infamous hostage photo in which some claim he appears.

I think it is the same man. What do you think?

Muslim nations vow to end jihad in Iraq

This is probably one for the Bridge For Sale Department, but we'll see. "Muslim nations vow to help end Iraq insurgency," from Reuters, with thanks to the Constantinpolitan Irredentist:

SANAA (Reuters) - Foreign ministers of Muslim countries on Thursday pledged cooperation with Iraqi authorities to help end a bloody insurgency waged there by Iraqis and foreign Arabs.

Ministers of member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) meeting in Yemen agreed to help "rebuild Iraq and enabling the Iraqi government to maintain security and stability," Yemeni Foreign Minister Abubakr al-Qirbi told reporters.

Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari said on Wednesday he held informal talks in Sanaa with officials from neighboring states about foreigners coming to fight in Iraq.

Several countries who share a border with Iraq including Kuwait, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Turkey, are all OIC members.

3 Buddhists shot dead, teachers' homes attacked in Thai south

Mute laborer jihad in Thailand update from MediaCorp News, with thanks to Twostellas:

PATTANI, Thailand : Three Buddhists including a mute labourer were shot and killed and teachers' homes were attacked in southern Thailand, police said, as authorities vowed to boost security funding to counter rampaging violence.

Srang Saewong, 56, a mute highway worker in Yala province, was shot dead in Bannang Sata district as he drove to work.

"I don't see a motive such as personal conflict. He was mute and his wife was also mute, so it's just part of the campaign of unrest," police Lieutenant Colonel Sakarin Bumpensamai of Bannang Sata told AFP.

Chicken trader Tonkui Saephoo, 72, was shot dead at a food market in Yaring district of Pattani province by unidentified gunmen, police said, adding that investigators were still at the scene.

In the same province, 52-year-old Thanat Nilvisut, a janitor at Pattani Technical College, was shot dead as he traveled to work.

More than 720 people have died in near-daily attacks or clashes with
security forces since January 2004, when a bloody raid on a weapons depot triggered an uprising in the three majority-Muslim southern provinces bordering Malaysia.

In Narathiwat province, suspected Islamic insurgents spray gunfire at
teachers' homes, resulting in at least one teacher being shot in the
arm...

Spencer: Death Threats and Tolerance

Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer in FrontPage:

“May Allah rip out his spine from his back and split his brains in two, and then put them both back, and then do it over and over again….Amen.”

“I believe he’s already on the hit list, nothing new.”

“we make dua [i.e., we pray] Allah allows your blood to spill over our hands.”

These are threats I have received recently. Last week, when I spoke at the New York Tolerance Center about “The True Nature of the Jihad Threat,” I discovered that news of these threats have somehow found their way to the New York Police Department, which -- unbeknownst to me until I arrived at the venue -- dispatched its “Hercules Team” to ward off any who might have wanted to make those threats reality. The Team, a group of courteous and accomplished plainclothesmen, turned away one young man with a backpack at the door, after he refused to let them search his bag.

Against that somewhat ominous backdrop, I spoke about the violent intolerance of the Islamic jihad: its imperative to impose Sharia, with its institutionalized discrimination against non-Muslims and women, and its mandate to commit violent acts that is rooted in the Qur’an and Sunnah, supported by mainstream understandings of those texts, and elaborated by Islamic law. I tried to impress upon the crowd the threat that the jihad poses to central notions of human rights enshrined in the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights and derived from the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Bravo for life’s little ironies: after this talk about the need to defend the West from this furious and fanatical form of intolerance, I was confronted by a young man and a young woman who were quite offended by my -- you guessed it -- intolerance. The Muslims who made it necessary for us to have our conversation under armed guard because of death threats did not offend them. My talk did. We had a brief discussion -- until the young man refused to shake my hand and I realized that no real exchange of ideas was going to be possible -- in which I found that their views reflected not just their personal opinions, but a large number of common prejudices and false assumptions about the nature of the present conflict, the meaning of tolerance itself, and more.

The young man, for example, insisted to me that my focus was wrong. He told me that even though he was a Jew, he believed that Israel was a worse violator of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights than the jihadists, and reiterated several times that America is the world’s greatest terrorist, not any jihadist. These are, of course, fashionable notions on the Left and some sectors of the Right, but that doesn’t make them true.

Israel a worse threat than the global jihad? What violence is Israel fomenting in Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Kashmir, Afghanistan, Iraq, Chechnya, Uzbekistan, Nigeria, Bosnia, and elsewhere around the globe? Where are Israelis spreading an ideology that demands that its adherents subvert the states in which they live and replace their societies with a radically different social model that denies equality of rights to women and certain religious groups? Where are Israelis teaching their children that the noblest thing they can do with their lives would be to strap bombs on themselves and blow themselves up in a large crowd of unsuspecting civilians?

I am sympathetic to the Palestinian Arab refugees, some of whom I know personally. But let us not forget that the refugee problem was not created by Israel, but by the Arab states surrounding Israel that started war against her, making the displacement of peoples necessary where it need not have been. Those states also refused to take in those refugees.

It is also true that the obstacle to peace today in the Middle East is not Israel, which has always been willing to come to a negotiated settlement, but the Palestinian Arabs’ attachment to the jihad ideology, which will admit of no peaceful coexistence or any lasting negotiated settlement, but only truces on the way to total victory: the destruction of Israel and reduction of the Jews remaining in the area to dhimmi status.

Israel remains today the only Western-style republic in the Middle East, with the possible and increasingly problematic exception of Turkey. I am in daily contact with Christians from the Middle East, who feel hemmed in on both sides. Most, continuing cultural habits ingrained by centuries of dhimmitude, identify with the Muslims and excoriate Israel. Others are aware of what Sharia means: were peace to come to the area, it is unquestionable that Christians would enjoy more rights and freedoms in Israel than they would in a Palestinian Sharia State (and the Sharia is already invoked in the constitution of the PA). Where in the Muslim world do religious minorities enjoy the rights they do in Israel? Yes, the wall has made life hard for Christians and others in Bethlehem and elsewhere. Blowing people up in buses and restaurants made life hard too. Jihadist brutality and intransigence made the wall necessary.

And America is the greatest terrorist? In this the young man echoed views better expressed by the likes of Osama and Abu Hamza, but let that pass. The fact nevertheless remains that even if the most lurid tales coming out of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are true, they are simply no comparison in terms of human rights violations to the day-to-day record of Saudi Arabia and Iran, the world’s most notable modern Sharia states. To ascribe jihad violence to a reaction to American imperialism is to ignore the jihad conquests that went on for centuries before there even was a United States.

Of course, I was not dealing with the clearest of thinkers. The young man insisted that my talk was about “True Islam,” and that I had said that all terrorists were Muslims, when in fact the talk was entitled “The True Nature of the Jihad Threat,” and I had said no such thing about terrorists (I actually said that there was no global terrorist network comprised of Jews or Christians acting on theological imperatives from the mainstream of their traditions.) But unfortunately, it would be too hasty to dismiss all this as the muddled views of two somewhat under-informed and overly propagandized young idealists: such views are held by millions in the United States today.

Even worse came from the young man’s companion, a Syrian Muslim young lady, wearing pants and no hijab. She complained that my talk did not reach out to moderate Muslims like her -- indeed, she said, it was full of “vitriol” and left the audience more intolerant than they were when they came in. Their view of my intolerance was reinforced, they said, when a New York Tolerance Center official, delighted with my talk (and finding in it no “vitriol”), told me they wanted to have me back next year to be part of a panel. The Tolerance Center official asked me to give them the names of my “dream panel” -- people I’d like to appear with. Off the top of my head, I named Bat Ye’or, Rafael Israeli, and Ibn Warraq. The couple was dismayed: no Muslims! And not only that, but all people identified with “The Right”! I tried to tell them I’d be happy to appear with Tashbih Sayyid, or, indeed, any other Muslim who cared to discuss these things with me, but by that time I was having trouble getting a word in.

However, I never did find out exactly what they found intolerant about my talk. Since I insisted -- as I always do -- that Muslims and non-Muslims must face the reality that jihadists are using the Qur’an and Sunnah to recruit and motivate terrorists, and that only when they face this problem will there be any chance for a viable solution, I can only think that that was their problem. Of course, many on both the Left and the Right consider it in the worst possible taste to suggest that today’s terrorism might have anything to do with Islam (despite the fact that this cuts the ground out from any genuine Muslim reformers, whom they profess to support). Couple that with a Saidist inability to see non-Westerners as anything but victims, and Westerners as anything but perpetrators, and you have a potent brew that clouds men’s minds.

Is it intolerant to speak about the intolerance of others? Is it intolerant not to tolerate evil? Is it intolerant to set out facts that are uncomfortable and that most people don’t want to face? This Jewish/Muslim couple runs an organization that is designed to foster understanding between Jews and Muslims by bringing Jewish and Muslim children together to “celebrate” the “religious identities” of each. How do they keep Muslim children from celebrating the aspects of their religious identity that call Jews apes and pigs (Qur’an 2:62-65; 5:59-60; 7:166) and says they are under Allah’s curse (9:30) and must be fought (9:29)? I do not know. But I know that if they simply ignore such aspects of Islam, they will someday be unpleasantly surprised by a recrudescence of Qur’an-inspired anti-Semitism and violence.

Tolerance is a keystone of modern Western societies. But if it is an absolute value, it is a one-way-ticket to cultural suicide. As I spoke with my accusers that evening, the policemen all around us made it vividly clear where the real intolerance was coming from. Should the policemen have been more tolerant of the jihadists who issued the threats against me, and the young man who refused to let his backpack be searched? Should the British and Americans have tolerated Hitler? Should the Cold Warriors have tolerated the Gulag? “Toleration of the unacceptable,” as Bob Dylan once said, “leads to the last round-up.” I am trying to head that off. Intolerant? Sue me.

Iran's New President: “The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world”

"President invokes new Islamic wave," from the TimesOnline, with thanks to Anthony:

IRAN’S ultra-conservative President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, threw down a challenge to the West yesterday by declaring that his election victory marked the dawn of a new Islamic revolution that would spread around the world.

“Thanks to the blood of the martyrs, a new Islamic revolution has arisen and the Islamic revolution of 1384 [the current Iranian year] will, if God wills, cut off the roots of injustice in the world,” he said. “The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world.”...

More expert analysis follows:

As Mayor of Tehran, he was reprimanded by the Supreme Leader for a similar speech.

“He needs to be put in check by the Supreme Leader, who will make it quite clear that, if anyone’s going to talk about exporting Islam, it’s the Supreme Leader and not the President,” one veteran analyst said.

Yes, let's watch for that to happen. As if he weren't the Supreme Leader's man.

President Ahmadinejad’s win has given the ideological Right renewed confidence and, most importantly, absolute power. Analysts fear that the country is now a step closer towards a dictatorship.

What is it now?

The Shari’a Committee of al-Qaeda in Iraq Publishes Booklet Titled: “Why We Fight – and Against Whom?”

Jihad ideology update from the SITE Institute, with thanks to Anthony:

The Shari’a Committee of al-Qaeda in Iraq recently published a 49-page booklet titled: “Why We Fight - and Against Whom?” which was electronically distributed across several al-Qaeda affiliated forums. Allegedly written by Abu Hamza al-Baghdadi, a member of the Shari’a Committee, the booklet is primarily divided into two “examinations,” each containing several “quests” outlining the group’s position concerning their jihad and branding Shi’ite Muslims as an enemy “worse than Jews and Christians, because they chose for themselves a path other than that of Islam, and have opened the widest doors of infidelity.”

The booklet discusses in great detail the motivation for the mujahideen, explaining that they are fighting what they see as “contemporary persecution” by those who do not follow Islam, or are followers of an Islamic faith they do not hold true. Their stated goal in this battle is to propagate their brand of Islam, and at the same time, expunge the “corruptive elements” within society, including “idols, prostitution and fornication,” and smash the “false proselytizers… and the governments protecting them.” Further, Muslim governments who support Western prospects are accorded greater enmity, and jihad against these “Imams of infidelity” takes “priority over fighting Jews and crusaders.”

Concluding the publication, the Shari’a Committee of al-Qaeda in Iraq assails democratic government, believing it a deification which impugns Allah’s rule and “since democracy is a system that claims to be the highest authority, it must be considered a religion.” Whoever adopts this “religion,” including members of parliament or the people who voted for their election, is branded an infidel and “must be treated accordingly.”

Subscribe to SITE's superb Intel Service and you can get much more.

Ex-Hostages Say Iran Leader-Elect a Captor

A follow-up to this story from AP, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

SAVANNAH, Ga. (AP) -- A quarter-century after they were taken captive in Iran, five former American hostages say they got an unexpected reminder of their 444-day ordeal in the bearded face of Iran's new president-elect. Watching coverage of Iran's presidential election on television dredged up 25-year-old memories that prompted four of the former hostages to exchange e-mails. And those four realized they shared the same conclusion - the firm belief that President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had been one of their Iranian captors.

"This is the guy. There's no question about it," said former hostage Chuck Scott, a retired Army colonel who lives in Jonesboro, Ga. "You could make him a blond and shave his whiskers, put him in a zoot suit and I'd still spot him."

Scott and former hostages David Roeder, William J. Daugherty and Don A. Sharer told The Associated Press on Wednesday they have no doubt Ahmadinejad, 49, was one of the hostage-takers. A fifth ex-hostage, Kevin Hermening, said he reached the same conclusion after looking at photos.

However:

Not everyone agrees. Former hostage and retired Air Force Col. Thomas E. Schaefer, of Peoria, Ariz., said he doesn't recognize Ahmadinejad, by face or name, as one of his captors.

Several former students among the hostage-takers also said Ahmadinejad did not participate. And a close aide to Ahmadinejad denied the president-elect took part in the seizure of the embassy or in holding Americans hostage.

Spain: Two accused of recruiting Iraq suicide bombers

Eurabia update from Expatica, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

MADRID — Spanish police arrested two more people - a Moroccan and an Algerian - on charges of recruiting Islamic militants to fight against United States-led forces in Iraq.

The arrests followed the detention of 11 people earlier this month accused of ties to Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who is a key figure in the insurgency in Iraq.

Ridoune Elourma, a 29-year-old Moroccan, was picked up Tuesday in Puigcerda, a city in the north-eastern region of Catalonia.

Police said they arrested him when he crossed into Spain to buy supplies for a construction project he was working on in the nearby French town of La Tour de Querol.

It emerged that Elourma was refurbishing a chalet belonging to Josep Pujol, son of former Catalan regional president Jordi Pujol.

In fact, he was at the wheel of an SUV owned by the politician's wife, Marta Ferrusola, at the time of his arrest.

Josep Pujol issued a statement saying Elourma was simply an employee of the construction company he hired to do some work at his property, and that he had loaned the Moroccan his mother's vehicle so he could pick up materials.

The other suspect apprehended this week was 31-year-old Algerian national Mohamed Saad, traced on Monday in Valencia.

Authorities had been looking for the two men since the raids mounted on 14 June as part of 'Operation Tigris' in which 11 men said to be linked to Zarqawi and his Ansar el Islam group were arrested.

The Spanish cell is said to have made up a support network for Zarqawi's 'jihad' or holy war agsinst US-led forces in Iraq, connections in several countries in the Middle East and North Africa, as well as in Britain.

Mexico Nabs 2 Iraqis Near U.S. Border

No doubt they were just trying to visit their relatives in San Diego. From AP, with thanks to all who sent this in:

MEXICO CITY — Mexican agents in Tecate captured two Iraqis who had hoped to sneak into U.S. territory without proper documents.

Federal authorities say Samir and Munir Yousif Shana told investigators they were contacted by a person in their hometown of Baghdad, who said he could smuggle them into San Diego.

The two have relatives in San Diego.

New Cover for new Spencer book

The cover of Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer's forthcoming book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) (Regnery Publishing) has been altered a bit from the first provisional cover that appeared at Amazon last month.

The main change is that this new cover contains an enthusiastic endorsement at the top. How do you like it? Just in case you can't read it, it says:

"May Allah rip out his spine from his back and split his brains in two, and then put them both back, and then do it over and over again. Amen." -- "Praise" for the author on RevivingIslam.com

Amazon now has it listed as coming out on August 1. Last I heard from Regnery, it will be out August 8. But that may have changed.

From the back cover:

Everything (well, almost everything) you know about Islam and the Crusades is wrong -- because most textbooks and popular history books are written by left-wing academics and Islamic apologists who justify their contemporary political agendas with contrived historical "facts." But fear not: Robert Spencer (author of the bestseller Islam Unveiled) refutes the popular myths in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). Spencer reveals facts that you won't be taught in school and will never hear on the evening news, supplies a revealing list of "Books You Must Not Read" (as far as the PC left is concerned), and takes you on a fast-paced politically incorrect tour of Islamic teaching and Crusades history that will give you all the information you need to understand the true nature of the global conflict America faces today.

In the coming weeks I will share with you some endorsements the book has received.

Corrupted Scriptures and those who read them

In my comments on Daniel Pipes' article on Allah and God yesterday, I wrote this:

It is not actually Islamic doctrine that, as Pipes says, "Moses and Jesus introduced mistakes to the Word of God." Their followers did that. The Qur'an, addressing Muhammad and the Muslims, says of the Jews: "Have ye any hope that they will be true to you when a party of them used to listen to the word of Allah, then used to change it, after they had understood it, knowingly?" (2:75). This verse, combined with the fact that the Old and New Testaments do not bear witness to Muhammad as he expected, have led mainstream Muslim theologians to extend the charge of willfully perverting the Scriptures to Christians as well, although the charge is not made against Christians in the Qur'an.

In response, a frequent reader of Jihad Watch wrote this to me:

I've never really heard a Muslim ever say that the Hebrew Scriptures or the New Testament were transmitted perfectly at first, and only later corrupted. They don't give the Bible even that much credit, it seems.

While this is true of many -- particularly modern -- Muslim commentators, it is not true across the board. Why does this matter? Because if, as Pipes says, "Moses and Jesus introduced mistakes to the Word of God," their followers cannot be held responsible. But if it was the followers who supposedly corrupted what had been pure Scriptures, then they bear the guilt for their act. And indeed, one of the meanings in Arabic of the word dhimmi is guilty people. One of the sources of their guilt is this alleged corruption of the Scriptures -- which indicates how deeply the concepts of the dhimma are embedded within Islam. (And for the thousandth time, if that is not faced it cannot be dealt with. If Muslim reformers are sincere, let them acknowledge this and work to eradicate it.)

Anyway, here is some evidence for my position. Not only have Muslims said to me personally that the Torah (Taurat) and Gospel (Injil) were transmitted perfectly at first, and only later corrupted, it is in the Qur'an:

"And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which was (revealed) before him in the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and a light, confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah - a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil)." (5:46)

This verse assumes an uncorrupted Injil (containing "guidance and light") given to Jesus, confirming an uncorrupted Taurat given to Moses.

Cf. the classic Qur'an commentator Ibn Kathir on Qur'an 5:13:

"They change the words from their (right) places...) Since their comprehension became corrupt, they behaved treacherously with Allah's Ayat, altering His Book from its apparent meanings which He sent down, and distorting its indications. They attributed to Allah what He did not say, and we seek refuge with Allah from such behavior."

Thus Allah sent it down perfectly to Moses, and the Jews supposedly later altered it "from its apparent meanings which He sent down."

Likewise also another classic commentary, or tafsir, that of Al-Tabari, on Qur'an 2:75:

"...God states that it was a group of those who heard God's speech who did the altering [thereby] stressing the gravity of the lie they brought, after He had confirmed the proof and demonstration for them; and He notified His believing servants of the vanity of their hopes about the faith of their surviving descendants in the truth, light, and guidance which Muhammad brought them. Thus He said to them: 'How can you expect these Jews to affirm your truthfulness, when you inform them by what you tell them of something invisible which they have not witnessed or seen? Some of them heard from God His command and prohibition, then changed it and altered it and denied it. Those of their surviving descendants who are among you are more likely to deny the truth you have brought them, not having heard it from God but only from you; and it is more probable that they will alter the qualities and description of your prophet, Muhammad, in their scriptures, and change them wittingly, and then deny him and give him the lie. [They are more likely to do this than their predecessors who heard the speech of God directly from God; they altered it after they had understood it and known it, intentionally altering it]..."

"They heard from God His command and prohibition" -- which means they received it uncorrupted -- "and then they changed it and altered it and denied it." "They" of course obviously refers here to the Jews, not to Moses.

Here also is Ibn Kathir on Qur'an 5:46:

"...We made the Injil guidance and an admonition that prohibits committing sins and errors, for those who have Taqwa of Allah and fear His warning and torment. Allah said next, (Let the people of the Injil judge by what Allah has revealed therein.) meaning, so that He judges the people of the Injil by it in their time. Or, the Ayah means, so that they believe in all that is in it and adhere to all its commands, including the good news about the coming of Muhammad and the command to believe in and follow him when he is sent."

If people were ever to judge by the Injil, it must in this view have existed uncorrupted at some point.

In fact, some ancient Muslim commentators insist that the Gospel was never corrupted. This doesn't mitigate Christian guilt -- these commentators see the Christian refusal to accept Muhammad as conferring guilt upon them in any case. Often they see the Christian New Testament as it stands as bearing witness to Muhammad, and charge the Christians with perversity for not acknowledging that. Here is Ibn Khazem, writing in 1064 AD:

Since the Quran must be true it must be the conflicting Gospel texts that are false. But Muhammad tells us to respect the Gospel. Therefore, the present text must have been falsified by the Christians after the time of Muhammad....The Christians lost the revealed Gospel except for a few traces which God has left intact as argument against them.

Other authorities who accepted the Injil as authentic: Al-Tabari, Amr al-Ghakhiz, Al-Bukhari, Al-Mas'udi, Abu Ali Husain Bin Sina, Al-Ghazzali, Ibn Khaldun, and more recently, Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, about whom I wrote in Onward Muslim Soldiers. He wrote: "In the opinion of us Mohammedans it is not proved that corruption (tahrif-i-lafzi)...was practiced." Likewise Fakhruddin Razi: "The Jews and early Christians were suspected of altering the text of the Taurat and Injil; but in the opinion of eminent doctors and theologians it was not practicable thus to corrupt the text, because those Scriptures were generally known and widely circulated, having been handed down from generation to generation."

The upshot of all this is that it reinforces the idea, as Pipes puts it, that "Islam views Judaism and Christianity as flawed versions of itself, correct on essentials but wrong in important details." No non-Muslim should enter into "inter-faith dialogue" without a clear awareness of that fact.

Iran's New President was 1979 hostage-taker

Jihadist in the seat of power. "AP Photo shows Iran’s new President as 1979 US hostage-taker," from Iran Focus, with thanks to Solomon:

London, Jun. 29 - Iran Focus has learnt that the photograph of Iran’s newly-elected president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, holding the arm of a blindfolded American hostage on the premises of the United States embassy in Tehran was taken by an Associated Press photographer in November 1979.

Prior to the first round of the presidential elections on June 17, Iran Focus was the first news service to reveal Ahmadinejad’s role in the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran.

The identity of Ahmadinejad in the photograph was revealed to Iran Focus by a source in Tehran, whose identity could not be revealed for fear of persecution.

Muslim Man Sues Homeland Security

I have been doing a great deal of speaking around the country, and that means I have been doing a lot of flying. Three times recently I have been unable to check in electronically, and have waited an inordinately long time at the check-in counter while the airline employee checking me in talked in low tones on the phone. Why? The first time this happened, the airline official, staring intently at her computer screen, blurted out, "Oh! You're on the No-Fly List!" Then, after a great deal of typing, phone talk and staring at the screen, without further explanation or any answer to my incredulous inquiries, I was cleared to fly. Another time the airline employee got on the phone and talked in a very soft voice for a very long time. Straining forward, I made out "No Fly List" mentioned at least twice among the mumbling.

I don't know anything more about this, but I suspect there is someone named Robert Spencer on the No-Fly List. And this fact seems to have caused me minor delay and inconvenience on several occasions. However, even if it caused me major delay and inconvenience, I would never dream of suing Homeland Security or anyone else. I would rather they be overcautious than unduly careless. I will put up with the inconvenience rather than compromise the DHS's constitutional anti-terror activities and thereby increase the risk of more attacks. But here is yet another attempt to shift focus from jihad terrorism to the resistance to it, and to hamstring that resistance. Courtroom jihad update from AP, with thanks to Anthony:

CHICAGO -- A U.S.-born Muslim who says he was unjustly detained and questioned at customs checkpoints sued the Department of Homeland Security on Tuesday over the "degrading process."

In the complaint filed in Chicago federal court, Akifur Rahman said customs agents held him for several hours on four occasions since March 2004 while he was re-entering the country from abroad, even though he had proper identification.

Rahman said he's "afraid of what may happen every time I return from a trip outside the United States."

"This lawsuit seems to be the only way to ... insure that this degrading process is not repeated," Rahman read from a statement.

According to his lawsuit, Rahman, of suburban Wheaton, received a letter from the Department of Homeland Security in April saying his problems stemmed from an "unfortunate misidentification" in which his name could be a near match of someone on a government watch list.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and "the adoption of adequate policies to ensure the reasonably expeditious re-entry" of U.S. citizens whose names are similar or identical to those on watch lists....

The damages Rahman is seeking are not the problem. The "'adoption of adequate policies to ensure the reasonably expeditious re-entry' of U.S. citizens whose names are similar or identical to those on watch lists" is. This is something that could compromise DHS efforts to track real terrorists.

You'll never guess who is behind this:

American Civil Liberties Union attorneys representing Rahman are seeking class-action status for the lawsuit.

U.S. citizens deny charges of terrorism

Tarik Shah and Rafiq Abdus Sabir update from AP, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

New York - Two U.S. citizens accused of being al-Qaida loyalists pleaded not guilty to terrorism charges on Tuesday.

An indictment unsealed in federal court in Manhattan late Monday charged Tarik Shah, 42, and Dr. Rafiq Abdus Sabir, 50, each with a count of conspiring to provide material support to Osama bin Laden's terrorist network....

Prosecutors allege Sabir, an Ivy League-educated doctor, agreed to treat holy warriors in Saudi Arabia. Shah, a jazz musician and a self-described martial arts expert, allegedly agreed to train them in hand-to-hand combat.

Court papers filed last month described Shah's zeal to train "brothers" for urban warfare.

Both men allegedly pledged their allegiance to al-Qaida during a May 20 meeting in the Bronx that was secretly recorded....

Shah is "charged with wanting to give al-Qaida members karate lessons," his attorney, Anthony Rico, told reporters. "The concept in and of itself is ridiculous given the seriousness of terrorism."

Yeah, it isn't as if a jihad terrorist might need to fight anyone. He would be too busy waging the jihad within his soul to conform his life to the will of Allah.

Philadelphia: FBI plans terrorism watch for weekend

From the Philadelphia Inquirer, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

John C. Eckenrode, special agent in charge of the FBI's Philadelphia office, said the bureau had not received any "specific or credible threats" related to Live 8 or other events.

Even so, he said, the FBI's local antiterrorism command post would be on 24-hour duty in the coming days, and hundreds of Philadelphia-based agents from a variety of agencies - experts in hazardous materials, weapons of mass destruction, explosives - would be ready to "deploy at a moment's notice."

Among other things, Eckenrode said, agents would monitor the arrival of the USS Cole, a destroyer attacked by terrorists in Yemen in October 2000, which is scheduled to dock at Penn's Landing tomorrow.

Murdock: Bombers doing far worse to Quran

Syndicated columnist Deroy Murdock (thanks to Mackie) notes the hypocrisy of the ongoing Qur'an-abuse controversies:

Associated Press reports, among others, document how militant Islamists treat Shiite shrines with all the deference the SS showed synagogues in the 1940s.

• June 1, 2005: A suicide bomber blasted the funeral of Mullah Abdul Fayaz, a moderate cleric, at his eponymous mosque in Kandahar, Afghanistan. He killed Kabul's police chief and 20 others, while wounding 50.

• Jan. 20, 2005: A suicide bomber exploded inside the Ghocha Park Mosque in Sheberghan, injuring 21.

• June 30, 2003: An earlier bombing at Fayaz's mosque injured 16.

To date, colleagues of the Gitmo Boys have killed 21 and wounded 89 in Afghan mosque bombings.

Iraq's picture is even bloodier. Examples:

• May 23, 2005: A car bomb at a Baghdad mosque killed two and wounded 22, including 11 children.

• March 10, 2005: A suicide bomber detonated himself during a funeral at a Mosul mosque, murdering 47 people and injuring at least 101.

• Feb. 18, 2005: On Ashoura, Shiites' holiest day, homicide bombers attacked two Baghdad mosques, killing 25 and injuring 30.

• Feb. 18, 2005: A car bomb killed eight and hurt 10 at an Iskandariyah mosque.

• Aug. 26, 2004: Mortar shells pummeled a Najaf mosque, killing 27 and injuring 63.

• March 2, 2004: Homicide bombers, mortars and hidden explosives at mosques in Baghdad and Karbala killed 181 and wounded 573 Ashoura worshippers.

• Aug. 29, 2003: A car bomb outside a Najaf mosque killed 85 and injured 140.

Add the 386 killed and 970 injured in Iraq to the Afghan figures above: The terrorist pals of Guantanamo's al-Qaida and Taliban residents have butchered 407 Muslims and injured 1,059 more in these mosque attacks.

After crying for these murdered and maimed Muslims, weep for the Qurans destroyed. At worst, a May 27 Pentagon probe revealed, U.S. personnel at Guantanamo mistreated Qurans on 13 occasions, only five deliberately, notwithstanding requirements that soldiers "handle the Quran as if it were a fragile piece of delicate art."

In one "atrocity," a Quran was stacked atop another Quran on a TV set. Interrogators twice "either touched or stood over" the Quran during questioning. Most regrettably, a soldier relieved himself outdoors last March 25. The breeze shifted towards a cellblock, and an adjacent air duct splattered his urine onto a detainee's nearby Quran and uniform. The soldier was reprimanded and reassigned to gate-guard duty.

Compare this to the Islamofascist explosions that reduce Allah's words to ashes.

The Women’s Role in Jihad Against the Enemy

More peace and tolerance from inside those password-protected Muslim forums, from the SITE Institute, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:
June 28, 2005

A message posted to a password-protected al-Qaeda affiliated forum, which contains a section concerning women and the Muslim family, titled: “To You, My Muslim Sister: The Women’s Role in Jihad Against the Enemy,” seeks to motivate Muslim women to enter jihad in physical and supporting capacities as part of a larger discussion of a sickness overwhelming the “Islamic Nation” that is hindering their fight against the enemy.

The author believes that a “disease” is ravaging the ranks of the Muslims, causing “misery and humiliation” upon them by their enemies. The disease is considered a “weakness,” which is defined as “love of life and hatred of death,” and is only improved through jihad and “fighting for the sake of Allah.” Here, the message indicates, is where the Muslim women may play an important role and raise men who are not owned by “cows, trees, crosses, and altar worshippers….”

Spencer: “Yes, I am a Terrorist”

No, no, it is not I who am a terrorist -- it's a quote from Time's proto-suicide bomber, Marwan Abu Ubeida. Here is this week's column in FrontPage:

“Yes, I am a terrorist. Write that down: I admit I am a terrorist. [The Qur’an] says it is the duty of Muslims to bring terror to the enemy, so being a terrorist makes me a good Muslim.”

These are the words of Marwan Abu Ubeida, the subject of a Time magazine piece entitled “Inside the Mind of an Iraqi Suicide Bomber.” It is gratifying to see Time being willing to take this trip into Marwan’s mind, since most mainstream media outlets have been singularly uninterested in the thought processes of jihad terrorists. But even Time doesn’t explore the implications of Marwan’s words. And this is no trivial omission: jihadists from Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to Marwan Abu Ubeida have consistently made clear that today’s jihadists are working from mainstream traditions and numerous Qur’anic exhortations, and that by means of these traditions and teachings they are able to gain recruits among Muslims worldwide — as well as to hold the sympathy of others whom they do not recruit. This explains why there has been no widespread, sustained, and sincere Muslim outcry against the jihad terrorist enterprise in general.

Marwan makes it clear: “The jihadis are more religious people. You ask them anything — anything — and they can instantly quote a relevant section from the Qur’an.” He is chillingly forthright: “The only person who matters is Allah — and the only question he will ask me is ‘How many infidels did you kill?’” He invokes Qur’an 8:60: “Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the enemy of Allah and your enemy.” The jihad ideology Marwan reflects is rooted in the Qur’an and Islamic tradition. The longer we postpone confronting that fact, the worse the problem will grow.

Yet both liberal and conservative media analysts do not want to face this. They think that by speaking about the Islamic roots of jihad violence they will undercut moderate Muslims. But in fact, no reform in Islam can ever take place without an acknowledgment of what needs to be reformed. The near-universal refusal to provide that acknowledgment is just one reason why that reform is virtually certain not to be forthcoming. The contemporary problem of global Islamic terrorism will never be solved unless people are willing to speak forthrightly about the nature of the challenge we face and work to find positive solutions. Ignoring or distorting the true nature and source of the problem will only postpone the crisis, and make its ultimate resolution more difficult.

The media is failing the American public on this issue. But the truth will out, if in other venues. It’s time for the direct approach. One organization is taking the truth about jihad terrorism directly to the people: The People’s Truth Forum. On September 21 I will be participating in a symposium on terror, sponsored by the Forum, entitled, “The Radical Islamist Threat to World Peace and National Security.” This symposium will challenge media bias head-on by exploring forthrightly such unexamined dogmas as the idea that regionalized economic conditions and American injustices are the real cause of terrorism, not any imperative derived from Islamic theology. We will explore the mindset of people like Marwan Abu Ubeida who think that terror is commanded by God, providing a profile of the slaughterers of innocents that is urgently needed — and has not been provided by the media in almost four years since 9/11.

Other speakers include the renowned terrorism expert Harvey Kushner, author of Holy War on the Home Front; Brigitte Gabriel, a former anchor for world news in the Middle East and a prominent Arab-American journalist; and Judith Jacobson, vice-president of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME) and the coordinator of the Columbia University SPME chapter. This promises to be one of the few places in modern-day America where you will be able to hear the truth about what we're up against. Get more information about how you can attend at www.peoplestruthforum.com.

The People’s Truth Forum was organized to heighten public awareness about the issues that matter most. The Forum hopes to host similar events around the country in the future and thereby to circumvent the information stranglehold of the mainstream media — a stranglehold which, with its cavalier refusal to face the facts, leaves us all that much more vulnerable.

New York Imam Ahmad Dwidar: In 1995, I Heard Sermons Calling on Muslims to March on the White House and Turn It into the Muslim House

A bit more about that "totalitarian ideology" the President referred to tonight, from an interview with the imam of the Islamic Center in New York, Dr. Ahmad Dwidar. From MEMRI-TV, with thanks to Carolyn:

Dwidar: In 1995 I heard some sermons, saying that Muslims should march on the White House from some of the mosques.

Host: What do you mean by "march on the White House"?

Dwidar: One cleric said in his sermon: "We are going to the White House, so that Islam will be victorious, Allah willing, and the White House will become into the Muslim house."

Host: How? I don't understand.

Dwidar: This is simply a slogan. I'm only saying this to...

Host: Are they going to occupy the White House or what?

Dwidar: No, they say that through the domination of Islam and its ideas, the White House will change.

Host: This will happen one day, but not this way. Islam will be victorious, no doubt, but not this way.

Dwidar: It will not happen unless the Muslims abandon their slogans and become a role model. If a Muslim doctor who invents a cure in the hospital or performs an important operation successfully – all the media will broadcast it live and announce it worldwide. The Muslim who makes do with breaking the wooden podium, with screaming, and with patronizing, condescending rhetoric that "Islam is coming, and it will change the face of the earth," while at the same time he cannot even change the face of the Islamic capitals, which overflow with garbage – this path will lead to no good.

Note that Dwidar doesn't object to the end, only to the means. Presumably if a Muslim stopped being condescending and cleaned up the capitals of Islamic states, he could legitimately set his sights on the Islamization of the United States.

Fitzgerald: First Thoughts On the Bush Speech

The President is speaking about Iraq, and Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald has some initial impressions:

I have been watching someone on television positively hallucinating about "winning" some "war on terror" by sticking it out in a country called "Iraq" where there are citizens who think of themselves as "Iraqis" and who are eager to put into place what sounds amazingly like the American Bill of Rights, after decades of enduring terrible misrule at the hands of some strange regime apparently totally unconnected to the behavior of the gentle Iraqis themselves -- possibly these mis-rulers arrived from outer space.

I didn't catch mention, in this "important address to the nation," of the words "Islam" or "jihad" or anything except some reference to the "murderous ideology" of "the terrorists."

So I suppose Europe has nothing to worry about, just as long as it goes quietly, step by step, and islamizes the way a frog is cooked -- by slowly turning up the heat, by indiscernable degrees.

I feel secure now in the knowledge that my leaders have understood the threat, and are not relying merely on brute force, and have decided to take their stand in Iraq, and after the military phase, to pour American aid in so as to create that Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations which is already having such major effects, we were told, because "elections have been held in Lebanon [where the Christians may lose their confessional arrangement, and the new head of Lebanon is an outspoken admirer of Saudi Arabia], in the "Palestinian territories" [yes, and what a success that has turned out to be, with the performance of Hamas, not to mention the corruption and meretriciousness of Mr. Abbas, the phony leader of a made-up people, who waits while Sharon helpfully writes out his own Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya, and presents it with a little wink -- please do not break until at least 6 months go by], and in "Saudi Arabia" [this must be a reference to the municipal election where the most fundamentalist of the usual fanatics swept the board -- well done, democratic experiment in Saudi Arabia!].

Unmentioned went, for some reason, the election in Iran, where a former Teheran mayor, a tireless pothole-fixer, was elected, and will show the world that in his version of Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations pothole-fixing and fanatical Islam can exist in the same mind of the same maximum leader of the same totalitarian regime. This is something the smug speaker gave no signs of comprehending.

Is Allah God?

In FrontPage today, Daniel Pipes takes up a question that has often been considered by commenters here: is the Allah of Islam the same as the God of the Bible? This is not just a matter for theological wrangling; the policy implications of the question begin to come clear along the middle and particularly at the end of Pipes' article. Says Pipes:

This might seem like a minor semantic quibble, but the meaning of Allah has profound importance. Consider two alternate ways of translating the opening line of Islam’s basic declaration of faith (Arabic: la ilaha illa-la). One reads “I testify that there is no God but Allah,” and the other “I testify that there is no deity but God.”

The first states that Islam has a distinct Lord, one known as Allah, and implies that Jews and Christians worship a false god. The second states that Allah is the Arabic word for the common monotheistic God and implies a commonality with Jews and Christians.

The first translation is 40 times more common at google.com than the second. Despite this, the latter is the accurate one. Bush was right. Several reasons point to this conclusion.

Scriptural: The Koran itself in several places insists that its God is the same as the God of Judaism and Christianity. The most direct statement is one in which Muslims are admonished to tell Jews and Christians “We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you; our God and your God is One, and to Him we do submit” (E.H. Palmer translation of Sura 29:46). Of course, the verse can also be rendered “our Allah and your Allah is One” (as it is in the notorious Abdullah Yusuf Ali translation).

Historical: Chronologically, Islam followed after Judaism and Christianity, but the Koran claims Islam actually preceded the other monotheisms. In Islamic doctrine (Sura 3:67), Abraham was the first Muslim. Moses and Jesus introduced mistakes to the Word of God; Muhammad brought it down perfectly. Islam views Judaism and Christianity as flawed versions of itself, correct on essentials but wrong in important details. This outlook implies that all three faiths share the God of Abraham.

Yes they do -- in a sense. Obviously Muhammad portrayed himself as a prophet sent by the God of Moses and Jesus. It is not actually Islamic doctrine that, as Pipes says, "Moses and Jesus introduced mistakes to the Word of God." Their followers did that. The Qur'an, addressing Muhammad and the Muslims, says of the Jews: "Have ye any hope that they will be true to you when a party of them used to listen to the word of Allah, then used to change it, after they had understood it, knowingly?" (2:75). This verse, combined with the fact that the Old and New Testaments do not bear witness to Muhammad as he expected, have led mainstream Muslim theologians to extend the charge of willfully perverting the Scriptures to Christians as well, although the charge is not made against Christians in the Qur'an.

In light of that, it is no small thing that, as Pipes notes, "Islam views Judaism and Christianity as flawed versions of itself, correct on essentials but wrong in important details." I think unfortunately that this makes it unlikely that some path to mutual coexistence can be based on the fact that "all three faiths share the God of Abraham." They do, but Islam views the other two not as equal or even potential partners, but as renegade perversions of the true faith of the God of Abraham. No Muslim, therefore, would say he worships the Triune God of Christianity, which the Qur'an rather inaccurately denigrates as worship of God, Jesus, and Mary (5:116). Hardly a promising ground for mutual understanding.

Accordingly, I wrote some time ago that "Muslims themselves vehemently deny that the Allah of the Qur'an is the God of the Bible." By this I did not mean to deny the identity between the deity of Jews and Christians with that of Muslims that is claimed in Qur'an 29:46; rather, I was referring to the rejection by Muslims of the Trinity, which is accepted by almost all Christians, as well as to their classification of Judaism along with Christianity as a renegade perversion of Islam, which is based on the idea that the Bible as we have it has been corrupted. The Qur'an even says that "they indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary" (5:17). The Arabic word used here is "kafara," which is related to "kafir," or unbeliever. Thus traditional Christians are unbelievers (and under Allah's curse, cf. Qur'an 9:30).

Linguistic: Just as Dieu and Gott are the French and German words for God, so is Allah the Arabic equivalent. In part, this identity of meaning can be seen from cognates: In Hebrew, the word for God is Eloh-im, a cognate of Allah. In Aramaic, the language spoken by Jesus, God is Allaha. In the Maltese language, which is unique because it is Arabic-based but spoken by a predominantly Catholic people, God is Alla.

Further, most Jews and Christians who speak Arabic routinely use the word Allah to refer to God. (Copts, the Christians of Egypt, do not.)

Quite so. Many Arabic interjections that are used by Christians as well as Muslims feature the word "Allah": "Inshallah" (God willing), "Smallah" (in the name of God), "Wallah" (by God), "Allah ma3ak" (God be with you", "Yalla" etc...) Copts, in line with Dr. Pipes' observation, never use these expressions. They replace the word "Allah" with "Rabb" (Lord), hence saying "Insha'arrab", "bismirrab", "Rabbina Ma3aak" etc. -- as if to divorce themselves from the God of Islam. However, Maronites, Melkites, and other Arabic-speaking Christians use the same expressions that Muslims use, although not in reference to the God of Islam.

The Old and New Testaments in Arabic use this word. In the Arabic-language Bible, for instance, Jesus is referred to as the son of Allah. Even translations carried out by Christian missionaries, such as the famous one done in 1865 by Cornelius Van Dyke, refer to Allah, as do missionary discussions.

Pipes draws these conclusions from this evidence:

The God=Allah equation means that, however hostile political relations may be, a common “children of Abraham” bond does exist and its exploration can one day provide a basis for interfaith comity. Jewish-Christian dialogue has made great strides and Jewish-Christian-Muslim trialogue could as well.

But before that can happen, however, Muslims must first recognize the validity of alternate approaches to the one God. That means leaving behind the supremacism, extremism, and violence of the current Islamist phase.

This is a point worth exploring further. In light of the Qur'anic verses I have referred to here and others, I wonder if it would really be possible for Qur'an-believing Muslims to "recognize the validity of alternate approaches to the one God" -- specifically approaches that are condemned as perversions of the true faith in the same Qur'an that seems to assert (in 29:46) this "common 'children of Abraham' bond." On what basis will Muslims be able to act upon 29:46 but not 9:30 and 5:17? In Qur'an 98:6 the "unbelievers" -- using the same word that is used of Christians in 5:17 (kafara, kafaru) are termed the "vilest of creatures." We're all one big happy group of children of Abraham? Not quite.

Also, I think it is worth noting that "supremacism, extremism, and violence" are not solely features of "the current Islamist phase" of Islam, but are constants of Islamic history -- as Dr. Pipes himself suggests when he notes that the Qur'an itself "views Judaism and Christianity as flawed versions of itself." What is that but supremacism? And that supremacism, combined with the jihad ideology that is rooted in the Qur'an and Sunnah (as I detail in Onward Muslim Soldiers) and has been a constant of Islamic history (as Dr. Pipes has ably noted), becomes a recipe for extremism and violence. Will this change as Muslims come to recognize that we are all children of Abraham with a common God? I hope so. But I don't think a reading of the Qur'an justifies this hope.

Lodi Mosque fires imam

But have they fired the ideology that led to his subversive actions and arrest? From the News-Sentinel, with thanks to PRCS:

Leaders of the Lodi Mosque have voted to fire Shabbir Ahmed, the imam who has been arrested on immigration charges and accused of supporting the Taliban.

"He will not return to our mosque," said Muhammed Shoaib, mosque president, who added that the decision by board members to terminate Ahmed was unanimous. They voted on Ahmed's dismissal Sunday night.

Arrested earlier this month on immigration violations, Ahmed acknowledged in court Friday that he made speeches in Pakistan supporting the Taliban in its fight against the United States. He said he regrets those comments now, having come to see Americans' "true value and respect for human life."

PA trying to get Islamic Jihad to hold fire

Either they are just feigning this whole initiative, or they're trying to convince the jihadists to stop attacking for the time being because they are gaining what they want through diplomacy. Is the PA going to convince them to accept a two-state solution or some other form of lasting peaceful coexistence with Israel? Don't hold your breath. That would go against the oft-stated goals of both organizations, and the jihad ideology in general. "PA trying to get Jihad to hold fire," from AFP, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

JERUSALEM: The Palestinian Authority is holding “serious dialogue” with the Islamic Jihad movement in a bid to persuade it to halt attacks against Israel, a senior official said yesterday.

“We have been engaged in a serious dialogue with Jihad to put an end to the attacks which go against our national interests,” presidential national security adviser Jibril Rajoub told reporters in Jerusalem.

“The Palestinian Authority is still committed to the truce and we will not accept any violation of the agreement,” he added.

A truce. A hudna. In Islamic law, a temporary period designed to allow the mujahedin to gather strength. Not a peace. Not coexistence.

FBI agent says Palestinian professor was bugged

Al-Arian update from AP, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

The government tapped former university professor Sami Al-Arian's phones, planted microphones at his think-tank and intercepted his faxes and computer conversations because they suspected him of terrorism ties, a retired FBI agent testified.

A lot of work to build a case for one man.

'Jihad Jack' pleads not guilty to al-Qaeda link

Jihad Jack Thomas update from AAP, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

Terror suspect Jack Thomas pleaded not guilty in a Melbourne court today to receiving money from al-Qaeda....

Justice Bernard Teague ordered Thomas, who also faces charges of providing support to al-Qaida and falsifying a passport, to reappear in court on January 30.

He has not entered pleas on the remaining charges.

Iran: President-elect renews allegiance with Imam Khomeini

Anybody still fooled by this guy? From the Islamic Republic News Agency, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

Iran's President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad renewed his allegiance with the late founder of the Islamic Revolution Imam Khomeini at his mausoleum in southern Tehran Sunday morning.

Accompanied by some members of his publicity office, Ahmadinejad laid a wreath of flower on Imam's tomb just one day after scoring a landslide win in the 9th presidential election.

The grandson of Imam, Hassan Khomeini, felicitated Ahmadinejad on his victory in the presidential race....

Iran's New Puppet President

The indefatigable Elio Bonazzi and Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi expose Iran's sham elections for what they were in FrontPage:

Hardline fundamentalist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has swept to power in Iran, defeating his supposed “moderate” opponent Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani in the second round of Iran's presidential election on Friday.

The Iranian regime admitted that 7 million less voters turned up to vote in the second round. This is no surprise, since the ruling Mullahs have absolutely no support from the Iranian population. The regime stays afloat by its barbaric means, of course, and it continues to concoct numbers to feed the public. And while Iranians have been wise to this fact from the very beginning, the Western media continues to accept the lies spun by the Mullahs in Iran.

The details of the second round of “elections” are a depressing picture of where the ruling despots in Iran now stand with their own people. Photos taken by Iranians across Iran and posted on various Iranian websites and blogs, show that polling stations were mostly empty and that 30% of the people who showed up to vote due to having been blackmailed by the regime's forces deposited blank ballots into the boxes in protest. The intimidation was widespread: Iran’s Gestapo threatened civil servants’ jobs, old people's pensions and students’ grades and future university enrolment. The poor and rural people were intimidated by gun-toting guards who rounded them up to the polling stations. Even dead people’s I.D. cards got stamped so they could vote.

Read it all.

Fitzgerald: What to do in Iraq (part 3)

Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald continues his series of interlocking reflections on what to do in Iraq with these considerations of what it would take actually to win there.

What would "winning the war" mean? Would it mean ensuring a unified state, so that the Kurds would have to give up the possibility of a free Kurdistan? But a free Kurdistan would give other non-Arab Muslim minorities -- such as the Berbers in North Africa -- ideas, just the kind of ideas we want them to get. A free Kurdistan would hearten them, and hearten other non-Arabs, and cause Infidels to cease to use that inaccurate and dangerous term "the Arab world" which seems to hand over vast swaths of the earth's land mass to one particular ethnic group, as if Kurds, Berbers, Jews, Maronites (who are Arabic-using but not Arabs), Copts, Druse, Armenians, and a hundred smaller groups, including what remain of ancient peoples or sects (Mandeans, Zoroastrians, and so on) or more recent arrivals (Circassians who form the palace guard for the kings of Jordan, who cannot trust their own Arabs, just as the palace guard of the Assad family consist of Alawites, and even a Christian (Armenian) contingent, but never ever of real Muslims (who would destroy the Alawite regime, not because it is corrupt, but because it consists of Alawites).

And what else would constitute "winning in Iraq"? Presumably, having an Iraqi regime where Sunni and Shi'a sit down like the lion with the lamb, and all manner of things are well. Why is that a desideratum for American, or any Infidel government's, policy? Was the Iran-Iraq War a good thing, from our point of view, or a bad thing? It was a good thing. It should have gone on, or at least simmered quietly, forever. And if the Shi'a in Pakistan, intermittently murdered by the circumambient Sunnis, and the Shi'a oppressed by Sunnis in the eastern (Hasa) province of Saudi Arabia, come to feel that they, too, might be inspired by Shi'a power in Iraq, and furthermore, Shi'a in Kuwait and Bahrain have their hearts swell with pride as the o'erweening Sunni get what, after 80 years of lording it over the Iraqi Shi'a, they so richly deserve (and are left with no oil at all, but will have to rely on caravans bringing in oil from outside, on camels supplied by the tribe of the Jabal Shammar), is that a good thing -- from OUR point of view, which is the only point of view that matters, or is it a bad thing?

And what about the "fixing potholes" theory that some in the Administration cling to? You know, if only Iraq can establish a nice stable regime, after a few thousand other Americans die fighting "for Iraq" (not exactly the Battle Green in Lexington, or the rude bridge that arched the flood in Concord, is Ramadi, or Tikrit, or Fallujah), and the military sustains further degradation of the tanks, and the Humvees, and the helicopters, and the planes, and the size and quality of the Reserves, and the National Guard, and the regular army itself as people leave, or are disheartened, and the better potential recruits cannot be recruited, as they might have even two or three years ago.

Saddam Hussein fixed a few potholes in his time. There are no potholes in Saudi Arabia, where the corrupt Al-Saud family, stealing the country's wealth (wealth that neither they, nor the Saudi population, did anything to create, and nothing to deserve), but no one there has any trouble believing in, paying for, engaging in promoting the Jihad -- that is, the spread of Islam worldwide, the deflecting of attention to what Islam teaches and believes about Infidels, and what the history of Islamic conquest and subjugation teaches Infidels about Believers.

Right now, in grim Iran, after the farce of the election, which was followed by the even greater farce of the run-off election, the candidate who was even worse than Rafsanjani, a certain Mr. Ahmadinejad, emerged the winner. By all accounts, he is as fanatical a Muslim as one could wish -- and now that he is in power, will insist that the work on nuclear weapons proceed full speed, a tous azimuths. And Mr. Ahmadinejad won his support as Mayor of Teheran because he was, precisely, a great fixer of potholes, and of everything else. A man who spent his days tirelessly working to make sure that the city ran, taking care of all those little mundane details that big-city mayors must worry about.

And guess what? Mr. Ahmadinejad not only had time for potholes, but he also had time left over in his busy day, and in his fervent brain, for Islam -- not "Wahhabi" Islam (the kind that some people tell us is the only kind that should worry us, including sufferers from Weiss-Schwartz Syndrome), but plain old ordinary Shi'a Islam, the religion of the Ayatollah Khomeini, and his epigones, and of Shah Abbas in the bad old days, which so many charming, and suave people who have come out of Iran, from Ms. Nafisi to Vartan Gregorian, seem not to realize is the real Iran. The Iran of the "Najis" Infidel who cannot even be allowed to go out into the rain (as Jews could not, for if a drop of water landed on a Jew, and then accidentally fell on a Muslim, that Muslim would be "unclean" -- Jews in this century were beaten to death, in rural Iran, for going out when it was raining) is a lot closer to the views of Khomeini than to the Shah and his relatively enlightened, and comparatively benign, regime.

The "pothole" theory won't wash. The Light-Unto-the-Muslims-Project is a farce. The obstinacy with which a few people repeat self-evident nonsense about Islam and about Iraq, simply because they either

1) have not bothered to study Islam or

2) accept the "higher apologetics" and rewriting of history by Bernard Lewis

3) wish to "stand by their man" Mr. Bush, although if the same kind of nonsense about Islam were to be uttered by a Democratic president they would be the first to deride him

4) sensing that the original attack on Iraq was both rational and justified, are fearful that if they admit that this part of the war is wrong and wasteful, the first part will also be called into question, for apparently they are rhetorically and conceptually unable to separate Iraq War #1 from Iraq War #2.

5) have a sentimental belief in "democracy" without understanding the full meaning of that term in the Western world, which goes far beyond mere head-counting, nor how long it took to develop democratic institutions and attitudes, nor in what way Islam not only teaches obedience to a ruler as long as he is a Muslim, that derides the notion that political or any other kind of legitimacy (in Islam, they are all one) can flow from the people rather than from the will of Allah, and that inculcates an attitude of mental submission, of obedience to authority, in every field and in every way, that is inimical to democracy.

Just as Rodney Stark has demonstrated that modern science not only did not develop in Islam, but in the Christian or Judeo-Christian West, not accidentally, but because Islam views Allah as whimsical, rather than as setting the universe going according to laws that could then be discovered by scientific inquiry, we can posit something else that is fairly obvious: democracy is palpably absent everywhere in the Muslim lands except where, as in Lebanon for a time, there was a near-majority of non-Muslims who affected the Muslims, or where Islam had been deliberately and systematically constrained as a political and social force as in Kemalist Turkey, or where both constraints and even attacks on Islam, and the existence of large populations of non-Muslims, at least created the conditions where some kind of democracy might emerge (as in, say, Kazakhstan after Nazarbayev who is, at least, a quasi-enlightened despot in the vein of the late Shah of Iran).

But even if there were to be "democracy" (i.e. elections, head-counting) in Iraq, it would do nothing to help Infidels come to understand the theory and practice of Islam, would do nothing to diminish the two most powerful weapons of Islam -- the money that comes from the oil deposits, and the spread of Islam both through the millions of migrants foolishly, dangerously, rashly, madly, allowed in to Western Europe in the first place, mainly because of the greed for (seemingly) cheap North African labor in France, and Turkish gastarbeiter in Germany. The costs have turned out, especially after all those "family reunions" and those burgeoning families, and then the constant flow of Muslims into both those countries, and elsewhere in Europe, where they have created a situation that is much more unpleasant, expensive, and dangerous, physically and morally, for the indigenous Infidels. How will "democracy" in Iraq help prevent the islamization of Europe?

It won't. It is eating up our money, when every dollar spent in Iraq should be devoted to energy projects to take away not the non-existent "oil weapon" (there isn't one, and there never was: the Saudis and all producers will sell whatever oil they can) but rather, the real "money weapon" that is used to pay for mosques, madrasas, and hirelings all over the Western world. It is eating up our military equipment, for a month in the desert ages that equipment more than a year or two elsewhere. It is eating up our men, who are killed, and wounded, in order that one group of Muslims does not kill another group of Muslims, and American lives are sacrificed so that the very fissures within that three-vilayet "country" of Iraq may be narrowed rather than, as we should sensibly wish them to be, widened.
It is eating up the morale of the present soldiers and preventing others from signing up, and without a draft, the citizen-army cannot be treated as it has been treated. Or rather, it can be so treated, and then no one will sign up, or no one very good, and those now in will never re-enlist, and another generation of the very people who are the ones we rely on, the people who make things run, and protect us, will be disheartened and dismayed, and not quite know why -- but know only that the Iraqis are ungrateful, the Iraqis are meretricious and malingerers and not the wonderful loyal allies the Administration's propaganda machine keeps telling us, despite the evidence (they can't shut up every returning soldier, and the more their story conflicts with the truth, the more they will lose support for necessary, and justifiable undertakings in the future.)

It is a farce. Someone has to tell Bush not only that the invasion was justified, the search for weapons justified, the removal of Saddam Hussein justified, but what has come after is completely unrelated, and not only a waste, but will not, cannot, achieve the ends, rightly understood, of what should be defined not as a "war against terror" (basta con these stupidities -- there is a limit), but a war "against the worldwide Jihad." Iraq is the perfect place to exploit the natural fissures, such as they exist, within Islam.
Instead we are spending money (that should be spent on solar and nuclear and every other kind of energy project, and conservation as well), men, materiel, morale.

Every day shows how stupid this policy is. But reality will only set in once the full malevolence of Islam is understood by a sufficient number of people, and once the inability even of "moderate" Muslims to admit to that malevolence in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira is recognized. The refusal to give defectors from Islam a major hearing -- who in Congress will invite Ayaan Hirsi Ali to testify, or Ibn Warraq, or Ali Sina? -- is intolerable.

And if the waste and the farce continue, and if the chance to exploit the Iraqi situation in the right way is lost, who will pay for this stupidity? Americans will still not be enlightened as to the nature of Islam. The islamization of Europe will continue, while the Cassandra-cries go unheard (remember that Cassandra turned out to be right).

"Stay the course"? But the "course" at this point is headed toward that iceberg, rather than into the clear waters of lucidity. "Don't cut and run" -- again, a foolish and cheap schoolboy phrase.
Where are the cunning, intelligent, all-knowing people who helped check, all over the chessboard, the agents and propaganda and military might of Soviet Russia? Do such people still exist, or their modern counterparts, or is Islam, with all those difficult Arabic words, and the necessity of learning about it from the very people who are likely to be Muslims and offer sly apologetics (with those liquid brown eyes, and the zarf-and-finjan (nicely wrought in Morocco, no doubt) coffee ceremony along with the verbs, and the nouns.

With C.I.A. agents at the comical intellectual level of Mr. Scheuer, who was actually for a while in charge of the "Bin Laden desk" (the very title expresses the misunderstanding of what is at stake), with an F.B.I. that takes instruction on Islam from sensitivity trainers helpfully provided by C.A.I.R., with a Secretary of State who keeps prating about what a great religion Islam is, and how much we respect it (she need not tell the truth about Islam; she need only remain silent on the matter -- why this insistence? It is intolerable if she thinks this is clever policy, and even more intolerable if she believes it).

We have had it. Up to here. Do gorla. Au ras bord. Non ne possiamo piu.

Will someone, in Congress, in the Administration, anywhere -- someone who can distinguish Iraq War #1 and Iraq War #2 -- please stand up?

"The Koran says it is the duty of Muslims to bring terror to the enemy, so being a terrorist makes me a good Muslim"

Ever since I began doing this work publicly my point has been simple and consistent: that the jihad terrorists are working from mainstream traditions and numerous Qur'anic exhortations, and that by means of these traditions and teachings they are able to gain recruits among Muslims worldwide, and hold the sympathy of others whom they do not recruit. This explains why there has been no widespread, sustained, or sincere Muslim outcry against the jihad terrorist enterprise in general.

The mainstream media, both liberal and conservative, does not want to face these facts. They think that by speaking about the Islamic roots of jihad violence they will undercut moderate Muslims. But in fact, no reform in Islam can ever take place without an acknowledgment of what needs to be reformed. The near-universal refusal to provide that acknowledgment is just one reason why that reform is virtually certain not to be forthcoming.

Anyway, here is yet more evidence that it is the Qur'an that is inspiring jihad terrorism. "Inside the Mind of an Iraqi Suicide Bomber," from Time, with thanks to Effractor:

One day soon, this somber young man plans to offer up a final prayer and then blow himself up along with as many U.S. or Iraqi soldiers as he can reach. Marwan Abu Ubeida says he has been training for months to carry out a suicide mission. He doesn't know when or where he will be ordered to climb into a bomb-laden vehicle or strap on an explosives-filled vest but says he is eager for the moment to come. While he waits, he spends much of his time rehearsing that last prayer. "First I will ask Allah to bless my mission with a high rate of casualties among the Americans," he says, speaking softly in a matter-of-fact monotone, as if dictating a shopping list. "Then I will ask him to purify my soul so I am fit to see him, and I will ask to see my mujahedin brothers who are already with him." He pauses to run the list through his mind again, then resumes: "The most important thing is that he should let me kill many Americans."

At 20, Marwan is already a battle-hardened insurgent, a jihadi foot soldier in Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi's terrorist group, al-Qaeda in Iraq. Like the bulk of insurgents, he is a Sunni Muslim from the former ruling minority community. In his hometown, Fallujah, he is known for his ferociousness in battle and deep religiosity. Marwan asked his commander to consider him for a suicide mission last fall but had to wait until the beginning of April for his name to be put on the list of volunteers. "When he finally agreed," Marwan recalls, "it was the happiest day of my life." There are, he says, scores of names on that list, and it can be months before a volunteer is assigned an operation. But at the current high rate of attacks, Marwan hopes he will be called up soon. "I can't wait," he says, rubbing his thumbs with his fingers in nervous energy. "I am ready to die now."...

Marwan's journey toward suicide murderer began just a few weeks after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Before the war, he had been one of Fallujah's privileged young men: his father's successful business earned enough--even during the difficult years when the West imposed economic sanctions on Iraq--to provide a good life for Marwan and his six brothers and four sisters. In high school, he was an average student but excelled in Koranic studies at the local mosque....

Like other Iraqis who have joined extremist religious groups during the insurgency, Marwan severed connections with his family when he joined up. He says he will call them once before his suicide mission to say goodbye. Even though one of his brothers fights for another insurgent group and other siblings help the rebels with money and shelter, he says they all believe he has gone too far. "My family are not happy with my choice," he says. "But they know they can't change my path."

For the deeply pious Marwan, his colleagues in Attawhid are now closer to his heart than his family or former friends. "The jihadis are more religious people," he says. "You ask them anything--anything--and they can instantly quote a relevant section from the Koran." Like them, Marwan works Koranic allusions into his speech. He has also embraced the jihadist worldview of one global Islamic state where there is, in Marwan's words, "no alcohol, no music and no Western influences." He concedes that he has not thought deeply about what life might be like in such a state; after all, he doesn't expect to live long enough to experience it. Besides, he says, he fights first for Islam, second to become a "martyr" and win acceptance into heaven, and only third for control of his country. "The first step is to remove the Americans from Iraq," he says. "After we have achieved that, we can work out the other details."

FROM WARRIOR TO "MARTYR" Marwan says waiting is the hardest aspect of a jihadi's transformation into a suicide bomber. Volunteers have to undergo a program to discipline the mind and cleanse the soul. The training, supervised by field commanders and Sunni clerics sympathetic to the insurgency, is mainly psychological and spiritual. Besides the Koran, he says, "I read about the history of jihad, about great martyrs who have gone before me. These things strengthen my will." One popular source of inspiration for suicide bombers is The Lover of Angels, by Abdullah Azzam, one of Osama bin Laden's spiritual mentors, which tells stories of jihadis who died fighting Soviet occupying troops in Afghanistan. And Marwan is listening to taped speeches that address subjects like the rewards that await warriors in heaven. In recent months, jihadist groups have also begun showing recruits lurid videos of successful suicide hits. A U.S. official in Baghdad who studies suicide terrorism says some volunteers even visit the sites of previous bombings for inspiration.

Marwan says would-be "martyrs" may use their waiting time to take care of business--paying off debts, resolving family matters, saying farewells. Some destroy any photographs of themselves; extremist Islamists regard pictures as a sign of vanity and therefore taboo. Others compile lists of the 70 people Islamic tradition says a "martyr" can guarantee a place in paradise. "I haven't got my 70 names yet--I don't think I know that many people," Marwan says, allowing himself a rare smile. Some dig graves for themselves and leave instructions on the way they should be buried--generally with simple headstones. Marwan says he won't need a grave: "If I am lucky, my body will be vaporized. There won't be anything left of me to bury."...

Marwan says the occasional bomber may ask to be chained to the wheel to make sure he doesn't flinch at the last moment. "If you have any little doubt in your mind about your own ability to carry out the mission, you do that to make sure you don't lose your courage," he says. He scoffs at reports that some suicide bombers are intoxicated. "Those who go on these missions know that they are about to see their Creator," he says. "Do you think we would meet Allah in a state of drunkenness or drugged? It is unthinkable."

Toward the end of the cleansing period, a bomber may ask a fellow jihadi, one better versed in religious doctrine, to help with the final spiritual preparation. Marwan says he was asked to mentor a friend intent on martyrdom earlier this year. He expects his final weeks to be a period of euphoria rather than penance. "My friend was happier than I had ever seen him," Marwan says. "He felt he was close to the end of his journey to heaven." (The friend, he says, blew himself up two months ago at a checkpoint manned by Iraqi soldiers near Ramadi, capital of the turbulent Anbar province, and six were killed. "We made a pact that we would meet in heaven," Marwan says.)

"I AM A TERRORIST" Marwan seems certain he is on a "pure" path. Unlike many other insurgents, who reject the terrorist label and call themselves freedom fighters or holy warriors, Marwan embraces it. "Yes, I am a terrorist," he says. "Write that down: I admit I am a terrorist. [The Koran] says it is the duty of Muslims to bring terror to the enemy, so being a terrorist makes me a good Muslim." He quotes lines from the surah known as Al-Anfal, or the Spoils of War: "Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the enemy of Allah and your enemy."...

That would be Sura 8:60.

"It doesn't matter whether people know what I did," he says. "The only person who matters is Allah--and the only question he will ask me is 'How many infidels did you kill?'"

'My dream was to be a suicide bomber. I wanted to kill 20, 50 Jews. Yes, even babies'

More peace and tolerance. From the Telegraph, with thanks to Doc Washburn:

It was about midday when a young Palestinian woman from the refugee camp of Jabalya in Gaza approached an Israeli checkpoint clutching a special permit to visit a doctor on the other side of the border.

The girl had big, brown eyes and her black hair was tied in a ponytail, but it was the strangeness of her gait that attracted the attention of the security officials at the Erez crossing, the main transit point between Israel and the Gaza Strip.

When a soldier asked her to remove her long, dark cloak, she turned to face him. All her movements were taped by the military surveillance camera at the checkpoint: calmly, deliberately, she took off her clothing, item by item, until she looked like any normal young woman in T-shirt and jeans. It was then that she tried to set off the belt containing 20lb of explosives hidden beneath her trousers. To her horror, she did not succeed. Desperate, she clawed at her face, screaming. She was still alive, she realised. She had failed her martyrdom mission.

That afternoon, on June 21, the 21-year-old, Wafa Samir al-Biss, was brought before the press by Israeli intelligence. Her neck and hands were covered with scars caused by a kitchen gas explosion six months earlier. The ugly scars - which had been treated in a hospital in Israel - had probably helped turn her into the perfect would-be huriia (virgin), the ideal martyr, since they would make it difficult for her to find a suitable husband.

The decision to publicise her case was intended to show that a terrorist threat remains despite a lull in the intifada since the Palestinian-Israeli ceasefire agreement at the Sharm el-Sheikh summit in February.

According to the Israeli doctor who attended Wafa at the Soroka Hospital in Beersheba, she received blood transfusions during her treatment. "I told her, with a laugh, that now she has Jewish blood in her veins," he said, adding sadly that she had "seemed so nice - we got a lovely thank you letter from her family.''

Wafa had been sent on her mission by the Abu Rish Brigade, the small militant faction with links to Fatah. She did not, she said later, regret it, though she stressed that her decision had had nothing to do with her scarring. "My dream was to be a martyr. I believe in death," she said. "Today I wanted to blow myself up in a hospital, maybe even in the one in which I was treated. But since lots of Arabs come to be treated there, I decided I would go to another, maybe the Tel Hashomer, near Tel Aviv. I wanted to kill 20, 50 Jews …''

Asked whether she had considered the consequences of her planned attack, that it might have now precluded access to Israel for Palestinian patients who meant no harm and needed special medical treatment that could be achieved only here, she answered: "So what?" With a flat look in her eyes, she said: "They pay you the cost of the treatment, don't they?"

And what about babies? Would you have killed babies and children? she was asked. "Yes, even babies and children. You, too, kill our babies. Do you remember the Doura child?"

Yes, and I remember that the story was trumped-up.

Then she started to cry. ''I don't want my mother to see me like this. After all, I haven't killed anyone … will they have pity on me?'' It is unlikely. Wafa has become one of a very special group of females: the women who have tried - and failed - to die while killing for the Palestinian cause. I recently visited the Israeli jail that holds these "suicide women" near the finest Israeli villas, in the heart of the most fertile area of the country, the Plain of Sharon.

They are here, and still alive, because they changed their minds at the last moment, because they were arrested, or because, like Wafa, they did not succeed. They are kept in a kind of labyrinth, behind seven, or perhaps eight, iron doors and gates, at the end of long corridors to which few people are allowed access, and which are reached after climbing and descending one flight of stairs after another....

One of the inmates, Ayat Allah Kamil, 20, from Kabatya, told me why she had wanted to become a martyr: "Because of my religion. I'm very religious. For the holy war [jihad] there's no difference between men and women shaid [martyrs]."

According to the Koran, male martyrs are welcomed to Paradise by 72 beautiful virgins. Ayat, as with many of the women she is incarcerated with, believes that a woman martyr "will be the chief of the 72 virgins, the fairest of the fair".

Her fellow prisoner, Kahira Saadi, from Jenin, is one of the jail celebrities. A mother of four, aged 27, she was held responsible for an attack in which three people died and 80 were injured. Zipi Shemesh, five months' pregnant, and her husband, Gad, were among the dead. They had gone to an ultrasound appointment and had left their two daughters, Shoval, seven, and Shahar, three, with a babysitter. They never came back.

Kahira was given three life sentences and another 80 years. She looked pale, sad, anguished. I asked her if the dead tormented her during the night. "No," she said. "Anyway, the actual attacker would have blown himself up even without me. I didn't kill anyone myself, physically."

Who do your children live with? "With my mother-in-law, my husband is in jail, too."

Aren't you sorry you ruined their lives as well as your own? "I did it to defend them. I'm not sorry, we're at war. But perhaps I wouldn't do it again. It was an impulse," Kahira answered balefully.

I think the real reason for what you did was different from the official one. "You're right," she said, "but I'm not going to tell you what the reason was."

You're paying heavily for it. Who comes to see you here? "Nobody came for the first two years, but now my children are beginning to come."

Have you had the courage to tell them you're never going to get out of here? "No, and I trust that God will solve my problem somehow. I tell you again that I didn't physically kill anyone that day."

What did you do? "I helped the attacker to get into Jerusalem. I gave him some flowers to hold in his hands."

When? "I don't remember the exact date, only that it was Mother's Day. That's why I prepared him some flowers."

Then it was February, I told her.

"How can you remember it so well?" she asked.

Because my son was killed on Mother's Day, I said, and I watched as she grew pale and seemed to stagger.

No, it wasn't you, I explained. He was killed in 1998, while your attack was in 2002. But we certainly have an anniversary in common.

At this, Kahira gave me a look that I'll never be able to describe. She didn't utter another word.

Freed hostage said he witnessed killings

More revelations from Douglas Wood, from UPI, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

An Australian freed after 47 days as a hostage in Iraq has spoken on Australian television about the shooting of two fellow detainees in the same room.

Douglas Wood, 63, also told Channel Ten of his efforts to retain his sanity during his captivity by replaying his life, the BBC reported Sunday.

Wood, who was bound and gagged by his captors, heard two Iraqi captives being shot on successive nights in the same room where he was being held and thought: "When is my turn?"

"Jihad..Jihad..Jihad !! Finish with the jewish vermin once and forever !!"

Hot on the heels of our peek inside the fever swamps of the ITS (and they are even more fevered today, but as they are writing material hoping that I will post it here I am not going to oblige), here are some sentiments of peace and tolerance expressed by posters to the Islamic Action Group, a Yahoo Group (thanks to Designnut). They are responding to this news item: Liberating Palestine: Hamas says diplomacy failure, promises to 'liberate' Palestine from Mediterranean to Jordan River.

-- In Islamic_Action_Group@yahoogroups.com, Aeisha Muhammad wrote:

As-Salaamu' Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatu

ALLAHU AKBAR !!

ALLAH BLESS HAMAS AND PEOPLE OF PALESTINE !

The best thing that could happen would be for the PA to be dismantled and for Hamas to take over the affairs of Palestine.

May ALLAH bring down the murderers of Abu Ammar and destroy the PA SO that Hamas may better safeguard Palestine and lead it to full liberation from the jewish Zionist vermin in 'israel'.

Conspiracy paranoia alert: "the murderers of Abu Ammar"? That's Arafat. Who are his murderers? The guys he contracted AIDS from?

LONG LIVE PALESTINE FREE FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA !!

Fi AmmanALLAH
from the servant of ALLAH
Shayhka Maulani Aeisha Muhammad

The response to this:

--- jabrginap wrote:

After all the targeted assasinations, with one of the worst being being the sniper in the plane asking Sharon by plane if it was okay to 'take the shot' and then when told yes, he put a missile in Sheikh Yassin's wheelchair outside the mosque. It is like Azzam said, "there is no discussion, there is no dialogue, there is jihad and there is your rifle". The shaheed motto remains "until victory or martyrdom, it is a jihad" because jihad was written on the hearts of the faithful by Allah himself.

Azzam, of course, was one of the founders of Al-Qaeda. Yassin was the wheelchair-bound mass murderer who led Hamas until the incident referred to here.

The original poster replied:

To: Islamic_Action_Group@yahoogroups.com From: "Aeisha Muhammad"

Subject: Re: [Islamic_Action_Group] Re: Hamas: sees diplomacy failure, promises to 'liberate' Palestine from Mediterranean to Jordan River

My sentiments exactly

ALLAHU AKBAR !!

Jihad..Jihad..Jihad !! Finish with the jewish vermin
once and forever !!

Top Zarqawi aide killed in US attack

Another one down. "Top Zarqawi aide ‘killed’ in US attack," from DPA, with thanks to Eschwapp:

AMMAN — A senior member of Iraq’s Al Qaeda branch was killed recently in a US crackdown on insurgents in the Iraqi town of Qaim near the Syrian border, a Jordanian newspaper reported yesterday.

Khalid Suleiman Darwish, better known as Abu Alghadiya, was among those killed in the operation, the daily Alghad quoted “well- informed sources” as saying.

Abu Alghadiya, a Syrian dentist married to a Jordanian woman, was described by Arab media as the ‘number two’ in Iraq’s Al Qaeda network and tipped to succeed its leader Abu Musab Al Zarqawi....

According to the Jordanian paper, Abu Alghadiya and Al Zarqawi were among the founders of the ‘Syria Warriors’ group in Afghanistan in late 1999.

They later moved to Iraq, where they founded the “Monotheism and Jihad” faction before declaring allegiance to Osama bin Laden and joining Al Qaeda terrorist network, the report said.

Fitzgerald: Countering the Jihad

Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald on how to find a solution to our current problems:

"When I ask her what "solution" there might be to prevent the European collapse of which she speaks, Ms. Fallaci flares up like a lit match. "How do you dare to ask me for a solution?" --- from a recent interview

The word "solution" is the wrong word. Had the reporter asked, or had Fallaci replied, that "what could be done to limit the damage, to contain or reverse the power of Muslims and the Jihad worldwide" then a coherent answer might have been offered, by Fallaci or by someone else.

The "containment of Communism" worked. Communism collapsed in the Soviet Union, and before that in Eastern and Central Europe, and is now coming undone in China. Why? It collapsed because a sufficient number of people realized it was a farce and a failure, a failure in the very area -- the delivery of material wellbeing to the masses -- where it had most insistently promised it would be a success.

Who created the conditions for that failure to be perceived? The United States, and with the United States, other Western powers that countered Soviet propaganda and produced propaganda of their own, that did everything they could to check Soviet power once they came to their senses in the late 1940s (a little late for those countries already suffering Stalin's presence, or that of his local agents).
The Marshall Plan. NATO. Radio Free Liberty. Radio Free Europe. The Berlin Airlift. The suppression of Communist rebels in Greece. The Korean War. The money that went to non-Communist political parties all over Europe. The money that went to support newspapers and publishing houses all over Europe. The assistance or encouragement of various revolts inside the Soviet Union -- the "Forest Brotherhood" for example (the "Leshiye"). The bases everywhere. The anti-Communist propaganda. Decades of it, and trillions spent. And you know what? It worked. A group of people within the Soviet system came to some conclusions of their own about the moral and economic failures of Communism.

This can be done, more slowly, more deliberately, with Islam, and the Jihad that is central to Islam. The Infidel lands and peoples must first learn about Islam -- not from Muslims, or for that matter from non-Muslim propagandists, some of them hirelings, others ideologically wedded to Islam perhaps because it is now the most obvious vehicle of expressing one's hatred of, and alienation from, the Western world and, especially, the United States. They must thoroughly understand the texts. And then they must learn about Muslim conquest of non-Muslim peoples, and how those peoples were, in time and space, treated. And they must learn the kinds of things that Muslim apologists -- including those who are the most effective of all, the smooth-tongued "moderates" who, while seeming to denounce this or that terrorist act, will immediately be defensive about Islam itself, try to convince unwary Infidels that "Islam" has "nothing to do" with this, whether it is bombs going off, or the murder of apostates and others, or the mistreatment of women. Recently, on The Connection, all three of the "guests" -- one Hussein Haqqani, a former Pakistani ambassador, and the still-clueless-about-Islam Nicholas Kristof, and someone formerly in the State Department -- were quite insistent that the Pakistani lady, Ms. Bibi, who was gang-raped, suffered from people whose acts of course "had nothing to do with Islam." That's right, nothing: not the texts, not the attitudes those texts engender -- Muslims pervaded with Islam but whose actions "had nothing to do with Islam".

Here are some basic principles for that policy of containing Islam:

1) Recognition that the presence of large numbers of Muslims is a security threat and one which Infidels need not inflict on themselves. All over Western Europe, it is dawning on people, or rather has already dawned and they are furious that the ruling elites are pretending such a problem does not exist, that the lives of the indigenous Infidels, and of non-Muslim immigrants (Chinese, Indians, Vietnamese, and so on), are made far more unpleasant, expensive (the huge costs of monitoring Muslim groups, protecting likely targets, investigating and prosecuting and imprisoning those found to be actively planning or engaged in terrorist acts), and physically dangerous (Geert Wilders, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and others must now go around with half-a-dozen bodyguards apiece; non-Muslims have found that whole areas of their countries are no-go for non-Muslims) due to the rapidly increasing numbers of Muslims among them.

2) Recognition that the oil wealth that has provided Arab and Muslim OPEC members with nearly $10 trillion in undeserved revenues since 1973 is what finances the world-wide Jihad. It pays for weapons. It pays for weapons projects. It pays for mosques, for madrasas, for propaganda. It pays for the vast army of hirelings, all over the Western world, who have for too long been allowed to make propaganda for the Saudis and others -- hard propaganda, and soft. These include ex-diplomats, ex-intelligence agents, journalists and producers of sham books, academics (who may benefit from Arab and Muslim money in their very own "Muslim-Christian Centers" or simply from a nice King Abdul Aziz Chair in thisandthat), and of course businessmen eager for contracts. Think of how, during the debate over whether to sell AWACS to Saudi Arabia back in 1980-81, all sorts of American corporations doing business there, from United Technologies to Whitney, rushed to paint Saudi Arabia as a true-blue friend of the West --when it was then, just as much as it is now, a place full of anti-Infidel venom, taught from the earliest schooldays, and infecting every part of Saudi life. A few remarkable people manage to fight their way out of this nonsense, but only a very few -- and policy for and by Infidels cannot be made on the basis of an exceptional and nearly imperceptible handful.

Every attempt must be made to diminish Saudi and other Muslim oil-state revenues. Every other kind of energy source must be encouraged and subsidized. In wartime, one does not rely