Rushdie knighthood ‘justifies suicide attacks’, claims Pakistani minister

  Read this backgound

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-06-17-voa4.cfm

  

Rushdie knighthood ‘justifies suicide attacks’, claims Pakistani minister

effigies2AP1806_468x325.jpg
The “biggest evil of the world.” Worse than 9/11. Worse than 7/7

An update on this story. Not just Iran is angry, but at least some in our Friend and Ally Pakistan. And they’re calling for blood.

From the Daily Mail, with thanks to all who sent this in:

Salman Rushdie’s knighthood was condemned by a Pakistani minister today as an affront to Muslims which would justify suicide attacks.Religious affairs minister Mohammed Ijaz ul-Haq reportedly told the parliament in Islamabad: “This is an occasion for the (world’s) 1.5 billion Muslims to look at the seriousness of this decision.

“The West is accusing Muslims of extremism and terrorism.

“If someone exploded a bomb on his body he would be right to do so unless the British Government apologises and withdraws the ‘Sir’ title.”

Later, the remarks were said to have been denied by the minister concerned….

In Pakistan today Muslim students burned effigies of Queen Elizabeth II and Rushdie as the author’s knighthood continued to cause outrage.

In the eastern city of Multan about 100 students set fire to the effigies and carried banners condemning the author while chanting “Kill him! Kill him!”

Also today Pakistani lawmakers passed a government-backed resolution demanding Britain withdraw the honour which they insist is an insult to the religious sentiments of Muslims.

A Proposed Constitutional Amendment

Thursday, February 08, 2007

A Proposed Constitutional Amendment

Background and justification to Amendment 28

Whereas Religion is defined as an institution dedicated to improving social conscience and promoting individual and societal spiritual growth in a way that is harmless to others not participating in or practicing the same;

Whereas the United States of America was founded on the ideals of individual rights, including the individual right to practice one’s religion of choice, or no religion, and that there would be no compulsion of religion, nor state sanctioned religion, nor a “religious test” for participation in the body politic;

Whereas Islam includes a complete political and social structure, encompassed by its religious law, Sharia, that supersedes any civil law and that Islam mandates that no secular or democratic institutions are to be superior to Islamic law;

Whereas Islam preaches that it and it alone is the true religion and that Islam will dominate the world and supplant all other religions and democratic institutions;

Whereas Saudi Arabia, the spiritual home of Islam does not permit the practice of any other religion on its soil and even “moderate” Muslims states such as Turkey and Malaysia actively suppress other religions;

Whereas Islam includes as its basic tenet the spread of the faith by any and all means necessary, including violent conquest of non-believers, and demands of its followers that they implement violent jihad (holy war) against those un-willing to convert or submit to Islam, including by deception and subversion of existing institutions;

Whereas on 9/11/2001 19 Muslim hijackers acting in the name of Islam killed 3,000 Americans, and numerous other acts of terrorism have been directed at the American people around the world;

Whereas representatives of Islam around the world including Osama Bin Laden (architect of 9/11), the government of Iran including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, HAMAS, Hezbollah, and other Islamic groups have declared jihad (war) on America, and regularly declare that America should cease to exist;

Whereas there is no organized Islamic opposition to violent proponents of Islam;

Therefore: Islam is not a religion, but a political ideology more akin to Fascism and totally in opposition to the ideals of freedom as described in the United States Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights.

Be it resolved that the following Amendment to the Constitution be adopted:

Article I

The social/political/ideological system known around the world as Islam is not recognized in the United States as a religion.

The practice of Islam is therefore not protected under the 1st Amendment as to freedom of religion and speech.

Article II

As representatives of Islam around the world have declared war, and committed acts of war, against the United States and its democratic allies around the world, Islam is hereby declared an enemy of the United States and its practice within the United States is now prohibited.

Article III

Immediately upon passage of this Amendment all Mosques, schools and Muslim places of worship and religious training are to be closed, converted to other uses, or destroyed. Proceeds from sales of such properties may be distributed to congregations of said places but full disclosure of all proceeds shall be made to an appropriate agency as determined by Congress. No compensation is to be offered by Federal or State agencies for losses on such properties however Federal funding is to be available for the demolishing of said structures if other disposition cannot be made.

The preaching of Islam in Mosques, Schools, and other venues is prohibited. The subject of Islam may be taught in a post high school academic environment provided that instruction include discussion of Islam’s history of violence, conquest, and its ongoing war on democratic and other non-Islamic values.

The preaching or advocating of Islamic ideals of world domination, destruction of America and democratic institutions, jihad against Judaism, Christianity and other religions, and advocating the implementation of Sharia law shall in all cases be punishable by fines, imprisonment, deportation, and death as prescribed by Congress. Violent expressions of these and other Muslim goals, or the material support of those both in the United States and around the world who seek to advance these Islamic goals shall be punishable by death.

Muslims will be denied the opportunity to immigrate to the United States.

Article IV

Nothing in this amendment shall be construed as authorizing the discrimination against, of violence upon, nor repudiation of the individual rights of those Americans professing to be Muslim. The individual right of conscience is sacrosanct and the practice of Islam within the privacy of home and self is strictly protected to the extent that such individuals do not violate the prohibitions described in Article III.

http://pedestrianinfidel.blogspot.com/2007/02/proposed-constitutional-amendment.html

Alert: 10,000 Troops Storm Diyala

Alert: 10,000 Troops Storm Diyala

Apocalypse now

The crime here is, this was all predicted on this website since mid-April, but not in the MSM. They gave us only body counts without context, instead of the narrative of the campaign that was leading to this final showdown with Al Qaeda in Diyala. See the links in the opening sentence of the post below to see how long I’ve been laying this out. Mid April. As exploding bridges and other horrific acts of violence ripped Baghdad and its environs, we knew that they were the violent, desperate acts of the cornered Al Qaeda beast. But the MSM and Congress wanted you to believe they were all signs of hopelesness instead of the darkly ironic signs of true hope that were. This is a dark, shameful age in America.

AP News Alert Jun 19 02:13 AM US/Eastern

BAGHDAD (AP) – The U.S. military says about 10,000 American troops have launched an offensive against al-Qaida in Iraq in Diyala province, northeast of Baghdad. The assault, dubbed “Operation Arrowhead Ripper,” took place in Baqouba, the capital of Diyala province, and involved air assaults under the cover of darkness, the military said in a statement. The operation was still in its opening stages, it said. On Monday, military officials said U.S. and Iraqi forces had launched attacks on Baghdad’s northern and southern flanks to clear out Sunni insurgents, al-Qaida fighters and Shiite militiamen who had fled the capital and Anbar during a four-month-old security operation.

Posted by Pat Dollard 27 Comments

Meanwhile, The Brits Are Also Conducting A Major Assault On Iran’s Forces

Meanwhile, The Brits Are Also Conducting A Major Assault On Iran’s

Forces

challenger_2_main_battle_tank_iraq_war_uk_british_09.jpg

The battle between the Brits and IA and Iranian terror groups including large elements of the Mahdi Army, was just the opening salvo in a large ongoing operation to hammer Iran’s terror offensive in Southern Iraq, particularly along the Iraq/Iran border. According to the Iraqi paper Azzaman: “the British Army has begun a major operation against what it claims to be “secret cells” smuggling weapons into Iraq from Iran, and sending fighters for training in the Islamic Republic.” At long last, a real, concerted campaign against Iran in Iraq has begun. And given that Al Sadr’s men of the Mahdi Army, if he indeed still retains real control of the elements involved here, this is a potentially politically explosive development as well, because Al Sadr’s has been forced to distance himself from Iran in order to solidify his power at home. So it both puts him between the rock of his domestic interests and the hard place of his Iranian interests, and will either way leave him none too happy to see his men getting whacked. It’ll certainly be interesting to see how this plays out.

Amidst this campaign, a notable battle is erupting between the Brits and the Mahdi Army for control of Nasiriya.

The paper is reporting that the Iranian insugents “immediately mobilized” in defense and counterattack.

Developing, as the campaign plays out…let’s wish the Brits and Iraqi Army Godspeed…

UPDATE: Iranian news agency says Al Sadr is pissed.

Posted by Pat Dollard 13 Comments

Security first, No amnesty

Radical Islam’s “End-Game”

Flashback: Immigration fraud and the Presidency

Flashback: Immigration fraud and the Presidency

James Lewis
Do you remember the name Doris Meissner? Ms. Meissner was Bill and Hillary Clinton’s Administrator of the INS (Immigration & Naturalization Service). Before Clinton ran for his second term in 1996, Meissner ensured that hundreds of thousands of illegals were fraudulently legalized, just in time to vote for the Clintons.  
Among those intimately involved with this massive Democrat immigration fraud were Rahm Emanuel, the architect of the 2006 Democrat Congressional takeover, and Al Gore, currently playing Planetary Prophet of Doom to loud acclaim around the world. Hillary must have known all about the immigration scam, since the Clintons were running for re-election. Oh, and by the way, Mohammed Atta was found and released twice by the INS for immigration violations. Before he knocked down the Twin Towers and killed 3,000 Americans.
According to David Schippers, one of the few honest Democrats left in the country, writing in the Wall Street Journal,

“In the end, the (Clinton-Gore) White House got their one million voters and re-election. The U.S. got 75,000 new citizens who had arrest records when they applied; an additional 115,000 citizens whose fingerprints were unclassifiable and were never resubmitted; and a final 61,000 who were given citizenship without even having their fingerprints submitted so that no check was possible…
In June 1998, we undertook to again pick up the investigation of the program. Our interest intensified when we heard that a similar plan may be in the works for the 2000 presidential election. Among other things, we wanted to find out if the criminals who were given citizenship in 1996 were continuing their criminal activity in the two years since. My staff pulled out about 100 of the most violent or serious crimes that were committed by aliens prior to naturalization and documented by arrest records…
Of those 100 records, some 20% showed arrests for serious crimes after the subject was given citizenship. The charges included murder, rape and child sexual abuse. Based on those results, we resolved to ask for updates on every arrest record. Had we been given enough time to put together evidence and witnesses, Citizenship USA might even have figured in Mr. Clinton’s impeachment trial.”

The 1995-6 Clinton INS fraud is critically relevant today, with the Senate immigration bill playing Godzilla Returns, not to mention Hillary running for eight more years.
Here’s a guess: The USG immigration bureaucracy is rife with corruption. Why? Because with immigration from Mexico come huge amounts of drugs, with drugs come billions of dollars, and with massive amount of money comes pervasive corruption. The Doris Meissner saga says as much. That doesn’t mean everybody in the Border Patrol and INS is tainted. You don’t have to corrupt everybody. It does suggest that the US Government is getting Mexicanized, long before Mexican immigrants can become Americanized.
That means that we need to do more than defeat the present pathetic immigration bill before the Senate. We must elect a new president in 2008 who can change the bureaucracy.
I’m impressed by Mitt Romney and Rudi Giuliani, because they have been administrators in Democrat-populated governments, Rudi in New York City and Mitt in Massachussetts. Both were strikingly successful in making their turgid bureaucracies finally work on behalf of ordinary citizens. Fred Tompson also looks like a man of integrity – but he may not have the mojo to win over the bunkered bureaucracy, just as George W. Bush  has not been able to move the set-in-concrete establishment in Washington.
(Needless to say, Hillary is hopeless from an immigration point of view; my guess is that Obama is, too.)
Only a new president with guts, integrity, managerial skills and the determination to solve the problem can handle this one.
It can be done, because it has been done before.
In an important piece in the Christian Science Monitor John Dillin described “How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico.”

Fifty-three years ago, when newly elected Dwight Eisenhower moved into the White House, America’s southern frontier was as porous as a spaghetti sieve. As many as 3 million illegal migrants had walked and waded northward over a period of several years for jobs in California, Arizona, Texas, and points beyond.
President Eisenhower cut off this illegal traffic. He did it quickly and decisively with only 1,075 United States Border Patrol agents – less than one-tenth of today’s force. The operation is still highly praised among veterans of the Border Patrol.
… In 1954, Ike appointed retired Gen. Joseph “Jumpin’ Joe” Swing, a former West Point classmate and veteran of the 101st Airborne, as the new INS commissioner.
Influential politicians, including Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D) of Texas and Sen. Pat McCarran (D) of Nevada, favored open borders, and were dead set against strong border enforcement, Brownell said. But General Swing’s close connections to the president shielded him – and the Border Patrol – from meddling by powerful political and corporate interests.

Sounds familiar? Yes.
By mid-June of 1954,

Some 750 agents swept northward through agricultural areas (in California and Arizona) with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions a day. By the end of July, over 50,000 aliens were caught in the two states. Another 488,000, fearing arrest, had fled the country. … By mid-July, the crackdown extended northward into Utah, Nevada, and Idaho, and eastward to Texas. … By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and an estimated 500,000 to 700,000 illegals had left the Lone Star State voluntarily.

This was the World War II generation in action. We might do it differently today, as suggested by New Gingrich and Mitt Romney. There are many ways to make the system work again.
The point is that immigration enforcement has worked before. It can work again.
Today, entrenched establishment interests want to subvert the border again. We are back in 1954. Corruption is part of the picture.
The one advantage we have today is an aroused citizenry with the blogosphere as a megaphone with a million voices.
Electing an effective president next year is at least as important as defeating the pathetic immigration bill today.
And we need to keep up the pressure.
It can be done.
James Lewis blogs at dangeroustimes.wordpress.com/

A Bipartisan Compromise or a Conservative Sellout?

A Bipartisan Compromise or a Conservative

Sellout?

By Vasko Kohlmayer

It is the conventional wisdom in many quarters that the soon-to-be-revived immigration bill is a good thing, because it is the result of a grand bipartisan compromise. Leaving aside the implied notion that bipartisan compromises are somehow inherently good, the above is a completely inaccurate assessment of this piece of legislation.
If the bill indeed represents a compromise what is there in it for conservatives? In the open borders and across-the-board amnesty liberals have been handed everything they have ever wanted in connection with immigration. Conservatives, on the other hand, have been given… er… er… er…
 

Never mind. The bill is a great compromise anyway.
 

One should always become suspicious when the media and political establishment hail anything as a bipartisan compromise. What this usually means is that the Republicans have come out of the ‘negotiation’ process laughably empty-handed. In return for their gullibility, they get a couple of favorable pieces in print and invitations on leftwing TV network talk shows where they are praised for their sound judgment and wisdom. The adoration invariably lasts until the next time they vote on conservative principle or run against a liberal opponent, whichever comes first.
 

We know that things are getting really bad when Republicans are targeted for praise by their sworn enemies for putting the good of the country above conservative allegiances. It is a truth not often spoken but plainly obvious that many liberals do not like their own country and consequently pursue policies which they hope will harm it. Nothing could illustrate this better than the current immigration bill, for how can the open borders and amnesty be good for America? Only a madman or a seriously deluded republican could ever think so.
 

Rather than letting themselves be played for suckers, Senate Republicans would do well to read the first page of the liberal playbook which is inscribed with Winston Churchill’s famous dictum:

“Never give in, never give in, never; never; never; never – in nothing, great or small, large or petty – never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense.”

The first part liberals heed with fanatical zeal as they would rather shout ‘bigot’ and ‘racist’ a thousand times than to give one inch to the other side. The latter part they also keep close to their hearts but in a perfectly inverted manner, ready as they are always to give in where honor and good sense are concerned. This is why they almost never tell the truth or advocate policies that actually work. Case in point: open borders and amnesties.
 

If anything, the Democrats must have been shocked by how easily they got everything they could ever dream of in that grand ‘compromise.’ The Republican sellout was complete and, somewhat surprisingly, entirely voluntary. The Democrats received it all on a silver platter and they did not even have to dance for it.
 

To be fair, there was one issue where the Republicans were prepared to drive a hard bargain. On May 23, Senator John Cornyn introduced an amendment which would have made felons ineligible for the proposed amnesty. Needless to say, the Democrats – in the spirit of bipartisanship – categorically refused to give any ground and the Cornyn amendment went down to a stinging defeat. One can almost hear the celebrations in the illegal felon ranks.
 

The immigration bill travesty has brought home one truth which many conservatives have long tried to ignore – many among the Washington Republicans are for all practical purposes merely moderate liberals in disguise. Disquieting as it is, extravagant spending, burgeoning government bureaucracies, cynical earmarking, needless deficits and uncontrolled immigration are no longer exclusively Democrat priorities. Having essentially the same objectives as their more radical colleagues on the other side, the only real difference is the pace at which Republicans strive to bring these about.
 

The one clearly remaining difference is in the area of military and foreign policy where Democrats doggedly and unashamedly strive for America’s defeat. But there are signs that some Republicans are at last coming around on this issue as well.
 

It is as telling as it is worrisome that Teddy Kennedy has become the favorite of many D.C. Republicans. George W. Bush, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Michael Chertoff and Jon Kyl are only some among many who have in recent months heaped praise and plaudits on the man whom USA Today calls the Lion of Massachusetts. It apparently does not bother them that during his four decades in the Senate this man has wrought incalculable damage on the United States much of which was effected through his support and sponsorship of bungled immigration legislation in the past.
 

The Republican love affair with Kennedy is difficult to understand given that even many Democrats – especially those seeking office – are loath to publicly taunt their ties with him. How often do we see Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or John Edwards these days boasting about their friendship with Teddy Kennedy as they traverse America in hunt for votes? They know better, aware as they are of just how despised he is by the majority of the American electorate.
The Washington Republicans, however, have for some reason failed to take note of this. One really wonders what kind of spell Kennedy has cast on those feckless ones to snooker them so. I am really starting to suspect that the Lion of Massachusetts is in possession of some dark powers of which we know nothing about.
 

If this is indeed so, we better quickly find what they are and come up with an antidote to his black magic as time is running out fast. A heightened sense of urgency should be the order of the day for all those who care for this country’s continued well-being, because America may not survive another Kennedy-induced immigration disaster.
Contact Vasko Kohlmayer

Immigration and Amnesty

Immigration and Amnesty
By John Ellis
FrontPageMagazine.com | June 19, 2007

In all of the national debate over the immigration bill, no word has created more heat than “amnesty”.  Both side obsess over it.  One insists that the bill backed by the President and a majority of congressional Democrats is above all an “amnesty” bill, the other that—in the words of a recent Wall Street Journal editorial—this is the “amnesty” canard.  Both sides thus seem to agree that the amnesty charge is, if true, lethal.  But in thinking this both sides are hopelessly wrong, and so misconceive the real case against the bill. 

To get a clearer sight of what is really happening, let’s move the discussion to another area of the law, and imagine for the moment a general amnesty for bank-robbers.  What would that actually mean?  Simply that all crimes of a certain kind committed up to the date of the amnesty will be forgiven and not prosecuted.  Now let’s suppose we offer amnesty to all bank-robbers who will come forward to confess their crimes and have them entered into a record of those for which amnesty had been claimed and granted.  But now a particular bank-robber, noticing how eager the authorities are to get him into the program, decides to bargain for more.  “Can I keep my loot?” he says.

 

The correct answer naturally has to be:  Don’t be ridiculous.  “Amnesty” means we won’t prosecute you for the crimes you have committed up to now—not that you can profit from those crimes by keeping what you stole.  Of course you have to give it back.  But instead the authorities are so eager to have the robber take the deal that they say: Yes, we’ll let you keep what you stole.  Sensing weakness, the robber pushes even harder.  I want to go on doing what I have been doing, he says.  Can you change the law so that for me and people like me it will be made legal and I can just go on doing it?

 

That may sound too absurd to merit further discussion, but bear with me.  Instead of insisting that amnesty just means forgiveness of past crimes, not legalizing them, the authorities say, in effect: all right, we’ll change the law to create an exception for you so that you can go on behaving exactly as you have been doing.

 

By now the bank robber senses that the authorities will do anything to get him into the program, and he asks for a reward on top of everything else.  And sure enough, he is given a handsome reward worth a great deal of money.  But at the last minute, the authorities, becoming aware that what they are doing looks ridiculous, say sternly to him:  but you have to agree to a fine of $5000.  The robber, looking at the much greater value of what he has ripped off, what he can continue to rip off, and the reward, sensibly understands that the fine is a trivial face-saver and accepts the deal.  At which point the robber naturally phones his friends to say:  take up bank-robbing quick, you won’t believe the deal you’ll be offered—the government has gone crazy.

 

This ought to be just a risible fantasy  The trouble is, it’s not fantasy at all: it’s what the immigration bill actually proposes.  That bill says that we’ll not only forgive you your crimes to date and not prosecute you for them (the real meaning of amnesty).  We’ll also let you profit from your crime by keeping what you have illegally taken (presence in the US), and we’ll amend the law so that it does not apply to you at all and so that you can go on doing what you have been doing (the Y visas) though the old law will still apply to others who have never committed the crime you committed, and on top of all that we’ll give you a valuable reward too (citizenship with all its many benefits).

 

The debate as to whether this an amnesty bill is both foolish and irrelevant.  Foolish, because there can be no doubt that general forgiveness of a particular crime is an amnesty; irrelevant, because the distinguishing feature of this bill is not amnesty, but amnesty plus, and it is the plus that is really objectionable.  I have nothing against an amnesty: there have been many situations in human history where it made sense to issue a mass forgiveness in order to start again with a clean slate but without damaging the concept of law.  But this bill encourages law-breaking by letting law-breakers profit from their crimes, it rewards law-breaking by offering a highly valuable prize to those who have broken the law, and it accommodates law-breaking by building a special place into the law only for those who have broken it.  Can a society of laws really afford to take so cavalier an attitude to its laws?   What will become of us if we so recklessly encourage and reward violation of our laws?  Well, we have already had a lesson if only we had been prepared to see it as that.  In 1986 we gave this kind of amnesty plus to some 3 million people.  The immediate result was a vastly greater number of people–at least 12 million–breaking that same law.  And why not, when we gave them so much encouragement to do so?  With this second and much larger amnesty plus, what numbers of law-breakers can we expect this time, after we have made our determination to encourage and reward the breaking of our laws even clearer?  30 million?

 

Proponents of the bill think they have a clinching argument:  the 12 million are here.  What are you going to do with them?  But the real clincher is the other way round:  the 12 million are indeed here.   And so whatever we do, we must not make again the same mistake which produced that unwanted situation.

 

Is it so hard to find a way of dealing with the reality of those 12 million being here that does not encourage, accommodate, and reward law-breaking but instead gives people incentives to obey our laws?  Of course not.  I’ll give one suggestion;  I am sure there will be others. 

 

We could begin by announcing a guest worker program that responds to labor market conditions rather than to a specific target number.  It would have several key provisions that work together as a system.  First, permission to hire guest workers will be granted solely to employers, and only upon a showing of need.  Second, any employer found guilty of knowingly employing illegal aliens forfeits the right to take part in the guest worker program for at least ten years. Third, any worker found in the US illegally permanently forfeits the right to take part in the guest worker program.  Fourth, all recruiting for the guest worker program must take place in the foreign country.  Fifth, workers illegally in the US on the date the bill is signed into law will be offered amnesty (in the strict sense) and free transportation to their home country, and will then be eligible to take part in the guest worker program in spite of their past violation of the immigration laws.  But this amnesty must be specifically claimed, and it will expire in one month for those who have not claimed it.

 

A program like this has the incentives all working in the right direction:  law-abiding behavior is rewarded, law-breaking punished.  Would it work?  Surely, employers will think long and hard about the severe consequences of breaking the law when there is a good legal alternative.  And as they replace illegal workers with legal ones, that will likely result in added pressure (over and above rule three above) on illegals to return home and sign up quickly.  The standard objections to guest worker programs will surely vanish if this one begins to solve the problem of the 12 million illegals, for those people already constitute a huge and out of control guest worker program.

 

Other incentives could be considered, always provided they encourage lawful rather than unlawful behavior.  For example, after ten continuous years in the guest worker program, permanent residence and a path to citizenship five years later might be considered.  But if the present immigration bill teaches us anything, it is that it is better to have a simple initial framework first—as long as it is one that rewards people for respecting our laws, not for breaking them.

Bush’s Favorite Muslim Fanatic

Bush’s Favorite Muslim Fanatic
By Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com | June 19, 2007

When is a moderate Muslim not a moderate Muslim? How about if he is an employee of a Saudi Wahhabi organization that has been identified by the Senate Finance Committee as one of a long list of Islamic charities that “finance terrorism and perpetuate violence”? Last month, the White House appointed Talal Eid, an imam from Quincy, Massachusetts, to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, a bipartisan panel that, according to the Boston Globe, “monitors religious freedom in countries around the world and recommends policies to the president, State Department, and Congress.” Eid is also participating in goodwill missions overseas for the State Department. Ishan Bagby, a University of Kentucky professor and member of the board of directors of the Islamic Society of North America, was pleased with the appointment: “It’s a very good sign that a mainstream, moderate Muslim leader like Imam Eid can be appointed to such a position.” Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American Islamic Relations was pleased also, saying that Eid would bring “valuable perspective” to the Commission. Eid was forced out of his position as imam of the Islamic Center of New England’s mosque in Quincy in July 2005, some said because he was too moderate. The Bush Administration has been determined since September 11, 2001 to find moderate Muslims with whom it could work and to whom it could show public support; unfortunately, however, in this quest it has sometimes been less discriminating than it should have been, and the case of Talal Eid is a prime example of this. Talal Eid, reported the Globe in January 2007, “no longer has a mosque.” However, “he still has the original appointment from the Muslim World League, a theological and cultural entity in Saudi Arabia that certifies imams, that sent him to Boston in 1982.” The scrutiny from the Senate Finance Committee is just one of many things about the Muslim World League that should have raised red flags for the Administration when considering Eid’s appointment. Alex Alexiev of the Center for Security Policy told a U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security in 2003 that “there is conclusive evidence from Saudi sources” that the League was “tightly controlled by the [Saudi] government.”  Given that the League’s stated purpose is to “to disseminate Islamic Dawah [proselytization] and expound the teachings of Islam,” this means that it is a vehicle for the propagation of the House of Saud’s Wahhabism, the virulent school of Islamic thought that teaches, in words that appeared on the website of the Saudi Embassy in Washington, D.C. until November 2003, that “the Muslims are required to raise the banner of Jihad in order to make the Word of Allah supreme in this world, to remove all forms of injustice and oppression, and to defend the Muslims.” Waging jihad in order to make the Word of Allah supreme in this world means fighting against non-Muslims in order to impose Islamic law, Sharia, over them. Evgenii Novikov of The Jamestown Foundation notes, moreover, that the League’s publications are “often radical and vehemently anti-American.” Nor has the Muslim World League contented itself with promoting jihad by words alone. A jihadist who played a part in an al-Qaeda cell in Boston before 9/11, Nabil al-Marabh, claimed to have worked for the League in Pakistan; while this may have been his attempt to whitewash his record, also involved with the League in Pakistan was Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, Osama bin Laden’s brother-in-law and self-described “best friend,” who at another time worked to set up al-Qaeda front groups in the Philippines. Does all this mean that Talal Eid is a jihadist and a supporter of Osama bin Laden? No, it doesn’t. But his connection to the Muslim World League is not the only troubling item on his resume. Eid has proposed “five solutions for the unique problems of Muslims in America,” including “the establishment of Sharî‘ah courts which would manage the family affairs of American Muslims and mediate their religious affairs within the scope of American law.”  A similar initiative to introduce Sharia courts for mediation of personal disputes and marriage cases into Canada was defeated in 2005; Muslim women’s groups spearheaded the opposition because of Sharia’s institutionalized subjugation of women. In the thick of the battle, Alia Hogben of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women declared: “We’ve had a flood of e-mails from people asking, ‘How can we help stop what is so dangerous to Muslim women?’” In introducing a motion to disallow Sharia in Quebec in 2005, legislator Fatima Houda-Pepin saw an even greater threat: “The application of Sharia in Canada is part of a strategy to isolate the Muslim community, so it will submit to an archaic vision of Islam. These demands are being pushed by groups in the minority that are using the Charter of Rights to attack the foundation of our democratic institutions.” 

Will the U.S. now do what Canada drew back from doing, and introduce private Sharia courts, despite the harm they will cause Muslim women and the encouragement they will provide to establishing the Muslims in the U.S. as a separate, self-governing enclave? Apparently, if Talal Eid gets his way, yes. And that’s why he has no business being on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. The Bush Administration should reconsider this appointment, or at very least call upon Eid to renounce any desire to introduce Sharia in any form into U.S. law, as well as all ties to the Muslim World League. After all, George W. Bush said it best: You’re either with the terrorists or with us.