The enemy has a vote

The enemy has a vote

Gerd Schroeder
This past week some Democrats have been taking about dictating the conduct of the war in Iraq to the President. The bill would, in essence, add a engagement criteria to the Rules of Engagement for fighting in Iraq. In short the bill would restrict the military to fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), and training Iraqi Security Forces.
I’m not sure of the sway that Democrats have with our enemies, but I don’t think the enemy is going to go along with this. Will Iranian-backed Shia Militias and Saddamist Insurgents stop attacking the US Military because Congress will not allow our Soldiers and Marines to fight back? Does AQI, or any other belligerent group in Iraq wear uniforms so that the military can distinguish whom they are allowed to fight, or defend themselves against?
Besides the fact that the US Congress, under the Constitution has no authority to dictate any tactics to the Commander in Chief on how to conduct a war, the Congress certainly can’t tell the enemy whom they are allowed to fight.
This latest attempt by the Democrats clearly illustrates that they have no concept of how to conduct national security.

Major Gerd Schroeder, US Army

Inconvenient Truths Novel science fiction on global warming.

Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romney’s Family Tree

There’s No Al-Qaeds In Iraq?

Radical Islam vs. Civilization

‘Daddy, He Questioned My Patriotism! Make Him Take it Back!’ Way to go Cheney

Friday, February 23, 2007

‘Daddy, He Questioned My Patriotism! Make Him Take it Back!’

Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who upon ascending to that position vowed to govern on behalf of the “children,” on Wednesday called the White House to tattle to President Bush that Vice President Dick (“Big Time”) Cheney had criticized her judgment for endorsing Rep. Jack Murtha’s deceitful plan to place conditions on funding of the US military in Iraq in order to force a US withdrawal. Pelosi said that Cheney was questioning her patriotism, and that wasn’t fair. As Pelosi understood it, the President’s previous call for openness regarding the Iraqi strategy included welcoming insane defeatist strategies from deeply disengaged political hacks.

President Bush, a well-established father figure, (and therefore hated by Congressional (“the Children”) Democrats), refused to take the call, as he was in the middle of talking to some adults. Instead he assigned it to White House Chief of Staff, Josh Bolten.

Townhall offers this account of it.

Cheney Won’t Take Back Pelosi Comment
Friday, February 23, 2007

Vice President Dick Cheney refused Friday to take back his charge that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s opposition to President Bush’s Iraq war buildup is playing into the hands of the al-Qaida terrorist network.If you’re going to advocate a course of action that basically is withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, then you don’t get to just do the fun part of that, that says, ‘We’ll, we’re going to get out,’ and appeal to your constituents on that basis,” Cheney said.

The vice president had voiced the same criticism of Pelosi earlier this week during a visit to Japan, and the California Democrat accused the vice president of questioning her patriotism, saying she was going to call President Bush directly with her complaint. “I hope the president will repudiate and distance himself from the vice president’s remarks,” Pelosi said. She ended up talking with White House chief of staff Josh Bolten instead of Bush.

The long-distance quarrel began in Tokyo, where Cheney earlier this week used an interview to criticize Pelosi and Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., over their plan to place restrictions on Bush’s request for an additional $93 billion for the Iraq war to make it difficult or impossible to send 21,500 extra troops to Iraq.

During Friday’s interview in Sydney with ABC News, Cheney said, “I’m not sure what part of it is that Nancy disagreed with. She accused me of questioning her patriotism. I didn’t question her patriotism. I questioned her judgment.”

You also have to be accountable for the results. What are the consequences of that? What happens if we withdraw from Iraq?,” he said. “And the point I made and I’ll make it again is that al-Qaida functions on the basis that they think they can break our will. That’s their fundamental underlying strategy, that if they can kill enough Americans or cause enough havoc, create enough chaos in Iraq, then we’ll quit and go home. And my statement was that if we adopt the Pelosi policy, that then we will validate the strategy of al-Qaida. I said it and I meant it.”

Asked if he was willing to take back his criticism of Pelosi, Cheney replied, “I’m not backing down.”

I’m with Big Time on this one, especially since he’s only speaking the plain truth. I wish we’d heard more from him all these years.

Traditionalist View on Sex Slavery
by Oliver A Ruebenacker

Are great people immune to mistakes? Most people – even among physicists – consider Albert Einstein the greatest physicist of all times, but would not hesitate to admit that Einstein made devastating mistakes during his career as a physicist; especially that Einstein rejected Quantum Mechanics. However, many Muslims still have painful difficulties admitting that the great ancient scholars of Islam made major mistakes. The traditionalists among today’s Muslims not only believe that there can be no scholar of Islam greater than those who lived several hundred years ago, but they also insist that the teachings of the old scholars need no substantial revisions. How problematic this view is, becomes manifest in two areas: Slavery and treatment of women. This article is about an ugly topic where those two areas overlap: Concubinage or in more modern terms: Sex slavery.

I was confronted with the issue of sex slavery, when I attended a class in traditional Islamic rules and regulations (fiqh) from Fall 2004 to Spring 2005. The class was primarily based on the Shafi’i school, one of the four orthodox Sunni schools of fiqh. Since I am not a traditionalist, my approach to the knowledge we were taught was to apply what sounded right and to dismiss what sounded wrong and I also learned about the Shafi’i school out of academic interest. However, for the more traditionally minded students, everything that our teacher (whom we called “the shaikh”) said was a religious requirement. For those, the class catered to an urgently felt need for religious knowledge, which they felt was necessary to make even the most basic acts of worship valid, and they had every reason to assume that they were taught in the best available quality.

The class, along with a number of other classes, was organized by a non-profit organization whose board consisted of well-educated and well-respected people, including community leaders and popular speakers. There was a ten dollar fee for every student per class session with the possibility of tuition waivers. By now our teacher has left the US, but back then, all classes were taught by the shaikh, who was a traditional scholar not only by subject matter but also by credentials: He had no degrees, but he did have a large pile of teaching certificates (ijazas) by other traditional scholars, who had certificates from their teachers, and so on, claiming to be part of a line reaching back to the Prophet (peace be on him). This kind of qualification was what counted in the eyes of those who ran the classes.

During every class session, our shaikh would at some point start to praise the famous Shaikh Nuh Ha Mim Keller, and from the way he talked about him, it was obvious that the two were personally close to each other. One day our shaikh even told us Shaikh Keller appeared to him in a vision. A classmate once told me in a private conversation that Shaikh Keller considered our shaikh to be the second-most knowledgeable person in North America, right after Shaikh Hamza Yusuf, who is the director of the Zaytuna Institute. In fact, Zaytuna served as a role model for this organization.

The class consisted of one three-hour session per week with a five-minute break, and was about stuff that every Muslim was required to know, or so we were told. We learned about how to pray, how to fast, how to do ablution and other things down to incredibly tiny and subtle details. And every little piece we learned was considered required knowledge, necessary to keep our worship valid under all kinds of circumstances which might arise. Our textbook was “Reliance of the Traveller”, a translation into English by Shaikh Keller of an old Shafi’i fiqh manual by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, mostly drawing from the teachings of Imam Nawawi, whose opinion is considered to be the strongest in the Shafi’i school until the present day. The manual was more than 600 years old. Nevertheless, it is believed that it is this translation which makes the Shafi’i school the most accessible one for English-speaking Muslims.

Years ago, before I became Muslim, when I first learned about Islam, one point that bothered me was that Islam appeared to tolerate slavery, at least according to traditional opinion. My Muslim friends responded to my concern with the classical apologetic logic: They said, Islam tolerated slavery only to avoid a social and economic collapse and therefore made slavery vanish not suddenly but gradually over time. When I heard this for the first time, I assumed slavery disappeared in the course of a few generations. Several years after I became Muslim I was shocked when I learned that in fact, slavery lasted on for more than a thousand years, until the nineteenth century, when international agreements with Western countries forced Muslim countries to ban slavery. It is true that the Qur’an commands Muslims to give each slave the right to earn their freedom in the verse 24:33, but traditional scholars played this down to a mere recommendation, which proved to be not effective enough.

But there was something even more shocking: Traditional scholars not only paved the way for centuries of Muslim slavery, but they also ruled that every male master had the right to have sex with any of his female slaves whenever he wanted, no matter whether she agreed or not. This not only shatters any illusion one might have about the dignity a slave enjoyed according to traditional scholars, it also smashes any hope to find a social or economical rationale for it. To me, this became a prime example for the necessity of reform of Islamic rules and regulations. I thought that any reasonable person would agree that the case of slavery and sex slavery showed clearly that the traditional schools could not be relevant for us today without major revision. Unfortunately, I had to learn that traditionalists do not agree.

Finally, in late Spring of 2005, the day came which turned out to be the last day I ever went to this fiqh class. I happened to meet one of the other students shortly before class, and I asked him how he thought we should respond to the need for revision, especially considering that our textbook was based on a work more than six hundred years old. The other student replied, there was not much need to revise the traditional thought, but maybe only add something in those places where the traditional scholars were silent. No need at all to change anything substantial. I asked him about slavery and sex with slaves, and he suggested I ask the shaikh. And so I did.

And so it came as it had to come. When the class reached the five minute break, I asked the Shaikh, whether it was permitted for a male master to sleep with slave women against their will. He immediately said yes, and he added this was agreed upon by all four Sunni schools – Shafi’i, Hanafi, Maliki and Hanbali. I asked to clarify, so if there was a slave market today, I could go and buy a fourteen year old girl just in order to sleep with her? He said yes, and he added, not only was it permitted, it was also common practice among early Muslims. Ali Ibn Abi Talib, the shaikh said, had children from his slaves. The class was shocked, especially the female students. One female student asked, what if the slave woman did not want to? The sheikh affirmed that this was not relevant. Another female student asked, whether this was still applicable today? The shaikh did not address this question – he did not seem to understand what the student meant by “applicable” – but he added that when agreements against slavery came up the Muslim countries “were the first ones to sign”. The shaikh said sex slavery was perfectly according to the Qur’an. I later checked with a more reform-oriented scholar who assured me that the Qur’an does not permit this kind of abuse of human beings.

Now let me be absolutely clear that this was more than just the words of a crazy fiqh teacher. What our shaikh told us is perfectly in line with the consensus of more than thousand years of Islamic scholarship. Let me spell it out:

It is permitted (halal) according to all traditional schools (madhabs) to have sexual intercourse with slave girls of the age of nine years or above against their will and without marrying them. And when I say according to the traditional schools, I mean it was consensus among the scholars of all classic schools of Islamic law be it Sunni or Shia. It is all over the classic sources of Islamic law where this issue is elaborated to great detail.

Now what the past scholars said is one thing, how modern Muslim scholars deal with it is another. Unfortunately, the question is rarely asked, because most Muslims are unaware of the problems, but if it is asked, traditionally oriented scholars fail to condemn sex slavery. Even some of the most influential contemporary scholars are defending and justifying sex slavery [1].

Sunnipath is one of the favourite places where Western Muslims go for Islamic education and fatwas (legal opinions) on everyday life issues. Ask any of the great scholars living today who adhere to traditionalist Islamic thinking. They will all say you have to put the issue of slavery and sex slavery into historical context, but they will all agree that these are permissible in principle, at best suspended due to the lack of a proper Islamic state. And they will refuse to call it abuse or rape or evil.

If they fail to condemn slavery and sex slavery as a universal evil, then what would stop these immoral practices from coming back in the future?

Slavery was supposed to gradually disappear according to Islam. The Qur’an tells believers to give their slaves options to buy themselves free. The Prophet (peace be upon him) freed all his slaves. We Muslims are supposed to take him as a role model. But our traditionalist scholars still refuse to believe that slavery and sex slavery are permanently banned by Islamic Law and can not come back under any circumstances. And if in ten or twenty years international law disappears and there is a Caliph who fights a just war and takes war captives, then there could be slave markets again, and then Muslim men would go and buy slave girls and have sex with them without marrying them, whether these girls like it or not.

After this, I did not go to fiqh class any more. I figured out there is no use in learning details from people I do not agree with on the basic moral principles. The issue of sex slavery caused me to doubt that classic Islamic schools can be reformed without abolishing the traditionalist approach. Both Sunni and Shia consider Ali Ibn Abi Talib a major role model, and if he slept with his slaves, according to traditionalist logic, it must be fine. But it has also clarified the lines: The position on slavery and sex slavery is a litmus test which helps us to distinguish between traditionalists and modernists rather sharply.

There is an addendum to this article


For a while (more than a year, maybe much longer), there was an article by Shaykh Gibril Haddad on the website of the Sunnipath Academy, originally here, which disappeared, but has been copied by other websites, for example here, here and here. Shamira Chothia, a fiqh teacher from Zaytuna Institute, referred to this article when asked about sexual intercourse with slaves.

There is an addendum to this article

Mr Oliver A Ruebenacker is a convert from Germany who lives with his wife in Cambridge, Massachuetts. Oliver has a PhD in Physics and works as a postdoctoral research associate at the University of Connecticut Health Center in Biological Physics.

Michael Jackson Confirms Conversion to Islam

A is for Arrogance, B is for Baloney

A is for Arrogance, B is for Baloney

By Pamela Meister

arrogance (n): offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride.

During a recent campaign stop in Florida, Democrat presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton made the following promise:

“When I’ m president, I’m going to send a message to the world that America is back – we’re not the arrogant power that we ‘ve been acting like for the past six years. “ 

The implication that President Bush is arrogant is somewhat ironic when it comes from the woman who said (while husband Bill occupied the Oval Office),

“I ‘m not going to have some reporter pawing through our papers. We are the president .”

Unfortunately, Hillary’s attitude is not at all unusual these days on the American Left. While abroad, John Kerry said America has become an “international pariah.” Ted Kennedy believes that our fight against terror has “left America more and more isolated in the world.” According to John Edwards, America can only regain its moral authority by “acknowledging when we ‘ve made mistakes or been proven wrong.” And writing for the Washington Post, Richard Cohen said,

“The contempt the Bush administration has shown for world opinion and international law — not to mention American traditions of jurisprudence — is costing us plenty.”

When you were growing up, how many times did your parents tell you not to worry about what others thought? To do what was right for you, even if it went against what the popular kids considered to be cool? Too many of our elected officials seem to have forgotten this simple homespun lesson. Their political outlook mirrors the social outlook we were all forced to endure in high school: if you didn’t look, dress or act in a certain way, you just weren’t accepted by the self-anointed elites. Even if you did, admittance to the inner circle was not guaranteed.
Should Americans look to the self-anointed global elites for guidance when it comes to our foreign policy?
Writing in American Thinker, Kyle-Anne Shiver relates this tale:

I got into a bit of a verbal tussle with a Brit this past summer – in New York, of course.  He was demanding to know why W didn’t pay more heed to the European interests before starting a bloody war that involved the whole bloody world.  At first, I could barely believe my ears, but then I simply reminded him that we, the citizens of the United States, pay our President to worry about us first – and everyone else after that.  He bolted back that, well, Clinton had cared about them!  I just said that perhaps that was one good reason why his party was out and the ones who put America first – and foremost – are IN.  

Another good rejoinder might have been to ask why Europe didn’t pay more heed to American interests before starting two terrible wars that involved the much of the world. Neither World War I nor World War II were picnics, and it certainly would have been nice if someone in charge somewhere had asked what America thought beforehand. But most Americans are realistic. They don’ t expect France, Germany, or any other country to play “Mother, may I? ” with us when they make their foreign policy decisions. Alliances come and go depending on the needs of the day, but the reality is that it has always been every man for himself, and it always will be.
George Bush famously said,

“A leader is somebody who is willing to take positions based on principle, not polls or focus groups.”

And as far as our security goes, he has done just that. Unlike his predecessor, who licked his finger and held it up to the wind before making important policy decisions, Bush has been steadfast in his belief that the safety of American citizens takes precedence over the good opinion of the world’s chattering classes. After all, he was not elected by world citizens, but by American citizens. In the end, our president is only accountable to us. Not to the French politician who considers the atrocity of 9/11 to be a mere “incident” in history. Not to the U.N., a bloated bureaucracy that has no problem giving Cuba a seat on its Human Rights Council. And certainly not to the angry Brit whom Kyle-Anne Shiver had the misfortune to come across.
It is amazing how all discussion of American arrogance ceases when some kind of disaster occurs somewhere in the world. Then, instead of berating us, the world entreats us to send money, troops, and other types of humanitarian aid to victims of tsunamis, earthquakes, and so on. It is certainly tempting to say “no.” After all, being the world ‘s whipping boy gets a bit tiresome, especially when the whipping boy is expected to extend non-refundable loans in addition to his posterior. But of course we do, because it’s part and parcel of who we are.
Doing what is right for American sovereignty may be considered to be arrogant by outsiders and those of us who worry constantly about winning Miss Congeniality in the beauty pageant of life. But the rest of us should not be afraid to stand up for our selves. As George Will said,

“Most of all, America passes the critical gate test. Open the gate and see where people go – in or out. This is still the country people flock to.”

Class dismissed.

Pamela Meister writes about politics and world events on her blog. She can be contacted here.

America’s Neo-Copperheads

America’s Neo-Copperheads

By Henry P. Wickham, Jr.

The Iraq War has produced a new crop of defeatists as demonstrated by the recent “peace” rallies and the grandstanding of the new Democratic Congress. By defeatists I do not mean those in 2003 who could offer reasonable proposals for controlling Saddam Hussein other than war, or those who want victory but disagree with the military and diplomatic tactics. By defeatists I mean those who advocate action today that would ensure victory for our enemies in Iraq with all its negative consequences for this country.
Unfortunately, defeatism in the midst of a serious war is nothing new in US history.  Our Civil War threatened to destroy the free regime created by our Founders, and it threatened to create a regime in the South based explicitly on the tyranny of slavery.  The serious strategic, political, and moral implications of the defeat of Union forces were not enough to discourage the “Copperheads” or the “Peace Democrats” in the North.  They, like our contemporary “Peace Democrats,” strongly advocated policies for the US government that would have made victory for this tyranny inevitable.
Jennifer L.Weber has recently published a valuable bookCopperheads: The Rise and Fall of Lincoln’s Opponents in the North.  Santayana’s aphorism that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it is one that sounds much deeper than it really is.  History never truly repeats itself, and there are always different circumstances and personalities who must address the serious issues of a particular time.  However, one cannot read this book at this point in the Iraq war without noting strong similarities as well as differences that are both interesting and telling.  First and foremost, American has produced Neo-Copperheads whose tactics and goals are as damaging as the originals.
Copperheads (aptly named after the poisonous snake) demanded an immediate cessation of hostilities, and they reviled Lincoln for continuing the military campaign against the South. One mode of attack was to ridicule his intelligence and appearance. George McClellan, the Democratic nominee in 1864, referred to Lincoln as an idiot and “the original gorilla.”  (p.183) (italics in the original).  The constant references of our Neo-Copperheads to President Bush’s supposed lack of intelligence and his “chimp”-like characteristics are nothing original.  In the dark days of the summer of 1864, even the sitting Attorney General, Lincoln’s version of Chuck Hagel or John Warner, stated that the country’s greatest need was a “a competent leader.” 
The very pretext for the war itself became an issue then as now.  Shortly after the South’s secession and the shelling of Fort Sumter, maintenance of the Union was the primary reason for subduing the South.  However, by late 1862 and 1863, the year of the Emancipation Proclamation, the moral issues of slavery and its abolition became the dominant theme of those who supported the war.  George H. Pendleton of Ohio, the Copperhead Vice-Presidential candidate in 1864, stated that:

“They have been deliberately deceived into this war … under the pretense that the war was to be for the Union and the Constitution, when, in fact, it was to be an armed crusade for the abolition of slavery.”  (p. 80)

The nefarious Lincoln, like President Bush, supposedly had ulterior motives for pursuing the war that were kept from the public.  One can imagine the stickers affixed to the Copperhead carriages:  “Lincoln Lied, People Died.”
As Ms. Weber notes, the Copperheads could never articulate any serious plan for what they would do if successful in stopping the Civil War.  Would there be a Union?  Would states have nullification rights?  Would slavery be extended into new states?  Clement Vallandigham, a leading Copperhead, could never get much deeper than

“I am for peace, speedy, immediate honorable PEACE, with all its blessings.  (p. 33) (Italics and capitals in the original.)

This is little more than unadorned moral preening where mere attitude trumps any serious consideration of the issues. Compare Vallandigham’s empty rhetoric to the equally empty “peace plan” of Democratic presidential candidate, Dennis Kucinich, the little engine who couldn’t.  Kucinich advocates “talks” and immediate US withdrawal from Iraq, to be followed by help from the United Nations.  This plan, like a second marriage, is a triumph of hope over experience.  Kucinich forgets, and I suspect willfully, that when UN troops are not raping the local population and providing cover for our enemies, they always disappear when the shooting starts.  What follows is never “peace,” but such is the preening of our Neo-Copperheads.
There is a long history of comfort provided to the enemy by the “peace” advocates in their very public undermining of the war effort. Copperheads consistently worked against what they saw as Lincoln’s war.  “Confederate confidence soared while Northern partisans bickered.”      (p. 45), Ms. Weber tells us.  Robert E. Lee regarded the Copperheads as allies.  He told Jefferson Davis that the best way to weaken the enemy is to give all support “to the rising peace party of the North.”  (p. 99).One can easily imagine similar encouragement today that is given to the Islamists by our Neo-Copperheads by calls for deadlines, the “peace” rallies, the constantly negative press, and the fatuous recommendations of the Iraq Study Group.
Because history does not repeat itself in the way that Santayana suggests, there are interesting differences as well.  For instance no where does this book mention any Copperheads who tried explicitly to redefine “patriotism” as citizens undermining their own elected government’s foreign policy. None in the North seemed to have had the nerve to call advocacy of Southern victory “patriotism.”   It would take the twentieth century triumph of the Orwellian manipulation of language, and the victory of postmodernists in today’s trendy colleges and universities to bring about this sort of degradation of language and meaning
There are some lessons about our Neo-Copperheads to be learned by examining these wars and their domestic opponents:
1) Both wars produced opportunists who are willing to sacrifice long-term American interests for short-term political gain. Thus, our Neo-Copperheads leak important classified information about US intelligence-gathering techniques to the press, who are in turn, only too happy to use its publication to score political points against the president whom they loathe.  They propose non-binding resolutions to stop the war in order to give themselves political cover for any disaster that they themselves help bring about. That this opportunism aids and emboldens our enemies is of no interest to them.
2) There always seems to be people who want peace at any price, even if it is the peace of a slave-owning society, the peace of the Gulag, or the peace of the graveyard. Our Neo-Copperheads argue, at least implicitly, that if only the US would not engage in military action, there would be peace.  There is the unspoken assumption here that the US is the cause of all conflict, and that if only the US would beat its swords into ploughshares, the world would live happily ever after. So, the mantra of “peace” performs a double duty here.  It generates enormous self-satisfaction among its advocates while it provides the stick with which to beat American policy.
3) Like deviancy, patriotism and its opposite have been defined down. Thanks to our Neo-Copperheads, short of joining the Taliban or actually setting off bombs, it is difficult to imagine any action today, no matter the benefits for our enemies, which cannot in some manner be rationalized as “patriotic.”  The converse is also true. As John Walker Lindh has proven, there seems to be no action undertaken against American interests, policies, and soldiers that can actually result in a treason charge.  Thus, the corruption of language and meaning are not just academic exercises.  It has very real consequences to the detriment of American interests.
4)  These notions of peace as advocated by our Neo-Copperheads are symptoms of a  problem much deeper than mere naivete or opportunism. At the risk of being labeled “judgmental,” allow me to suggest that the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians is evil. Our Neo-Copperheads have no capacity for processing in any meaningful way evil such as this. They deny its existence (killing the innocent is for a good cause).  They rationalize it (terror is the only tactic of the oppressed in a nuclear age).  They appease it (if Israel makes more concessions, we will have peace).  They mis-attribute it.  (It is the free and democratic America that is evil).  Recognize evil and make sacrifices to fight it—Never! 
As the military tide turned for the Union in late 1864, the Copperheads were routed.  With no such victories in Iraq in sight, the Neo-Copperheads are flourishing, and this does not bode well for either the Iraqi or American people.  Many of our American contemporaries are on the same moral plane as those Copperheads content to live with a fractured regime and slavery, and this fact itself is one of those evils that our Neo-Copperheads can never really acknowledge.

Contact Henry Wickham