Freed Guantánamo inmates are heading for Yemen to join al-Qaeda fight

Freed Guantánamo inmates are heading for Yemen to join al-Qaeda fight

Said Ali al-Shihri, Ibrahim Suleiman al Rubaish (ID not confirmed); Abdullah Saleh Ali al Ajmi; and Abdullah Mahs

Tom Coghlan

At least a dozen former Guantánamo Bay inmates have rejoined al-Qaeda to fight in Yemen, The Times has learnt, amid growing concern over the ability of the country’s Government to accept almost 100 more former inmates from the detention centre.

The Obama Administration promised to close the Guantánamo facility by January 22, a deadline that it will be unable to meet. The 91 Yemeni prisoners in Guantánamo make up the largest national contingent among the 198 being held.

Six prisoners were returned to Yemen last month. After the Christmas Day bomb plot in Detroit, US officials are increasingly concerned that the country is becoming a hot-bed of terrorism. Eleven of the former inmates known to have rejoined al-Qaeda in Yemen were born in Saudi Arabia. The organisation merged its Saudi and Yemeni offshoots last year.

The country’s mountainous terrain, poverty and lawless tribal society make it, in the opinion of many analysts, a close match for Afghanistan as a new terrorist haven.

Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, voiced concern about the growing strength of al-Qaeda in Yemen. “Obviously, we see global implications from the war in Yemen and the ongoing efforts by al-Qaeda in Yemen to use it as a base for terrorist attacks far beyond the region,” she said.

A Yemeni, Hani Abdo Shaalan, who was released from Guantánamo in 2007, was killed in an airstrike on December 17, the Yemeni Government reported last week. The deputy head of al-Qaeda in the country is Said Ali al-Shihri, 36, who was released in 2007. Ibrahim Suleiman al-Rubaish, who was released in 2006, is a prominent ideologue featured on Yemeni al-Qaeda websites.

Geoff Morrell, the spokesman for the Pentagon, said: “This is a large question that goes beyond the issue of transferring detainees. The bulk of the remaining detainees are from Yemen and that has been the case for a long time. We are trying to work with the Yemeni Government on this.”

The US Government issued figures in May showing that 74 of the 530 detainees in Guantánamo were suspected or known to have returned to terrorist activity since their release. They included the commander of the Taleban in Helmand province, Mullah Zakir, whom the British Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Jock Stirrup, called “a key and seemingly effective tactical leader”. Among others who returned to terrorism was Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi, a Kuwaiti who killed six Iraqis in Mosul in 2008.

The number believed to have “returned to the fight” in the May 2009 estimate was double that of a US estimate from June 2008. US officials acknowledged that more detainees were known to have reoffended since, but the number has been classified.

“There is a historic trend and it continues. I will only say that we have said there is a trend, we are aware of it, there is no denying the trend and we are doing our best to deal with this reality,” Mr Morrell said.

Officials said that a higher proportion of those still being held were likely to return to terrorism because they were considered more of a security threat than those selected in the early stages of the release programme.

Chris Boucek, an expert on the region for the Carnegie Endowment think-tank, said that up-to-date figures for Saudi Arabia showed that 26 of the 120 Saudis released from Guantánamo were either in jail, wanted by the authorities or dead.

Gregory Johnsen, a Yemen expert at Princeton University, said evidence showed that al-Qaeda was seeking to use Yemen to mount a renewed campaign into Saudi Arabia. He cited a recent incident in which two Saudi militants, one the brother-in-law of alShihri, were killed while trying to cross the border in women’s clothing. Martyrdom videos were subsequently posted on militant websites.

The Saudi Government had boasted previously of a zero reoffence rate for Guantánamo detainees who were put through its widely praised rehabilitation programme for al-Qaeda members.

Robert Lacey, who writes about Saudi Arabia, made numerous visits to the Prince Mohammad bin Naif rehabilitation facility north of Riyadh.

“I know a number of young men from Guantánamo who were successfully reintegrated,” he told The Times. “The programme involves the whole family with a mixture of religious re-education, patriotism, guilt and co-opting in terms of being given a car, job and a nice wife.”

However, other analysts suggested that the claims for the Saudi programme were exaggerated. Mr Johnsen pointed out that an attack that nearly killed Prince Mohammad bin Naif, the Saudi head of counterterrorism, in August was mounted by a Yemen-based al-Qaeda terrorist who had offered to join the reintegration programme to get near his target.

“The Saudi programme is nothing but bureaucratised bribery. The ideologically committed terrorists simply won’t listen,” Mr Johnsen said.

The Yemen reintegration programme for terrorists was abandoned on December 10, 2005.

Islam does not preach coexistence

St. Cloud Times | WWW.SCTIMES.COM

Times Writers Group: Islam does not preach coexistence
By Dick Andzenge

September 12, 2007
The sixth anniversary of Sept. 11 is not only a reminder of that infamous day, but of the need to understand our changing societies and how to address fear of terrorism.

In the weeks leading to this anniversary, German police arrested three Islamic youths and were looking for seven more on suspicion of plotting massive bombings against American and German targets. Just a few days earlier, Danish police arrested several people in the Copenhagen area for planning acts of terrorism.

What these arrests and many others in the world have in common is not the ethnic or national origin of the suspects. The common attribute of the suspects is that they are Muslims.

As we reflect on the events of Sept. 11 during this anniversary, I wish to discuss the central issue — that the suspects are young Muslims. The question to ask is this: Why would young Muslims in Denmark, Germany or other countries plot terrorist activities against countries that give them a relatively comfortable living?

For years many have blamed American foreign policy for terrorist activities. But the spread and threat of terrorism to countries whose foreign policies differ from our own force us to ponder.

Bin Laden’s tapes

The most recent videotaped messages by Osama bin Laden give us some answers. In his advanced message to the release of the last tape, bin Laden calls on Americans to convert to Islam. In the released tape he urged supporters to join the caravan of martyrs.

These calls for conversion are not extreme nor unique to the Islamic faith.

It is the nature of all religions to seek converts. Many religions that preach the doctrine of hereafter also see martyrdom as a measure of faith that would be rewarded. Christendom is replete with the history of sainted martyrs.

The uniqueness of Islam through its history is the concept of jihad, which is used internally and externally to achieve salvation in the hereafter.

Islam, the faith that means surrender, requires a total surrendering of one’s entire life and being. That is different from other faiths, which call on believers to have faith through internal transformation and the search for meaning as well as coexistence with nonbelievers. The Islamic faith does little to address coexistence either in its doctrines or practices.

So as impressionable young people convert to Islam or as devoted Muslims migrate to other societies, the reality of living with nonbelievers can easily become unbearable. Their response is to demand or expect that everyone convert to the faith or not question their expressions and lifestyle.

The expectation that there would be peace if everyone converts to Islam, though not supported by fact, continues to be central in the minds of many Islamic believers.

If simple conversion was enough to create peace, Islamic nations would be the most peaceful nations. This is not the case. Those who followed the Holy Prophet Muhammad resorted to violent conflicts soon after his death. Islam is therefore not monolithic.

Recent efforts to educate the international community about the peaceful nature of Islam are misdirected. If new Islamic converts in many countries see violence as a means of asserting their faith or hate, public attitudes of fear and suspicion would not change due to public appeals.

The focus should be to educate Islamic converts on the inevitability in modern societies of living and accommodating people of different faiths.

It is particularly important to Muslim immigrants to accept and be willing to adapt to the laws and customs of the new societies to which they migrate. This is a very difficult task as the faith gives little room to separate one’s faith from the rest of his or her life. Indeed, this may require modernization of some Islamic tenets.

Many of us who are Christians believe that our faith covers all aspects of our lives and should show in all that we do. Unfortunately, the separation of church and state in the United States demands that the practice of our faith not impose on other people’s faith or lack of it. It is our immigrant and Muslims converts who need to be educated about life in multicultural societies.

This is the opinion of Dick Andzenge, a criminal justice professor at St. Cloud State University. His column is published the second Wednesday of the month.

Warning: Holy Month of Ramadan Trains Muslims to do What?

Warning: Holy Month of Ramadan Trains Muslims

 to do What?

By Carl Goldberg

The Muslim holy month of Ramadan has begun. In addition to fasting from dawn to dusk, Muslims are obligated to read the entire Koran during this month. Non-Muslims should be aware of some of the things their Muslim neighbors will be reading in the Koran:

  • The unbelievers among the people of the book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures. (98.6).
  • Surely the vilest of animals in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve. (8.55)
  • The unbelievers are your inveterate enemy. (4:101)
  • Mohammed is God’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. (48:29).
  • It is unlawful for a believer to kill another believer, accidents excepted. (4:92)
  • Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. (5:51)
  • Make war on them [non-Muslims] until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme. (8:40)
  • Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God’s religion reigns supreme. (2:193)
  • The true believers fight for the cause of God, but the infidels fight for the devil. Fight then against the friends of Satan. (4:76)
  • We will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. (3:150)
  • I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers. (8:12)
  • When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. (9:5)
  • Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe in neither God nor the Last Day, … until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued. (9:29)
  • Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. (9:73 and 66:9)
  • Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. (9:123)
  • When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads. (47:4)
  • These and other passages in the Koran, which are considered Allah’s literal word, will be important to non-Muslims until the imams preach to their congregations that these passages are no longer valid. So far, it has not happened.

    Carl Goldberg writes from Tempe, Arizona


     

    Muslim Mafia and the Media

    The media has been doing an excellent job in ignoring the
    spectacular revelations at the trial against the Holyland
    Foundation, once America’s largest Muslim charity organization, now taking
    place. Evidence is being revealed that shows a hidden agenda and
    widespread conspiracy amongst all the so-called “moderate” major
    Muslim groups in America to totally destroy the country, the
    culture, Western values. The information below came from
    Homeland Security’s own website, followed by an editorial in
    Investor’s Business Daily.
    I’d like to hear what U.S. presidential candidates have to say
    about this. If any of you get a chance, ask them.

    The The Holy Land Foundation Case; What you are not hearing in
    the Media
    Submitted by Lan Lamphere on Fri, 2007-08-10 18:59. Podcast
    http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/node/1145

    Aug 10, 2007: Yesterday ended the second full week of trial
    testimony in the case against The Holy Land Foundation for Relief
    & Development, once the largest Muslim charity in the United
    States . After a lengthy investigation by U.S. federal
    authorities that resulted in the organization’s assets being
    frozen in 2001, and the filing of a 42-count criminal indictment
    in 2004, prosecutors have been methodically presenting their case
    against the organization and seven named defendants in a downtown
    Dallas , Texas courtroom.

    Trial Watch, a special broadcast of The Homeland Security Report
    hosted by Doug Hagmann, brings you important information about
    the trial that is not being covered by the mainstream media.
    Listen to Doug Hagmann – an investigator with over 20 years of
    experience in civil and criminal cases – as he recaps the case
    against the Muslim charity as presented by the prosecution,
    carefully sorts through the mountain of evidence presented by the
    prosecution linking the charity and the defendants to the Islamic
    terrorist organization HAMAS. Doug Hagmann describes the
    testimony of lead FBI agent Lara Burns in her presentation of
    hundreds of documents that link HLF funding directly to HAMAS
    terrorist operations in the Middle East . This segment of Trial
    Watch identifies members of the Council on American Islamic
    Relations (CAIR), including executive director Nihad Awad,
    who is purported to have direct knowledge that the giant funding
    apparatus known as the Holy Land Foundation was financing
    terrorist operations in the Middle East.

    Doug Hagmann also details the prosecution’s linkage between a
    named defendant in this case to a spiritual advisor to at least
    two of the September 11, 2001
    hijackers. Also detailed in this broadcast is the 1993 meeting
    held in Philadelphia between U.S. based HAMAS members and CAIR’s
    executive director. The meeting was held to discuss ways to
    improve funding for HAMAS, and derail the Oslo Peace Accords.

    —————————————————————–
    —————————————————————–
    ————-

    A Muslim ‘Mafia’?

    By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, August 14, 2007
    4:30 PM PT

    Homeland Security: Forget everything you’ve been told about
    “moderate” Muslim groups in America. New evidence that U.S.
    prosecutors have revealed at a major terror trial exposes the
    facade.

    Exhibit No. 003-0085 is the most chilling. Translated from Arabic
    by federal investigators in the case against the Holy Land
    Foundation, an alleged Hamas front, the secret document outlines
    a full-blown conspiracy by the major Muslim groups in America –
    all of which are considered “mainstream” by the media.

    In fact, they are part of the “Ikhwan,” or Muslim Brotherhood,
    the parent organization of Hamas, al-Qaida and other major
    Islamic terror groups. They have conspired to infiltrate American
    society with the purpose of undermining it and turning it into an
    Islamic state.

    Check out this quote from Page 7 of the 1991 document:

    “The Ikwhan must understand that all their work in America is a
    kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western
    civilization from within and sabotaging their miserable house by
    the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s
    religion is made victorious over all religions.”

    Sounds like the latest screed from Osama bin Laden. But it comes
    from the Muslim establishment in America.

    The secret plan lists several Saudi-backed Muslim groups as
    “friends” of the conspiracy.

    They include the Islamic Society of North America – the umbrella
    organization – and the North American Islamic Trust, which
    controls most of the mosques in America and is the forerunner to
    the Council on American-Islamic Relations, this country’s most
    visible Muslim-rights group.

    All three have been cited as unindicted co-conspirators in the
    case, with all three sharing membership in the Muslim
    Brotherhood. Yet all have claimed, in the wake of 9/11, to be
    moderate, even patriotic.

    Another exhibit reveals their plan to create innocuous-sounding
    “front groups” to hide their radical agenda.

    Many in the media and politics have fallen for their deception
    and helped bring them into the mainstream.

    Now everyone knows the truth.

    The Muslim establishment that publicly decries the radical fringe
    – represented by Hamas and al-Qaida – may actually be a part of
    it. The only difference is that they use words and money instead
    of bombs to accomplish their subversive goals.

    Over the past two decades they have constructed, with Saudi
    money, an elaborate infrastructure of support for the bad guys –
    right under our noses.

    They even brag about putting “beehives” (Islamic centers) in
    every major city.

    These exhibits – which so far have been ignored by major media
    outside the Dallas area, where the trial is under way –
    completely blow the mainstream Muslim NGOs’ cover as pro-American
    moderates. Many, if not most, aren’t.

    This is their real agenda, spelled out in black and white. It
    should help investigators build a RICO case to dismantle the
    entire terror-support network in America.

    Many have suspected it, but now we have proof that there is a
    secret underworld operating inside America under the cover of
    fronts with legitimate-sounding names.

    It even uses charities to launder money for violent hits on
    enemies. It’s highly organized, with its own internal bylaws and
    security to avoid monitoring from law enforcement.

    Sounds like the Mafia.

    But unlike the mob, this syndicate is religious in nature and
    protected by political correctness.

    More evidence like this should put an end to such nonsense.

    The LA tmes links below do not work they have sent the opinions  to the archves

    http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-yaalon26aug26,0,68482
    78.story?coll=la-news-comment
    <http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-yaalon26aug26,0,6848
    278.story?coll=la-news-comment>
    From the Los Angeles Times
    Misinterpreting the Mideast
    Until they get past their mistaken assumptions, foreign envoys can do little
    to calm the region.
    By Moshe Ya’alon

    August 26, 2007

    After a few years of benign neglect, Israel is back on the itineraries of
    well-meaning foreign emissaries. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair
    visited the country last month in his new role as special envoy of the
    “quartet” of Middle East peacemakers. Earlier this month, U.S. Secretary of
    State Condoleezza Rice arrived. Each visit was concluded with a news
    conference at which promises of progress were made. But before any lasting
    on-the-ground movement toward peace can be achieved in the
    Israeli-Palestinian conflict, foreign emissaries, as well as some Israelis,
    will have to shake off some long-disproved tenets of the conventional wisdom
    about the dispute .

    There are four main misconceptions that diplomats bring with them to Israel.
    Primary among them is the idea that solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
    is a prerequisite for stability in the Mideast . The truth is that the
    region is riven by clashes that have nothing to do with Israel. For
    instance, the Jewish state plays no role in the conflict between Shiites and
    Sunnis, between Persians and Arabs or between Arab nationalists and Arab
    Islamists.

    The second misconception is that Israeli territorial concessions are the key
    to progress . The reality is that an ascendant jihadist Islam believes that
    it is leading the battle against Israel and the rest of the West. Given this
    dynamic, Israeli territorial or other concessions simply fill the jihadists’
    sails, reinforcing their belief that Israel and the West are weak and can be
    militarily defeated.

    True, a majority of Israelis supported Israel’s unilateral withdrawals from
    Lebanon in 2000 and from Gaza in 2005 in the belief that meeting Hezbollah
    and Palestinian territorial demands would nullify the cause of conflict
    between them. We now know the results: The Hezbollah and Palestinian
    reactions — concerted terror wars, kidnapped Israeli soldiers, rockets
    fired at Israeli cities — made clear that the Mideast’s central conflict is
    not territorial but ideological. And ideology cannot be defeated by
    concessions.

    Emissaries also still believe that “the Occupation” blocks agreement between
    Israelis and Palestinians. In the West, the term usually means the
    territories Israel conquered in the Six-Day War in 1967. If the problem
    between Israelis and Palestinians were just the 1967 territories, and the
    solution were dividing those lands up between the two sides (as proposed,
    most recently, in 2000 by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak), the
    conflict would have ended long ago.

    Instead, the heart of the problem is that many Palestinians — Fatah and
    Hamas, in particular — and even some Israeli Arabs use “Occupation” to
    refer to all Israel.  They do not recognize the Jewish people’s right to an
    independent state, a right affirmed again and again in the international
    arena.

    Finally, the well-intentioned visiting diplomats believe that the
    Palestinians want — and have the ability — to establish a state that will
    live in peace alongside Israel. But they are not being clear-eyed. The late
    Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, established a thugocracy that never
    improved the basic living conditions of his people. Indeed, Palestinian
    unemployment and poverty are worse today than they were before Arafat and
    his cronies assumed power in 1994.

    Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas did not take responsibility
    for Gazans’ welfare, which in part led to Hamas’ electoral victory in 2006.
    Now confined to the West Bank after Hamas kicked his Fatah organization out
    of Gaza, Abbas has not moved to create a governmental structure.

    A corollary of this fourth misconception is the belief that economic
    development can neutralize extreme nationalism and religious fanaticism ,
    thus clearing the way toward peace and security. David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s
    first prime minister, had a term for such believers: “naive Zionists.” Those
    who fit this description should demand that the Palestinians explain what
    they did with the $7 billion in international aid they received over the
    years . Seven billion reasons for economic progress — and yet, why did
    Palestinian mobs destroy the Erez industrial zone, where Palestinians worked
    and ran businesses for decades, on the Gaza border? Why do they attack safe
    roads linking Gaza and the West Bank? Why is the Palestinian economy in
    shambles?

    Shorn of these mistaken assumptions, the picture in the Middle East is
    disturbing indeed. No wonder emissaries hold on to them. So what to do?

    For starters, Western governments and their emissaries must refrain from
    pressuring Israel for territorial or security concessions, which at best
    produces only short-term gains and emboldens the Islamist terror groups.
    Instead, they should try to persuade the Palestinian leaders to commit to a
    long-term strategy premised on educational, political and economic reforms
    that would lead to the establishment of a civil society that cherishes life,
    not death; values human rights and freedom; and develops a middle class, not
    a corrupt, rich elite. At the same time, these governments should set up an
    international fund that would offer Palestinian refugee families aid — say
    $100,000 to $200,000 a family — for their resettlement on the condition
    that their acceptance of the money would signify resolution of their refugee
    status.

    Under no circumstances should emissaries attempt to open a dialogue with
    Hamas. For the sake of Palestinian society, Hamas and its ideology must be
    defeated. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the most significant
    today; it’s the battle between jihadist Islam and the West, of which Israel
    is merely one theater. To defeat jihadist Islam, the West must overcome the
    regimes, organizations and ideologies that support and feed it — and Hamas
    is foremost among them.

    The emissaries who travel to Israel must draw on their rich diplomatic
    experiences, free themselves from misconceptions about the
    Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the petty politics that flows from them —
    especially the binds of political correctness — to lead us all toward
    freedom, security and peace. Anything else is mere meddling.

    Moshe Ya’alon is a fellow at the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies at
    the Shalem Center. He served as the 17th chief of staff of the Israel

    The Myths of Islam Eye opening must read

    A Muslim ‘Mafia’?

    A Muslim ‘Mafia’?

    By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY

    Homeland Security: Forget everything you’ve been told about “moderate” Muslim groups in America. New evidence that U.S. prosecutors have revealed at a major terror trial exposes the facade.

    Exhibit No. 003-0085 is the most chilling. Translated from Arabic by federal investigators in the case against the Holy Land Foundation, an alleged Hamas front, the secret document outlines a full-blown conspiracy by the major Muslim groups in America – all of which are considered “mainstream” by the media.

    In fact, they are part of the “Ikhwan,” or Muslim Brotherhood, the parent organization of Hamas, al-Qaida and other major Islamic terror groups. They have conspired to infiltrate American society with the purpose of undermining it and turning it into an Islamic state.

    Check out this quote from Page 7 of the 1991 document:

      “The Ikwhan must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging their miserable house by the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all religions.”

    Sounds like the latest screed from Osama bin Laden. But it comes from the Muslim establishment in America.

    The secret plan lists several Saudi-backed Muslim groups as “friends” of the conspiracy.

    They include the Islamic Society of North America – the umbrella organization – and the North American Islamic Trust, which controls most of the mosques in America and is the forerunner to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, this country’s most visible Muslim-rights group.

    All three have been cited as unindicted co-conspirators in the case, with all three sharing membership in the Muslim Brotherhood. Yet all have claimed, in the wake of 9/11, to be moderate, even patriotic.

    Another exhibit reveals their plan to create innocuous-sounding “front groups” to hide their radical agenda.

    Many in the media and politics have fallen for their deception and helped bring them into the mainstream.

    Now everyone knows the truth.

    The Muslim establishment that publicly decries the radical fringe
    – represented by Hamas and al-Qaida – may actually be a part of it. The only difference is that they use words and money instead of bombs to accomplish their subversive goals.

    Over the past two decades they have constructed, with Saudi money, an elaborate infrastructure of support for the bad guys – right under our noses.

    They even brag about putting “beehives” (Islamic centers) in every major city.

    These exhibits – which so far have been ignored by major media outside the Dallas area, where the trial is under way – completely blow the mainstream Muslim NGOs’ cover as pro-American moderates. Many, if not most, aren’t.

    This is their real agenda, spelled out in black and white. It should help investigators build a RICO case to dismantle the entire terror-support network in America.

    Many have suspected it, but now we have proof that there is a secret underworld operating inside America under the cover of fronts with legitimate-sounding names.

    It even uses charities to launder money for violent hits on enemies. It’s highly organized, with its own internal bylaws and security to avoid monitoring from law enforcement.

    Sounds like the Mafia.

    But unlike the mob, this syndicate is religious in nature and protected by political correctness.

    More evidence like this should put an end to such nonsense.

    Posted by Ted Belman @ 3:15 am |

    Pakistan: Two Christian girls of 11 and 16 kidnapped, converted to Islam and forced to marry

    Pakistan: Two Christian girls of 11 and 16 kidnapped, converted to Islam and forced to marry

    Islamic Tolerance and Little Aisha Alerts: “Two Christian girls of 11 and 16 kidnapped, converted to Islam and forced to marry,” by Qaiser Felix for Asia News (thanks to Nicolei):

    Faisalabad (AsiaNews) – Two Christian girls, little more than children, were kidnapped from their families recently, forcibly converted to Islam and then married off to strangers. Both of the kidnaps took place in Faisalabad, the third largest city in Pakistan, and both were completely ignored by the police. The phenomenon is not a new one however, underlined numerous human rights activist, but it is dangerously on the increase.On August 5 Muhammad Adnan, a Muslim from Zulfiqar colony Faisalabad and his sister kidnapped Zunaira, an eleven years old Christian girl from her home in Warispura. After the kidnap, they forced her to convert to Islam and marry her kidnaper Muhammad.

    The small girl’s mother, Abida, told AsiaNews: “When I was roaming in streets in search of my daughter two Muslim men of the area told me that they saw Adnan and his sister taking my daughter”. Abida decided to go to the kidnapper’s house, from which however she is thrown out. Returning home, she was contacted by two men who revealed the kidnappers identity and offer to act as negotiators for her daughters release in exchange for money.

    Demolishing the Foundations of Islam

    Demolishing the Foundations of Islam

    by Bill Levinson

    Civilized people are raised from birth with the injunction to never attack another person’s religious faith, but recent abuses by militant “Muslims” have risen to the point where doing this becomes a reasonable and necessary act of self-defense. The problem is not that militant “Muslims” want to pray to Mecca, follow Islamic dietary rules, and so on, but that they want to impose their beliefs and way of life on others. At that point, civilized society has to stop them, even at the price of attacking the foundation of their religion.

    Before proceeding, however, we will make a clear distinction between militant “Islam,” or Islam Release 1.0, and moderate or peaceful Islam, or Islam Release 2.0. Islam Release 1.0 was created by a violent and self-serving bandit to get his followers to kill and die for him, but it also included concepts like the umma (”community”) that called upon Muslims to treat each other with kindness, respect, and charity. It also opened the door to ethnic and racial tolerance with the concept of the Dar-el-Islam (House of Submission) in which all Muslims are brothers, regardless of ethnicity, race, or tribe. This basic principle is benevolent even if Mohammed’s motive–getting quarrelsome tribes to cooperate so he could conquer his neighbors–was totally selfish and malevolent.

    Some Muslims later evolved their religion into a civilized one by separating Mohammed’s good ideas (community, brotherhood) from his self-serving agenda. The result was Islam Release 2.0, or moderate/peaceful Islam. These Muslims are not the problem, and they are in fact often murdered or abused by the followers of Islam Release 1.0. Many of them came to the United States to get away from Islam 1.0, just as many Jews and Christians came here to get away from what passed for Christianity in parts of Europe through the 19th century.

    We will say clearly up front that Muslims, like everyone else who has immigrated to our country, are more than welcome to live and let live. That is what America is about: doing what you want, as long as you don’t infringe on the rights of others. Most Muslim-Americans, as followers of Islam 2.0, behave in this manner. On the other hand, anyone who comes to this country to attack its freedoms or impose his way of life on others is our country’s enemy, and he will be treated as an enemy to the extent that our laws allow. These are the enemies about whom we are talking:

    (1) In Scotland, militant “Muslims” have gotten a medical organization to ban staff members from eating at their desks during the fast of Ramadan, because this “offends” the Muslims. In contrast, observant Jews do not object to other people eating on Yom Kippur, nor do they force Gentiles to eat matzohs during Passover. Workplaces often offer matzohs during Passover, but they don’t take the leavened bread away for fear of “offending” Jews. Catholics do not demand that non-Catholics desist from eating meat on Fridays, nor do they object to non-Catholics who don’t give up something for Lent. Only militant “Muslims” seem to think they can impose their beliefs and customs on others, and this is what has to come to a screeching halt.

    (2) In the United States, “Muslim” taxi drivers have refused to transport blind passengers with seeing-eye dogs. Their excuse is that they consider dogs “unclean,” although a service animal has far more value to a civilized nation than anyone who refuses service to a disabled person. These drivers have also refused to transport passengers who have alcoholic beverages, even though Islam simply prohibits the driver from drinking those beverages. Come to think of it, so do laws against drunk driving.

    (3) Muslim Student Associations have made trouble at at least two universities (Penn State and Tufts), where they got complicit college administrators to interfere with the First Amendment rights of other students. At Bucknell University, college administrators stepped in to condemn a conservative student group for using the phrase “hunting terrorists,” and Republicans at another college were called on the carpet for desecrating an Al Qaida flag (because it has Allah’s name on it in Arabic). This also has to come to a screeching halt, with these Muslim Student Associations being denounced forcefully. If their members don’t like it, the United States has no Berlin or other wall to keep people in who don’t want to be here.

    (4) http://www.muslimdayparade.com/, to be headed by Keith Ellison–the same individual who compared 9/11 to the Reichstag fire, while making a McCarthyite remark to the effect that he wasn’t going to say that the United States perpetrated the atrocity itself. See also New York Islamist Day Parade, By Joe Kaufman and Beila Rabinowitz.

    (5) The “flying imams” who frightened a planeload of innocent people by chanting to Allah, behaving as if they might hijack the airplane, and then trying to sue passengers who did exactly what those repetitious announcements at airports tell them to do: report suspicious behavior to authorities.

    (6) In Europe, public demonstrations have included slogans like “Europe, you will pay, your 9/11 is on its way” and “Behead those who insult Islam.”

    (7) In Europe and Australia, militant “Islamic” rape gangs have called unveiled women “uncovered meat” whom they are free to “take.”

    (8) Some American schools are making children role-play Muslims in direct contravention of church-state separation. Schools that would not dare for an instant to make children sing Christmas or Hannukah songs are compelling children to take Islamic names and, according to some reports, even pray toward Mecca.

    It stops here, and it stops now. Militant “Islamic” groups have marched through our streets, which they have a First Amendment right to do, while proclaiming that Islam will dominate the United States. We have a First Amendment right, which we will now exercise, to denounce the foundations of their religion as a self-serving scam by a desert bandit whose primary motivation was to enrich himself with money and power. This can be done with a simple statement that can be printed on stickers (we would not recommend a bumper sticker) that can easily be put up in public places:

    Jesus died for Christians
    Muslims died for Mohammed

    Note that this statement passes no judgment on whether Jesus was actually the son of God. Christians can say that Jesus died as a sacrifice for their sins, while Jews can say that Jesus was motivated by a desire to serve his followers instead of himself. Never did Jesus use his teachings to enrich himself at the expense of others, or to lead aggressive wars of conquest. Furthermore, according to John Keegan’s A History of Warfare (and contrary to Tufts University’s Committee on Student Life, which proclaimed that “labeling Islam violent is unacceptable in any way, shape, or form”),

    Muhammad, unlike Christ, was a man of violence; he bore arms, was wounded in battle and preached holy war, jihad, against those who defied the will of God, as revealed to him. His successors perceived the world as divided into Dar-al-Islam–the House of Submission, submission to the teachings of Mohammed, as collected in the Koran–and Dar al-Harb, the House of War, which were those parts yet to be conquered.

    This is an excellent summary:
    (1) Mohammed was a violent man who preached holy wars against those who defied the will of God, as revealed to Mohammed.
    (2) His successors divided the world into the House of Submission and the House of War, i.e. the part yet to be conquered. Adolf Hitler was just as explicit when he said, “Germany today, tomorrow the world.”
    (3) While Jesus never sought riches for himself, Mohammed was a merchant who knew the value of money. This was yet another motive to create a religion that would help him enrich himself.

    Christianity’s Superiority over Islam
    It is easy to judge a culture, or even a religion, by its stories, legends, and role models. Which characters appear as heroes, and who is denounced as a villain? The concept of servant leadership permeates Christianity. Jesus is said to have washed his disciples’ feet, thus underscoring the principle that the leader must serve his or her followers. Numerous Christian stories reinforce this idea.

    (1) Wanda (pronounced “Vanda”), a legendary Polish queen, drowned herself to save her people from an ambitious German prince who wanted to take over her kingdom by marrying her. Had she fought him, her smaller army would have been destroyed. The story does not explain why he did not invade her kingdom anyway, but perhaps without a female monarch upon whom he could force a marriage, other kings and dukes would not have recognized the legitimacy of his actions.
    (2) Henryk Sienkiewicz’s With Fire and Sword describes how Jarema Wisniowiecki, a voyevode or provincial governor, shared the hardships of his soldiers whenever he was at war. When bad weather destroyed a harvest, he suspended the rents of his peasants and even gave them food from his own stores.
    (3) Frederick the Great proclaimed that the prince is the first servant of his country.
    (4) The following speech was delivered by Queen Elizabeth I when England was in danger of invasion by the Spanish Armada:

    We have been persuaded by some that are careful of our safety, to take heed how we commit our selves to armed multitudes, for fear of treachery; but I assure you I do not desire to live to distrust my faithful and loving people. Let tyrants fear. I have always so behaved myself that, under God, I have placed my chiefest strength and safeguard in the loyal hearts and good-will of my subjects; and therefore I am come amongst you, as you see, at this time, not for my recreation and disport, but being resolved, in the midst and heat of the battle, to live and die amongst you all; to lay down for my God, and for my kingdom, and my people, my honour and my blood, even in the dust.

    This principle is not unique to Christianity, because the Chinese general Sun Tzu wrote more than 2500 years ago that the general must not take comforts that are not available to his followers. In China, the Mandate of Heaven refers to the authority a king gains by serving his subjects. A king who serves himself at his subjects’ expense loses the Mandate quickly, along with his people’s loyalty. India’s Kshatriya Dharma (the Right Way of the Warrior) says that a king cannot abandon even a dog, if the dog is his follower.

    While Japanese speak of the Way of Lord and Retainer (with a code of mutual obligations), the history of Islam 1.0 is the Way of Master and Slave. Even the Sultan, as the son of a female slave, regards himself as Allah’s slave. It’s possible that some sultans and caliphs took this seriously enough to act as though they held their kingdoms in trust for Allah, but most understood that, for all practical purposes, they were answerable to no one. Janissaries and Mamelukes were military slaves. Keegan’s A History of Warfare reports that, once they completed their military training, Mamelukes were technically free, although not free to choose another occupation or any master but the Sultan!

    The Way of Master and Slave is obvious in the recruitment of suicide bombers. The gray-bearded mullahs who tell teenage boys and young men that they will get seventy-two dark-eyed virgins by blowing themselves up did not become gray-bearded mullahs by following their own advice. This practice dates back to the Assassins, or hashish-users. Their leader, the Old Man of the Mountains, got them high on hashish, and then led them to a beautiful garden full of compliant and beautiful women. He told them they were in the Islamic Paradise, and would go there forever if they died while serving him. Today, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad creates phony miracles (his followers say that a green aura surrounds him when he speaks) while claiming to be in contact with the Twelfth Imam. He has made no secret of his plans to start a nuclear war with Israel or even the United States, even if millions of his followers die from the inevitable retaliation.

    In summary, then, the concept that leaders exist to serve their followers permeates not only Christianity, but also Hinduism and Asian belief structures. The concept that slaves and followers exist to serve their masters permeates both contemporary and historical Islam 1.0. The latter is so antithetical to the basic principles of organizational behavior that Islam cannot stand for long on such a flimsy foundation. We can, by expanding upon and circulating this information, demolish the foundation of Islam 1.0 to bring it crashing down in any country in which its dictators do not exercise control over what people can read or hear. The recent activities of militant “Muslims” make this a reasonable and necessary act of self-defense on behalf of our countries and freedoms, and we must carry it out aggressively and decisively.

    Posted by Bill Levinson @ 6:08 pm |

    The Coming Urban Terror

    Islamic Jihad and Leftist Dreams

    Islamic Jihad and Leftist Dreams

    By Robert Spencer
    FrontPageMagazine.com | 8/22/2007

    Abdullah Al-Muhajir, also known as Jose Padilla, was convicted on Thursday of supporting terrorist activity and, according to Associated Press, “conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim people overseas.” At the Leftist website Daily Kos, Padilla was hailed as an “American Martyr to ‘War on Terror,’” and his trial was compared to the witch hysteria: “As was the case during the witch trials of yesteryear, only the socially unpopular, the mentally ill, and the politically dangerous end up at the end of a noose or in yet another bonfire of political vanity.” The barely literate posting went on to complain that the case against Padilla “hinged on one piece of papar [sic]: an application with his fingerprints.” No mention was made of the fact that this “one piece of papar” happened to be an Al-Qaeda application.

    The Kos entry was just one small example of the Left’s tendency to see virtually all defensive efforts against the global jihad as manifestations of an encroaching Bushitler police state. Michael Moore said it a few years ago: “There is no terror threat in this country. This is a lie. It’s the biggest lie we have been told.” This has become conventional wisdom on the Left, coalescing neatly with a notable solicitude toward Islamic jihadists: one notorious example was radical feminist lawyer Lynne Stewart who became a water-carrier for the blind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, now in prison for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The activities of various members of the “nonviolent” International Solidarity Movement have given rise to numerous questions about its ties to violent jihadists.

    So what kind of a world will it be for Leftists who turn a blind eye to the jihad, if the jihadists achieve their objectives? Writing in the entertainment paper TimeOut London in June, TimeOut editor at large Michael Hodges imagined an Islamic London. London under Sharia law, Hodges wrote, would be healthier: “the Muslim act of prayer is designed to keep worshippers fit, their joints supple and, at five times a day, their stomachs trim.” It would be sober: “Forbid alcohol throughout the country, and you’d avoid many of the 22,000 alcohol-related deaths and the £7.3 billion national bill for alcohol-related crime and disorder each year.” It would also be ecologically sound, and Islamic education would raise “general levels of discipline and self-respect among London’s young people.”

    Meanwhile, “application of halal (Arabic for ‘permissable’) dietary laws across London would free us at a stroke from our addiction to junk food, and the general adoption of a south Asian diet rich in fruit juice, rice and vegetables with occasional mutton or chicken would have a drastic effect on obesity, hyperactivity, attention deficit disorders and associated public health problems.” Religious bigotry would disappear as Jews, Christians, and – probably — Hindus became protected dhimmis under the benevolent rule of Islamic law.

    Unfortunately for future dhimmis, however, and for like-minded liberals, Hodges left a few things out of his Islamic Leftist paradise. He didn’t mention that in exchange for the “protection” they would receive from their new Islamic overlords, religious minorities would have to accept a humiliating second-class status that institutionalized their humiliation and denied them equality of rights with Muslims in numerous ways – ensuring that they “feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29). Nor would life be any more comfortable for trendy liberal atheists.

    An Islamized country in the West, meanwhile, would be filled with liberal bugaboos: prayer in schools; abortion made illegal (except, most likely, in cases involving the life of the mother); punishments (varyingly draconian) for homosexuals; and even legalized polygamy (Qur’an 4:3) and wife-beating (Qur’an 4:34). Freedom of speech would also probably disappear, at least where discussion of the elements of Islam that incite to violence are concerned — but given their propensity to smear rather than answer their opponents, Leftists probably wouldn’t miss it much.

    Nonetheless, there is no doubt that a world in which Jose Padilla’s activities continued unhindered, and the jihadists finally succeeded in imposing their will on the rest of us, would hardly be comfortable for liberals. Evidently they believe that there is no real challenge to the West from the Islamic world, and that Christianity (as I detail in my new book Religion of Peace?) represents the real theocracy threat to Western pluralism and non-sectarian government. The multiculturalist anti-Americanism from which this delusion springs may be more lethal to the American Republic in the short run than the jihad itself; but in the long run, the two threats coalesce quite easily.


    Robert Spencer is a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of seven books, eight monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including the New York Times Bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is Religion of Peace?.