Mark Steyn: The vanishing jihad exposés

Mark Steyn: The vanishing jihad exposés

Mark Steyn zeros in on the destruction of “Alms for Jihad: Charity And Terrorism in the Islamic World,” which was recently destroyed for fear of a law suit from Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz.

How will we lose the war against “radical Islam”?

Well, it won’t be in a tank battle. Or in the Sunni Triangle or the caves of Bora Bora. It won’t be because terrorists fly three jets into the Oval Office, Buckingham Palace and the Basilica of St Peter’s on the same Tuesday morning.
The war will be lost incrementally because we are unable to reverse the ongoing radicalization of Muslim populations in South Asia, Indonesia, the Balkans, Western Europe and, yes, North America. And who’s behind that radicalization? Who funds the mosques and Islamic centers that in the past 30 years have set up shop on just about every Main Street around the planet?

[..] Who is ? Well, he’s a very wealthy and influential Saudi. Big deal, you say. Is there any other kind? Yes, but even by the standards of very wealthy and influential Saudis, this guy is plugged in: He was the personal banker to the Saudi royal family and head of the National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia, until he sold it to the Saudi government. He has a swanky pad in London and an Irish passport and multiple U.S. business connections, including to Thomas Kean, the chairman of the 9/11 Commission.I’m not saying the 9/11 Commission is a Saudi shell operation, merely making the observation that, whenever you come across a big-shot Saudi, it’s considerably less than six degrees of separation between him and the most respectable pillars of the American establishment.

In October 2001, the Treasury Department named Muwafaq as “an al-Qaida front that receives funding from wealthy Saudi businessmen” and its chairman as a “specially designated global terrorist.” As the Treasury concluded, “Saudi businessmen have been transferring millions of dollars to bin Laden through Blessed Relief.”

Indeed, this “charity” seems to have no other purpose than to fund jihad. It seeds Islamism wherever it operates. In Chechnya, it helped transform a reasonably conventional nationalist struggle into an outpost of the jihad. In the Balkans, it played a key role in replacing a traditionally moderate Islam with a form of Mitteleuropean Wahhabism. Pick a Muwafaq branch office almost anywhere on the planet and you get an interesting glimpse of the typical Saudi charity worker. The former head of its mission in Zagreb, Croatia, for example, is a guy called Ayadi Chafiq bin Muhammad. Well, he’s called that most of the time. But he has at least four aliases and residences in at least three nations (Germany, Austria and Belgium). He was named as a bin Laden financier by the U.S. government and disappeared from the United Kingdom shortly after 9/11.

So why would the Cambridge University Press, one of the most respected publishers on the planet, absolve Khalid bin Mahfouz, his family, his businesses and his charities to a degree that neither (to pluck at random) the U.S., French, Albanian, Swiss and Pakistani governments would be prepared to do?

Because English libel law overwhelmingly favors the plaintiff. And like many other big-shot Saudis, Sheikh Mahfouz has become very adept at using foreign courts to silence American authors – in effect, using distant jurisdictions to nullify the First Amendment. He may be a wronged man, but his use of what the British call “libel chill” is designed not to vindicate his good name but to shut down the discussion, which is why Cambridge University Press made no serious attempt to mount a defense. He’s one of the richest men on the planet, and they’re an academic publisher with very small profit margins. But, even if you’ve got a bestseller, your pockets are unlikely to be deep enough: “House Of Saud, House Of Bush” did boffo biz with the anti-Bush crowd in America, but there’s no British edition – because Sheikh Mahfouz had indicated he was prepared to spend what it takes to challenge it in court, and Random House decided it wasn’t worth it.

We’ve gotten used to one-way multiculturalism: The world accepts that you can’t open an Episcopal or Congregational church in Jeddah or Riyadh, but every week the Saudis can open radical mosques and madrassahs and pro-Saudi think-tanks in London and Toronto and Dearborn, Mich., and Falls Church, Va. And their global reach extends a little further day by day, inch by inch, in the lengthening shadows, as the lights go out one by one around the world.

Suppose you’ve got a manuscript about the Saudis. Where are you going to shop it? Think Cambridge University Press will be publishing anything anytime soon?

Fitzgerald: We don’t need to be friendly with Muslim countries

Fitzgerald: We don’t need to be friendly with Muslim countries

“The US really needs to be friendly to Muslim countries,” he [Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar] told retired Malaysian diplomats. “This is not a good development as they have just appointed a special envoy to OIC.” Malaysia heads the 57-nation Organisation of Islamic Conference.– from this news article

Why do we “need to be friendly to Muslim countries”? Muslim countries need to explain themselves, and the contents of Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira. For these are now widely available to Infidels for intelligent inspection and study without the apologists — whether Muslim (those safis, those nasrs, those khalidis) or non-Muslim (those armstrongs, those espositos, those ernsts). We have available the writings of the great Western authorities on Islam, who studied and wrote in the period 1870-1970, before the Arab money came on the scene to buy up pre-existing, or to even start up, academic “Centers” for the study of Islam or matters related to Islam, before Muslims and non-Muslim apologists for Islam began their steady creep into and rise within the academic ranks until now they hold all but a few places firmly in their grasp — long before the publishers got scared, long before academic standards collapsed, long before all kinds of things.

We can read Schacht and Snouck Hurgronje and Jeffery and Lammens and Zwemer — there is no preventing it. And we can see that what they write makes so much sense, and has such obvious explanatory value as compared to the vaporings of John Esposito, or Gilles Kepel, or Noah (“After Jihad”) Feldman. They make more sense than any of the other entrepreneurs who have made their fortune (Esposito) directly or indirectly through Arab support. They make more sense than the thrusting young academics (Noah Feldman) who have presented themselves as Constitution-writing “experts” and have been given jobs and even tenure by others who haven’t looked into Islam themselves and may be mightily impressed by letters of reference from Roy Mottahedeh and John Esposito and, of course, someone in the American government thanking someone for his “important work in drafting the Iraqi constitution.” No, we don’t have to go for them for our information or understanding.

Continue reading “Fitzgerald: We don’t need to be friendly with Muslim countries”

Islam’s Global War against Christianity

Islam’s Global War against Christianity

By Patrick Poole

From Nigeria to Indonesia, Christians are under siege in virtually every single country in the Muslim world, the victims of countless acts of discrimination, depredation, brutality, and murder that are so widespread and systematic that it can rightfully be called the new Holocaust. This time, however, the perpetrators of this Holocaust aren’t wearing swastikas, but kufi skull caps and hijabs.

Some of the oldest Christian communities in the world are subject to relentless attack and teeter on the brink of extinction at the hands of the “Religion of Peace”: Palestinian Christians in Gaza and the West Bank; Assyrian, Syriac and Chaldean Christians in Iraq; Coptic Christians in Egypt; Evangelical and Orthodox Christians in Eastern Ethiopia and Eritrea; Armenian Orthodox Christians in Turkey; and Maronite Christians in Lebanon.

Several of these communities date back to the beginning decades of Christianity and all have weathered wave after wave of Islamic persecution for centuries and more, but in the very near future some will simply cease to exist. In our lifetime, the only trace of their past existence will be in footnotes in history books (and probably only Western history books at that).
Meanwhile, we in the West hear much from radical Islam’s apologists how the US is engaged in a war against Islam citing of our military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. We are lectured on the inviolability of the Muslim ummah and justifications of defensive jihad.
But an extensive search this past weekend of the websites of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America, the Islamic Circle of North America, the Muslim American Society, the Muslim Student Association, the Fiqh Council of North America, and the Muslim Public Affairs Committee – the most visible institutional representatives of Islam in America – found not a single mention or reference of the religious persecution of Christians by their Islamic co-religionists, thereby making them tacit co-conspirators in the Final Solution to the Christian problem in the Muslim world.
The global war on Christianity by Islam is so massive in size and scope that it is virtually impossible to describe without trivializing it. Inspired by Muslim Brotherhood ideology and fueled by billions of Wahhabi petrodollars, the religious cleansing of Christians from the Muslim world is continuing at a break-neck pace, as the following recent examples demonstrate.
Iraq: In the current issue of the American Spectator, Doug Bandow observes that centuries of dhimmitude have left Christians in the war-torn country without any means of self-defense. Washington policymakers have refused to lend assistance for fear of showing partiality, despite the murder of hundreds of Iraqi Christians, the kidnapping and torture of Christian clerics, the repeated bombings of Christian churches, the torching of Christian businesses, and the flight of close to half of the entire Iraqi Christian population since April 2003. Those who remain have been subject to the imposition of shari’a by the Shi’ite Mahdi Army and Sunni militias (al-Qaeda doesn’t bother with such niceties, preferring to murder them immediately instead), including the recent published threat in Mosul of killing one member of every Christian family in that city for Christian women not wearing the hijab and continuing to attend school. (Be sure to remember that the next time an Islamist apologist claims that the hijab is a symbol of women’s liberation.)
Egypt: Journalist Magdi Khalil chronicles in a new report (“Another Black Friday for the Coptic Christians of Egypt”)  the campaign of violence directed against Christian Copts almost weekly immediately following Friday afternoon Muslim prayers. Inspired by Islamist imams preaching religious hatred in mosques all over the country and protected by government officials willing to look the other way, rampaging mobs of Muslims set upon Christians churches, businesses and individuals, from Alexandria to cities all the way up the Nile. Coptic holy days are also favorite times for Muslim violence, which the Egyptian media likes to describe as “sectarian strife” – as if it were actually a two-sided affair.
Gaza: Ethel Fenig recently noted here at American Thinker (“More Gaza Multiculturalism”)  the systematic destruction of churches and desecration of Christian religious objects by Jihadia Salafiya following the HAMAS takeover of the Gaza Strip from their Fatah rivals and the imposition of Islamic rule. The head of Jihadia Salafiya told reporter Aaron Klein that any suspected Christian missionary activity in the area will be “dealt with harshly”. (Ynet News)

Saudi Arabia: According to the Arab News, a Sri Lankan Christian man barely escaped with his life in late May when he was found working in the city of Mecca, Islam’s holiest city, which is officially barred to non-Muslims. In December, an Indian man had been sentenced to death for accidentally entering the city, but was spared after the Indian embassy made an urgent appeal to the Saudi Supreme Court.
Pakistan: In Islamabad, Younis Masih was sentenced last month to death under the country’s frequently invoked blasphemy laws, which were also used against six Christian women suspended from a nursing school after they were accused of desecrating a Quran. And as protests against Salman Rushdie’s knighthood raged, a Muslim mob armed with guns, axes and sticks attacked Christians worshipping in a Salvation Army church in Bismillahlpur Kanthan. (Associated Press; United Press International; Mission News Network)
Bangladesh: Almost a dozen Christian converts in the Nilphamari district were beaten last week by Muslim villagers wielding bricks and clubs, and threatened with death if they did not leave town immediately. Local hospitals subsequently refused them treatment. Christians in the area have also been prevented from using the only potable water well in the area after a pronouncement by religious authorities at the mosque in Durbachari. This came after 42 former Muslims were baptized as Christians in the local river on June 12. (Compass News Direct
Malaysia: Government authorities demolished a church building on June 4th in Orang Asli settlement in Gua Musang in Ulu Kelantan, despite prior government approval of the project. The church was built on donated property after the entire village had converted to Christianity just a few months ago. Also in late May, the Malaysian high court ruled that Muslims who convert to Christianity must appeal to the religious shari’a courts to officially be deregistered as Muslims and reregistered as a Christians. (Journal Chretien; Associated Press)
Indonesia: Agence France Presse reported last month on an attack by the Islamic Anti-Apostate Movement, who stormed a church service in a Protestant church in the West Java town of Soreang. The AFP report notes that more than 30 churches have been forced to close in West Java and dozens more throughout the country in recent years due to Muslim violence, churches which were among the few spared during the outbreak of hostilities during 1997-1998, where hundreds of Christian churches were burned to the ground and never rebuilt.
Turkey: The Christian community is still reeling from the torture and ritual slaughter of three Protestants at a Christian publishing house in Malatya in April by an armed Islamist gang, which was preceded by the murder last year of Catholic priest Andrea Santoro in Trabzon and the assassination of Armenian journalist Hrant Dink in Istanbul in January. An additional six men allegedly associated with the same Muslim gang were arrested on May 30th for plotting an attack on a Christian pastor in Diyarbakir. (Lebanon Daily Star; ADKNI)
Cyprus: The Cyprus Mail reports that during a meeting last month in Rome the Archbishop of the Cypriot Greek Orthodox Church pleaded with the Vatican Secretary of State for the Pope’s assistance to pressure Turkish authorities in restoring and repairing Christian sites and churches in areas occupied since the invasion of the island nation by Turkey in July 1974 and the ethnic cleansing of 160,000 Greek Christian Cypriots.
Lebanon: More than 60,000 Christians have left the country since last summer’s war between Hezbollah and Israel, fearing the rise of both Sunni and Shi’ite extremism and terrorist activity. The Sunday Telegraph recently revealed the results of a poll finding that at least half of Lebanon’s Maronite community were considering leaving the country. More than 100,000 have already submitted visa applications at foreign embassies.
Algeria: In what is considered one of the more “moderate” Muslim regimes, Al-Quds Al-Arabi announced that the Algerian government has just issued regulations requiring advance permission for non-Muslim public events, following a 2006 law aimed at limiting Christian evangelism in the Kabylia region and the Sahara. (MEMRI )
Morocco: In the country that The Economist magazine in 2005 anointed “the best Arab democracy”, all Moroccans are considered Muslims at birth and face three years in prison if they attempt to convert. They are also prohibited from entering any of the few churches permitted to operate for the foreign inhabitants of the country. Moroccan Christians must operate covertly for fear of imprisonment by the government and attacks by Islamists. They cannot bury their dead in Christian cemeteries, and they must be married by Islamic authorities or face charges of adultery. Late last year, a 64 year-old German tourist, Sadek Noshi Yassa, was sentenced to six months in jail and fined for missionary activity. (Journal Chretien
Nigeria: Police in Gombe arrested sixteen suspects after a Muslim mob stoned, stripped, beat, and finally stabbed to death a Christian teacher, Christiana Oluwatoyin Oluwasesin, after she caught a student cheating on an exam in March. Her body was then burned beyond recognition by the mob who falsely accused her of desecrating a Quran. The suspects were released last month without any charges being filed, prompting Christian leaders to accuse government authorities of a cover-up and raising concerns about additional attacks. (Christian Today
Eritrea: Just a few weeks ago, the Islamic government installed a new Orthodox Patriarch after they removed the previous Patriarch and placed him under house arrest for no stated reason. Compass News Direct reported in February the death of Magos Solomon Semere, a Christian who had been imprisoned in a military jail for four and a half years for illegal Christian worship, the third Christian to die in government custody since October. Authorities have also cracked down on unapproved churches, jailing at least two thousand Protestants and members of the Medhane Alem Orthodox renewal movement since the beginning of the year and publicly burning confiscated Bibles. (Christian Post; Compass News Direct ; Journal Chretien)
It is not an exaggeration to say that I could extend this brief list ad infinitum with additional Islamic countries and news items from just the past few weeks’ worth of incidents of violence, discrimination, intimidation and murder targeting Christians in the Muslim world. In many instances, the government and religious authorities in these Muslim countries work hand-in-hand in their campaign of religious persecution.
A scene in the Academy Award-winning movie Schindler’s List gives us some insight into what is happening all across the Muslim world with respect to Christianity. As the SS Commandant Amon Göth and his Nazi Stormtroopers prepare to liquidate the Jewish ghetto in Krakow, Poland, Göth (played in the movie by Ralph Fiennes) gives his men a peptalk:

For six centuries there has been a Jewish Krakow. Think about that. By this evening, those six centuries are a rumor. They never happened. Today is history.

This scene is being repeated in the Friday sermons in mosques and on Islamic satellite TV all over the world, only this time it is the Christians in addition to the Jews who are targets. Great efforts are being made to make the two-thousand year history of Christianity in North Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia a blasphemous rumor. Soon students in Turkey will be taught that the Hagia Sophia, the greatest architectural structure in the Muslim world, wasn’t built by the Christian Emperor Justinian in the Sixth Century, but by the Sultan Mehmed II a thousand years later after the Ottomans seized the Byzantine capital. That Christians lived at all in the Muslim world, let alone that much of the territory occupied by Muslims used to be Christian lands before the Islamic Wars of Conquest, will be nothing but a rumor by the end of this century punishable according to the precepts of shari’a.
President Bush announced last week that he will be sending a special envoy to the 57-member Organization of Islamic Countries. Hopefully, the systematic persecution of Christians and other religious minorities will be the first and primary item in the new envoy’s portfolio, with the 2007 annual report of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom and the State Department’s Annual Report on International Religious Freedom, which name virtually every single country in the OIC for its human rights abuses and religious cleansing, as evidence for our country’s concern.
The fact remains that not a single Christian or Jew lives in peace in the Muslim world, and if it is truly our nation’s foreign policy to spread democracy around the world, this issue is the perfect topic for us to press. Back at home, raising Islam’s global war on Christianity should be the immediate response to the seemingly endless media grievance machine of radical Islam’s Western apologists. Until they begin to address the new Holocaust perpetrated in the name of Islam, their complaints and denials are nothing but bald hypocrisy.
Patrick Poole is an occasional contributor to American Thinker. He maintains a blog, Existential Space.

Ceding the Fall of Pakistan

Ceding the Fall of Pakistan
By Steve Schippert
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 5, 2007

The nature of the conflict before us is about to change significantly in both nature and, potentially, scope.  The question is not a matter of if, but when.  For absent in any analysis of the situation in Pakistan is any discussion whatsoever of how President Pervez Musharraf can or will defeat (or enable the defeat of) al-Qaeda and the Taliban.  And Musharraf is the only known trustworthy custodian of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons arsenal. 

Beyond Musharraf lie only question marks and uncertainties at best, which is a dire Western predicament for a nuclear power cohabitating with popular and powerful al-Qaeda and Taliban movements on its soil. And increasingly, the question regarding Musharraf’s rule as the leader of Pakistan is most often discussed in terms of how long he can survive, not whether or not he can retain reliable control of both Pakistan’s government and its military.

 

The Center for Security Policy‘s Salim Mansur raised the uncomfortable issue of a potential nuclear alliance between Iran and Pakistan. Few in the public governmental forum care to delve into the possible scenario of a fallen Pakistan suddenly a nuclear and military ally of the Islamic Republic of Iran.  But such a scenario is very real, and one which few care to delve into for long. It’s not a pleasant exercise.

 

·       Pakistan has nuclear weapons.

·       It is also the current home to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, the epicenter of the global jihadiyun movement.

·       The Taliban has recently taken to seeking its enemies by reportedly deploying suicide bomber teams to distant shores, including Germany, Canada, the United States and Great Britain.

·       Al-Qaeda is considered to have surpassed its pre-9/11 capabilities since migrating to its sanctuaries in Pakistan in 2001-2002.

·       The Taliban-al-Qaeda alliance fields an armed fighter force of over 200,000 men on Pakistani soil.

·       The alliance has been steadily gaining territory ceded to them by Pervez Musharraf, as he has been incapable of defeating or even stemming the rising tide of Islamists inching ever closer to Islamabad.

·       As Mansur states bluntly, Musharraf “has run the country for over seven years and his welcome has run out” among the general population, not just the Taliban-al-Qaeda alliance.

·       And, again, Pakistan has nuclear weapons.

The UK’s Guardian newspaper quoted former CIA officer Art Keller, once assigned to Pakistan, who said the Pakistani army, paralyzed in part by internal division, is “huddling in their bases, doing nothing” in or near the territories controlled by  the Taliban-al-Qaeda alliance.  And fast approaching is the one year anniversary of the Taliban-al-Qaeda alliance’s official control of South Waziristan, the first territory handed them by Musharraf in a treaty.  Soon after follows the one year anniversary of the same for North Waziristan.  Earlier this year, Bajour agency was ceded.  And significant swaths of Pakistani territory are de facto if not formally controlled by the same, including the large North West Frontier Province, among others.  

 

Meanwhile, US and NATO forces make occasional strikes on established al-Qaeda training camps and facilities inside Pakistan now fully operational beyond the pre-9/11 capabilities once maintained within Taliban-run Afghanistan.  These facilities include entire ‘graduating classes’ of Taliban terrorists tasked with foreign suicide missions. 

 

The US and NATO makes strikes on al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists and their facilities that the Pakistani military will not or cannot.  These strikes sometimes include civilian victims that the terrorists intentionally embed themselves within to serve as either human shields to prevent strikes or propaganda value afterwards.

 

 In the most recent strike inside Pakistan, ten civilians were killed and US and NATO forces were roundly condemned.  Pakistani Foreign Office spokesperson Tasnim Aslam said, somewhat incredulously, that “Any action inside Pakistan’s territory has to be taken by its [Pakistan’s] military.”  But, clearly, the Pakistani military is not ordered, capable and/or motivated to strike against al-Qaeda and Taliban facilities and terrorists.

 

Internal politics within Pakistan also offers little cause for confidence.  Musharraf’s dismissal of Pakistani Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry created the perfect political storm.  It touched off often violent protests nationwide where the Taliban, other Islamists and arrayed political opponents found common cause in calling for the end of Musharraf’s rule as both president and Army Chief of Staff and new elections.

 

Contrary to popular perception, al-Qaeda is not necessarily against free elections.  That is, if it provides the vehicle to implement their brand of Sharia Law, which would by nature abandon the further usefulness or need for such silly Western incarnations.  This can be seen in al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri’s message of praise to Hamas after their bloody eviction of Fatah from Gaza.  Zawahiri said, “Taking over power is not a goal but a means to implement God’s word on earth,” and urged them to implement Sharia Law in Gaza now that the obstacle of relatively secular foe Fatah has been forcefully dispensed in short order.

 

And elections in Pakistan – without Musharraf’s interference – may fall more overwhelmingly in favor of radical Islamists than many suspect.

 

In reaction to Britain’s Knighting of Salman Rushdie, author of the book “Satanic Verses” and subject of an Iranian fatwa for blasphemy, the Pakistani Ulema Council  responded by granting the title of Saif’Ullah (Sword of Allah) to Usama bin Laden.  This should not be viewed as a perfunctory title which carries no more significance than the ceremonial Knighting of “Sir” Salman Rushdie.  It is a significant and rare title granted few within Islam.

 

There really is no Western equivalent to this.  Christians formerly used the phrase “Defender of the Faith.” But by the time of Henry VIII, if not before, it was of less significance.  Even at its prime, as an honorific, it lacked the historical connotations that being Saif’ullah has to many Muslims – including those who are not jihadiyun.  Muhammad called a select few warriors ‘Saif’ullah.’ And in the years that passed afterwards it was used even less often by his followers in large part because the companions that it had been used to refer to were so significant and considered pious and rightly guided. To use it on a terrorist is shameful and Muslims should be outraged at these supposed learned and pious men calling Usama bin Laden Saif’ullah.

 

Regardless of the events viewed, whether the compounding troubles of Pervez Musharraf, the steadily increasing percentage of Pakistani territory controlled by the Taliban-al-Qaeda alliance or the persistent rise in bin Laden’s stature and popularity, the pattern and trend in Pakistan is both clear and persistent.  The Taliban-al-Qaeda alliance continues to gain inertia, strength and power while Musharraf grows weaker and more ineffective in confronting and abating the rise of the Islamist terrorist power that will ultimately consume him and, thus, Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal.

 

This is the steadily deteriorating state of Pakistan.  The best-case realistic scenario currently being offered going forward is not one that entails the defeat or even true combat with the Taliban-al-Qaeda alliance creeping ever closer to the levers of Islamabad’s power.  Instead, ‘best-case’ is one in which Musharraf no longer controls Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal, but a trustworthy General seizes control of at least the nuclear weapons.  This, an uncertain question mark at best, is the good side of the coin, which unfortunately still includes a rising and more powerful al-Qaeda, just one sans nuclear weapons.

 

And when Pakistan as we know it falls, it will most likely become run by al-Qaeda and/or al-Qaeda aligned Islamists.   An Islamist figure such as former ISI (Pakistani military intelligence) Director Hamid Gul can be expected to rise to grasp the official levers of power within Pakistan.  A figure such as bin Laden will never publicly hold such official title, as an “al-Qaedastan” would draw too much international ire.  But a perceived degree of separation through an aligned Pakistani figure such as Gul would likely provide at least initial survivability.

 

Hamid Gul and Aslam Beg have openly called for a Pakistani military and nuclear alliance with the Iranian mullah regime.  Further, Gul stated openly one month after the 9/11 al-Qaeda attacks that he envisioned “a future [Pakistani] Islamist nuclear power that would form a greater Islamic state with a fundamentalist Saudi Arabia after the monarchy falls.”  What’s more, Gul also seeks to create an alliance of Muslim nations to directly and strategically counter the West’s NATO alliance led by an Islamist Pakistan and Iran, sort of a Muslim NATO. 

 

An al-Qaeda-guided if not al-Qaeda-controlled Pakistani nuclear power forming an international Islamist military alliance would significantly alter the scope of the conflict already at hand.

 

The question remains: How likely is this?

 

The answer can likely be estimated from what is not discussed as much as what is discussed about the future of Pakistan within analytical circles.

 

Few if any analyses concern themselves with calculating any likelihood of a Pakistani defeat of the Taliban or al-Qaeda.  Likewise, few if any discuss an American-led defeat of the same within Pakistani borders.  But each adds its calculus for the life expectancy of the Musharraf regime.  There is little alternative but to conclude that we are ceding the collapse of Pakistan and the rise of Islamists aligned with the Taliban-al-Qaeda alliance.  The question appears no longer if, but rather when.

 

Ceding the Fall of Pakistan

Ceding the Fall of Pakistan
By Steve Schippert
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 5, 2007

The nature of the conflict before us is about to change significantly in both nature and, potentially, scope.  The question is not a matter of if, but when.  For absent in any analysis of the situation in Pakistan is any discussion whatsoever of how President Pervez Musharraf can or will defeat (or enable the defeat of) al-Qaeda and the Taliban.  And Musharraf is the only known trustworthy custodian of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons arsenal. 

Beyond Musharraf lie only question marks and uncertainties at best, which is a dire Western predicament for a nuclear power cohabitating with popular and powerful al-Qaeda and Taliban movements on its soil. And increasingly, the question regarding Musharraf’s rule as the leader of Pakistan is most often discussed in terms of how long he can survive, not whether or not he can retain reliable control of both Pakistan’s government and its military.

 

The Center for Security Policy‘s Salim Mansur raised the uncomfortable issue of a potential nuclear alliance between Iran and Pakistan. Few in the public governmental forum care to delve into the possible scenario of a fallen Pakistan suddenly a nuclear and military ally of the Islamic Republic of Iran.  But such a scenario is very real, and one which few care to delve into for long. It’s not a pleasant exercise.

 

·       Pakistan has nuclear weapons.

·       It is also the current home to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, the epicenter of the global jihadiyun movement.

·       The Taliban has recently taken to seeking its enemies by reportedly deploying suicide bomber teams to distant shores, including Germany, Canada, the United States and Great Britain.

·       Al-Qaeda is considered to have surpassed its pre-9/11 capabilities since migrating to its sanctuaries in Pakistan in 2001-2002.

·       The Taliban-al-Qaeda alliance fields an armed fighter force of over 200,000 men on Pakistani soil.

·       The alliance has been steadily gaining territory ceded to them by Pervez Musharraf, as he has been incapable of defeating or even stemming the rising tide of Islamists inching ever closer to Islamabad.

·       As Mansur states bluntly, Musharraf “has run the country for over seven years and his welcome has run out” among the general population, not just the Taliban-al-Qaeda alliance.

·       And, again, Pakistan has nuclear weapons.

The UK’s Guardian newspaper quoted former CIA officer Art Keller, once assigned to Pakistan, who said the Pakistani army, paralyzed in part by internal division, is “huddling in their bases, doing nothing” in or near the territories controlled by  the Taliban-al-Qaeda alliance.  And fast approaching is the one year anniversary of the Taliban-al-Qaeda alliance’s official control of South Waziristan, the first territory handed them by Musharraf in a treaty.  Soon after follows the one year anniversary of the same for North Waziristan.  Earlier this year, Bajour agency was ceded.  And significant swaths of Pakistani territory are de facto if not formally controlled by the same, including the large North West Frontier Province, among others.  

 

Meanwhile, US and NATO forces make occasional strikes on established al-Qaeda training camps and facilities inside Pakistan now fully operational beyond the pre-9/11 capabilities once maintained within Taliban-run Afghanistan.  These facilities include entire ‘graduating classes’ of Taliban terrorists tasked with foreign suicide missions. 

 

The US and NATO makes strikes on al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists and their facilities that the Pakistani military will not or cannot.  These strikes sometimes include civilian victims that the terrorists intentionally embed themselves within to serve as either human shields to prevent strikes or propaganda value afterwards.

 

 In the most recent strike inside Pakistan, ten civilians were killed and US and NATO forces were roundly condemned.  Pakistani Foreign Office spokesperson Tasnim Aslam said, somewhat incredulously, that “Any action inside Pakistan’s territory has to be taken by its [Pakistan’s] military.”  But, clearly, the Pakistani military is not ordered, capable and/or motivated to strike against al-Qaeda and Taliban facilities and terrorists.

 

Internal politics within Pakistan also offers little cause for confidence.  Musharraf’s dismissal of Pakistani Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry created the perfect political storm.  It touched off often violent protests nationwide where the Taliban, other Islamists and arrayed political opponents found common cause in calling for the end of Musharraf’s rule as both president and Army Chief of Staff and new elections.

 

Contrary to popular perception, al-Qaeda is not necessarily against free elections.  That is, if it provides the vehicle to implement their brand of Sharia Law, which would by nature abandon the further usefulness or need for such silly Western incarnations.  This can be seen in al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri’s message of praise to Hamas after their bloody eviction of Fatah from Gaza.  Zawahiri said, “Taking over power is not a goal but a means to implement God’s word on earth,” and urged them to implement Sharia Law in Gaza now that the obstacle of relatively secular foe Fatah has been forcefully dispensed in short order.

 

And elections in Pakistan – without Musharraf’s interference – may fall more overwhelmingly in favor of radical Islamists than many suspect.

 

In reaction to Britain’s Knighting of Salman Rushdie, author of the book “Satanic Verses” and subject of an Iranian fatwa for blasphemy, the Pakistani Ulema Council  responded by granting the title of Saif’Ullah (Sword of Allah) to Usama bin Laden.  This should not be viewed as a perfunctory title which carries no more significance than the ceremonial Knighting of “Sir” Salman Rushdie.  It is a significant and rare title granted few within Islam.

 

There really is no Western equivalent to this.  Christians formerly used the phrase “Defender of the Faith.” But by the time of Henry VIII, if not before, it was of less significance.  Even at its prime, as an honorific, it lacked the historical connotations that being Saif’ullah has to many Muslims – including those who are not jihadiyun.  Muhammad called a select few warriors ‘Saif’ullah.’ And in the years that passed afterwards it was used even less often by his followers in large part because the companions that it had been used to refer to were so significant and considered pious and rightly guided. To use it on a terrorist is shameful and Muslims should be outraged at these supposed learned and pious men calling Usama bin Laden Saif’ullah.

 

Regardless of the events viewed, whether the compounding troubles of Pervez Musharraf, the steadily increasing percentage of Pakistani territory controlled by the Taliban-al-Qaeda alliance or the persistent rise in bin Laden’s stature and popularity, the pattern and trend in Pakistan is both clear and persistent.  The Taliban-al-Qaeda alliance continues to gain inertia, strength and power while Musharraf grows weaker and more ineffective in confronting and abating the rise of the Islamist terrorist power that will ultimately consume him and, thus, Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal.

 

This is the steadily deteriorating state of Pakistan.  The best-case realistic scenario currently being offered going forward is not one that entails the defeat or even true combat with the Taliban-al-Qaeda alliance creeping ever closer to the levers of Islamabad’s power.  Instead, ‘best-case’ is one in which Musharraf no longer controls Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal, but a trustworthy General seizes control of at least the nuclear weapons.  This, an uncertain question mark at best, is the good side of the coin, which unfortunately still includes a rising and more powerful al-Qaeda, just one sans nuclear weapons.

 

And when Pakistan as we know it falls, it will most likely become run by al-Qaeda and/or al-Qaeda aligned Islamists.   An Islamist figure such as former ISI (Pakistani military intelligence) Director Hamid Gul can be expected to rise to grasp the official levers of power within Pakistan.  A figure such as bin Laden will never publicly hold such official title, as an “al-Qaedastan” would draw too much international ire.  But a perceived degree of separation through an aligned Pakistani figure such as Gul would likely provide at least initial survivability.

 

Hamid Gul and Aslam Beg have openly called for a Pakistani military and nuclear alliance with the Iranian mullah regime.  Further, Gul stated openly one month after the 9/11 al-Qaeda attacks that he envisioned “a future [Pakistani] Islamist nuclear power that would form a greater Islamic state with a fundamentalist Saudi Arabia after the monarchy falls.”  What’s more, Gul also seeks to create an alliance of Muslim nations to directly and strategically counter the West’s NATO alliance led by an Islamist Pakistan and Iran, sort of a Muslim NATO. 

 

An al-Qaeda-guided if not al-Qaeda-controlled Pakistani nuclear power forming an international Islamist military alliance would significantly alter the scope of the conflict already at hand.

 

The question remains: How likely is this?

 

The answer can likely be estimated from what is not discussed as much as what is discussed about the future of Pakistan within analytical circles.

 

Few if any analyses concern themselves with calculating any likelihood of a Pakistani defeat of the Taliban or al-Qaeda.  Likewise, few if any discuss an American-led defeat of the same within Pakistani borders.  But each adds its calculus for the life expectancy of the Musharraf regime.  There is little alternative but to conclude that we are ceding the collapse of Pakistan and the rise of Islamists aligned with the Taliban-al-Qaeda alliance.  The question appears no longer if, but rather when.

 

Radical Outreach Bush coddles American apologists for radical Islam

Islamic Circus

Once upon a time there was an elephant and four blind men. They were not born blind and they have seen most of the things of this world but an elephant. One day they met an Elephant. The first blind man, feeling of the tusk cried, an elephant is very like a spear! The second took the trunk and immediately screamed; an elephant is just like a snake! The third touched the broad and sturdy side of the elephant. He declared an elephant looks like a wall! The fourth seized the tail and claimed an elephant is like a rope.

The parable of blind men and an elephant perfectly illustrates the method of interpreting a subject matter when people are blind and/or ignorant. Often Muslims blame other Muslims for not understanding real Islam. Each and every Muslim believes his own version of Islam and definitely their understanding is better than others. Knowledge is a powerful force that strongly influences a person. Typically religious knowledge is ancient in nature and overshadows a person’s mind to making him blindfolded. A person with Quranic knowledge tends to go back in Stone Age whereas a person with scientific knowledge foresees the future.


REAL MUSLIMS

Real Muslims conceive Islam as a way of life. They like to live a life that was practiced by the people of 7th century. Their mind is clogged with Quranic dictation and Mohammad’s lifestyle. They happily follow this primeval culture engulfed in brutal and barbaric behaviors. These fundamentalists deliberately ignore the fundamental questions about right and wrong or fairness. Muslim cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri claimed 9/11 attacks were a Jewish plot and calling the Columbia space shuttle disaster, “Punishment from Allah” because Christians, Jewish and Hindu astronauts were aboard. It’s just another fine example of how religious knowledge can make a person ignorant.

These Islamists used to be specialists in swords and spears when science was in its infancy. In modern days they plot suicide bombing and carry a few grenades like pocket change. They are the Real Muslims and easily recognizable. They look like Billy goats because of their beard. (Don’t blame me. Famous Iranian  scholar Ar-Razi called Mohammad in this name.) Anyway, these Mullahs wear baggy type pants and their tiny brain is covered with a cap or a turbine. This group of Muslims follows the book of Quran literally and does not hesitate to kill Kafirs. Producer and Director of horror movie “Friday the 13th” may learn a thing or two from these Islamists.

They are not interested in this earthly life. They will do whatever it takes to reserve a seat in their hallucinated heaven. The suicide bombers and Imams (Muslim priest) fall in this category. They have an excellent knowledge of the Quran and Ahadith. They stay away from theological wars and confine themselves in the twilight zone of Islam. Beheading and raping Kafirs are their favorite hobbies. They are dangerous but honestly follow Islamic rules. These Mullahs do not compromise with Islamic laws. Islam prohibits eating pork, drinking wine and accepting interest from invested money. These Mullahs will blow themselves up if they have to eat pork. Forget about drinking and accepting interest. Usually a real Muslim keeps four wives and produces a few dozen of children. When Mohammad was half more than a century old, he married 9 years old child Ayesha. They don’t see anything wrong in this picture and maintain an aggressive “So What?” attitude.

MODERN MUSLIM SCHOLARS

Apparently our Modern Muslim scholars are trying to reform Islam and represent Islam as a peaceful religion. It’s a great news and their effort should be commended except for the hidden agenda that they nurture. All religions have gone through some type of reformation to meet the challenge of civilization. Christianity faced serious obstacle a few centuries ago. Most of the western countries have kicked out Church form the state. Now Church has no business with the government. Even in India, government has passed several laws to hinder religious dominance. One fine example is  “Sotidaho”. In this barbaric practice, A Hindu woman would sacrifice her life when she loses her husband. Also sacrificing a human body to one of those comical gods or goddesses has been banned. In comparison to these examples, no Islamic county has the courage to pass any law that would stop the brutal dictation of Quran.

Is it possible to reform Islam? Hypothetically, Yes. Realistically, NO! Quran, the holey book of Islam is the root of all disasters. Without changing the Quran, it’s impossible to reform Islam. No Muslim will dare to edit or change those weird verses of the Quran. Even the most liberal Muslim will jump from an aircraft without using a parachute if he is asked to change the Quran. These so-called modern scholars are pretending to reform Islam but it’s only a camouflage. Actually they are the under cover agents of real Islam. They are doing a much better job than James Bond 007. Modern Muslim scholars vehemently object all inhumane teachings of the Quran. Whenever an ex-Muslim or a non-Muslim confronts them with those ugly verses, they start huffing and puffing. But they don’t dare to challenge real Islamists instead they hide their tails in between their legs and run faster than the cartoon character “Roadrunner”.

Anything in the Quran that looks ugly is considered Out-of-Context. Their explanations are contrary to Mullahs’ reckoning. These modern scholars write tons of Qu-fi (Quranic Fiction) books to portray a peaceful Islam. They have found miracles in the number 19 and working on the number 69 to discover the impact on Mohammed’s personal life on his wives. They feel embarrassed of Ayesha-Mohammad situation and try to increase Ayesha’s age deceitfully. One may think if these modern scholars are truthful to what they preach they must have conflict with Mullahs. Should not they declare an all out “Jihad” against those Mullahs and ask them to stop misinterpreting Islamic teachings. Sadly, they don’t because they know Mullahs are absolutely right. These Muslim scholars do not hesitate to visit the same mosques that Mullahs rule and pray right behind those bigots. Had they believed what they write they would have created their own mosque and made their own Muslim community. These Modern scholars do not practice what they preach. Actually it’s a good teamwork between Fundamentalists and hypocrite scholars. These hypocrite scholars only create a smokescreen to deceive western countries and innocent moderate Muslims.


HALF-MUSLIMS

A group of Half-Muslims is the follower of Real Muslims. They pray five times a day robotically recite the Quran without understanding it. People from non-Arab countries like India , Bangladesh and Africa are this type of people. They memorize the Quran like a parrot but do not understand Arabic. However, Qu-Fi books written by hypocrite scholars inspire them to believe Islam as a scientific religion. Any deviation from this concept is either a conspiracy of the Jews or people misunderstood the meaning. Eating pork or drinking wine is strictly avoided. They do not mind accepting interest of invested money and seek forgiveness from Allah for this act.

Women of this group use headscarf within the community but freely take it off when going to work. Non-Arab Muslims are often discriminated openly when staying in Arab countries. A few months back, six non-Arab Muslims were killed and burnt by a Sheikh just because they dared to enter in his garden. Ironically, these half-Muslims do not mind this type of inhumane behavior. When living in a foreign country this half-Muslims pledge to become a citizen but their heart and soul reside in the Middle East despite the fact that their root belongs to another country. They shade tears when Middle East is in trouble and wish destruction of all Kafir countries including the host country where they live in.


MINI-MUSLIMS

A group of Mini-Muslims is desperately holding the tail of Islamic elephant and expects to get a rare seat in the heaven. Majority of Muslims is of this type. Occasionally they visit a mosque to attend the Friday prayer otherwise they are not fond of exercising five times a day. There are three common things that all groups of Muslims give credence to. First, they all respect shrewd and ruthless emperor Mohammad and his imaginary idol Allah. Secondly, they would never eat pork. Thirdly, they believe Islam is the solution of everything. Mini-Muslims have faith in these three fundamentals and they also believe all Muslims will go to heaven. Inspired by this incentive, our Mini-Muslims do not like to leave Islam.

This group of Muslims does not mind drinking a few beers or a shot of Whisky. They do not follow any of those Islamic laws. Never read the Quran or Ahadith. However, they create a fertile land for hoaxes that are created by hypocrite scholars. Other three groups of Muslims do not consider this group as Muslims. Especially those Real Muslims hate these types of so-called Muslims. Apparently Mini-Muslims look harmless and they really are kind people. Problem starts when they become old and become religious. Some of them change to Half-Muslim and some even downgrade themselves to Mullahs.


CONCLUSION

Good news is majority of Muslims are either Half-Muslims or Mini-Muslims. Naturally they are not a direct threat to mankind as opposed to Real Muslims and Hypocrite Muslim scholars. Bad news is Saudi Arabia and Middle-East countries are pumping billions of petro-dollars to promote real Islam through Madrasas (Islamic School) and feeding hypocrite scholars. Hypocrite scholars create an innocent image of Islam to keep half and mini Muslims under Islamic flag. Mullahs take next step to brainwash this people and convert them to Real Muslims. Can you imagine of all Muslims of this world becoming Real Muslims? We are talking about a billion active suicide bombers! Ain’t that scary? 

To give a happy ending, the activity of emerging ex-Muslims must be mentioned. This group of people is not blind or blindfolded. They see the whole elephant. In fact they see Islam as a devastating wild elephant. This movement is getting momentum everyday and a surprising snowball effect is not too far.

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

Muslim Immigration: A Winning or Losing Proposition for America?

Muslim Immigration: A Winning or Losing Proposition for America?
Glen Reinsford
Author: Glen Reinsford
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: June 18, 2007

Muslims on Coney Island Ave. Brooklyn, NY 

Are you aware that CAIR insists that any and all Muslims from around the world are automatically “entitled” to immigrate to America? FSM Contributing Editor Glen Reinsford makes compelling arguments on this issue. Is an ever growing Muslim population an asset or a liability for us?

Muslim Immigration: A Winning or Losing Proposition for America? 

By Glen Reinsford

Pardon the crude analogy, but what if someone handed you a revolver with one bullet and five empty chambers and asked you to put it to your temple and squeeze the trigger? Would you indulge them?

If you are a sane person, then you would naturally decline the offer, regardless of the number of empty chambers. Even a one in a hundred chance of doing harm is hardly a reason, in and of itself, for taking an unnecessary risk.

Consider the similarities to Muslim immigration:

1)     In most cases, nothing bad will happen.

2)     In some cases, it will.

3)     The risk increases as the process continues.

4)     There is an utter pointlessness to the whole affair.

First, let’s concede that the majority of Muslim immigrants mean Americans no harm. They have their reasons for not wanting to live in Muslim countries and these aren’t hard to guess. Of the fifty-three Islamic nations on the planet, there is hardly a single one that isn’t characterized by some combination of debilitating corruption, economic blight, third-world standard of living, political repression, or an appalling human rights condition. 

Unfortunately, however, more Muslims in America will inevitably result in a more Muslim America, which ultimately means having to deal with the problems that plague Muslim society. If there are tangible benefits that offset the added strain of trying to accommodate a religion that is very much at odds with Western liberal values (including freedom of conscience, social tolerance, democracy, and the equality of women), then they are not immediately apparent.

Even the Council on American-Islamic Relations, one of the most vocal advocates of unfettered Islamic immigration into America rarely bothers to try and make the case that non-Muslim citizens will benefit from an influx of those believing that Islam is meant to be the dominant political, religious and social system that Muhammad required it to be. Instead, CAIR merely implies that Muslims are entitled to America by virtue of the fact that the U.S. accepts other immigrants. 

Beyond flirting with cultural catastrophe, there is also the loss of American lives resulting from the domestic terror attacks that will certainly escalate as the U.S. inexplicably imports a fifth column in a time of war. 

A Pew Research poll released in May shows that one out of every four Muslims in America either supports al-Qaeda outright or is ambivalent about the terrorists that slaughtered 3,000 fellow citizens in the name of Allah just six short years ago. About the same percentage of younger Muslims also believe that suicide bombings can be justified in “defense of Islam.”

Support for terrorism isn’t just theoretical. The release of the study was sandwiched between news of a shooting rampage plot by Muslims against Fort Dix residents and a separate Fedayeen plot literally to blow up JFK airport in New York. It also follows the murder of five Americans at a Utah shopping mall by a Muslim teenager in February.

In each case, the terrorists are immigrants to America. 

This is also true of Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, who murdered two people waiting in line at an LAX airline counter in 2002, Mohammed Taheri-azar, who intentionally ran down nine students with an SUV in North Carolina in 2006, and Osama Ahmed Ibrahim, a Muslim doctor in Chicago who allegedly allowed a Jewish patient to die under his care in 2003. Naveed Haq, who shot six women at a Seattle Jewish center last year, was the son of immigrants.

The Qur’an, Islam’s holiest text, contains dozens of verses that directly encourage religious violence, and there are literally hundreds more that speak of Hell or hatred toward nonbelievers. Muslim apologists usually insist that the bloodiest directives are reserved for times of war (even if this stipulation is not always evident from the context of the passage).

Many Americans naively assume that they are safe from Islamic terror because they mean Muslims no harm. Indeed, the Pew Research study showed that the majority of American Muslims are “well-assimilated” and have a “positive view” of American society, something that simply would not be the case if there truly was a “war on Islam.” Even CAIR (an organization that normally tries to convince the world of just how miserable life is for Muslims in the U.S.) hastily touted this part of the study, as it tried to assuage the concerns of Americans over the news that their Muslim neighbors may not be who they appear.

But whether or not there actually is a war on Islam matters far less than what Muslims choose to believe. Unfortunately, an overwhelming majority of Muslims overseas and an alarming number of Muslims in the U.S. are convinced that there is a war against their religion. In fact, high-profile organizations like CAIR and MPAC routinely feed this misconception with negative propaganda, while very few Muslim leaders are active in countering it.

Suddenly the issue of whether or not those Qur’anic mandates to “slay the infidels wherever ye find them” are limited to times of war becomes somewhat academic. A Muslim who actually believes the rhetoric of war (as most Muslims now do) has, at his fingertips, a manual of instruction telling him to strike off heads and fingertips in the cause of Allah. What sense does it make for the U.S. to draw its future citizens from a pool of potential terrorists?

As if this weren’t bad enough, the Pew Research study also finds that the younger generation of Muslims is more accommodating of terrorism than their parents – a trend that is supported by surveys of Muslims elsewhere in the West, with alarming implications. While moderates are capable of breeding radicals, radicals rarely breed moderates. Islamic extremism will expand with each new generation, even if the overall number of Muslims stays the same.

Progressive radicalization is a persistent theme in Islam, not just in the West, but in other parts of the world as well, where fundamentalism usually has a way of winning out over pragmatism.

In Gaza, for example, Palestinians recently used their new-found “independence” to elect the bloody Islamist terror group, Hamas, to power, even though it meant an immediate and drastic reduction in foreign aid. 

It is also highly unlikely that the Pakistan of today (where Islamists are forcing the implementation of Sharia and the persecution of surviving religious minorities) is what the father of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, had in mind when he engineered an independent Muslim nation just 60 years ago. Jinnah was a secularist who believed in the separation of church and state.

Lebanon, a vibrant and predominantly Christian nation before 1975, is perhaps the most vivid example of Muslim immigration pushing a nation past the tipping point in the modern age. Native Lebanese expert, Brigitte Gabriel, traces the downfall of her country to the absorption of Palestinian refugees, which gave radical Islam the foothold that it needed to trigger the civil war. 

The subsequent occupation by Syria forced out huge numbers of Christians and devastated the social fabric of what had been the Arab world’s best example of economic success, civil liberty and tolerance. The free reign of Hezbollah and other radical groups has virtually ensured Muslim hegemony and Lebanon’s grinding descent into the abyss of dysfunction that defines those nations under Islamic rule.

Every country that is Muslim today was once non-Muslim. Every culture that found itself under the heel of Islam died a pitiful death as the concentration of Muslims within the population gradually exceeded critical mass. This is because Islam is an end unto itself. Like a virus, once it is introduced, it uses the host’s machinery to make copies and eventually strangle native religions into tiny, persecuted minorities. 

In the past, Islam achieved its imperial goals by the sword. Today – notwithstanding the occasional terror attack – Jihad against the West is waged via the tactics of unilateral immigration and one-sided proselytizing.

This is not to say that all Muslims are a threat to America’s future, of course. Indeed, there is a handful in the United States that does stand against extremism, trying their best to convince the rest of the Islamic world that America is not a legitimate target for terror. Unlike, say, the first-generation immigrants who mostly make up the executive leadership of the Hamas-linked CAIR, these Muslims aren’t takers. They are makers – giving back to America, rather than existing merely to foment grievance and group identity for personal indulgence. 

Presumably, there are potential Muslim immigrants who would also become patriotic and productive citizens. Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing who they are or predicting who their children might become. Like putting a partially-loaded gun to one’s head, there is absolutely no compelling reason to gamble with American life and civil liberty. What reward have Americans gained so far that can possibly offset the loss of those already killed by Muslims on American soil?

For potential immigrants who believe that Islam is the true religion, America’s message should be one of challenge rather than appeasement. Over the course of fourteen centuries now, Islam has demonstrated a proven ability to take prosperous countries and turn them into disaster zones. Now it is time for Muslims to show that their “one, true religion” is capable of building societies in which Muslims themselves actually want to live rather than escape. 

After all, what service to the Muslim world does the United States do by absorbing the most reform-minded individuals from where they are needed most?

It should go without saying that citizens of America who happen to be Muslim should not be viewed with suspicion or treated any differently than anyone else merely on the basis of their religion. But neither should Americans be afraid of confronting organizations like CAIR, which cynically exploit Western tolerance for the purpose of ultimately destroying that tolerance and advancing a theocratic system that is fundamentally opposed to the very principles that made America successful and attractive.

Again, the message should be clear: If you want to live in a Muslim country, then go live in one. On the other hand, if you don’t want to live in a Muslim country, then stop trying to turn America into one.

The problems are not uniquely American, of course. But Americans are best positioned to avoid them if they can muster the courage. Others in the West are not as fortunate. Some have developed a pathetic resignation to their fate.

On a recent visit to the United States, Queen Elizabeth talked positively of the “challenges” posed by “diversity.” This was a thinly-veiled reference to the consequences of British immigration policy over the last fifty years, which now include a disaffected Muslim underclass that is just beginning to flex its muscle. In the Queen’s mind, it would appear that diversity is the tautological justification for very social “challenges” that diversity creates.

But “diversity” is merely a description, not a self-evident moral axiom that confers any sort of legitimacy in its own right. The same social engineers who champion the cause of diversity are often known to sing a different tune when it comes to poverty, the uneven distribution of wealth and the many other elements of economic diversity.

Challenge and risk often have their place at the personal level. There is usually nothing wrong with the challenge to exercise, eat right or become more productive, for example. Likewise, there are rewards in life, such as a lucrative career or meaningful friendships that are often accomplished only through taking a measure of personal risk.

The challenges posed by Muslim immigration are not personal, however, and neither do the esoteric rewards (whatever they may be) offset the all-too-tangible consequences for the broader society, particularly since it will affect those members who never wanted to incur these risks in the first place. 

Muslim immigration adds nothing that is truly necessary to the lives of Americans, but its degenerative effects are already starting to threaten the American way of life through demoralization, litigation and the other subtle tactics of cultural Jihad.

In this sense, Americans are following in Europe’s footsteps when they would do better to avoid the example being set. Although the Brits may brag about the problems that they have created for themselves, a more sensible France is quietly trying to pay some of its five million Muslims to leave the country.   Other Western nations are also trying to accommodate the social strain that is rising from a petulant and increasingly unruly Islamic minority.

The Muslim world does not accept non-Muslim immigrants. In fact, it is becoming more homogenous as Islamic regimes drive out religious minorities or whittle them down through other means of attrition. Even Muslims who feel entitled to life in the West often decry the presence of foreigners in Muslim lands.

But if Muslim lands are for Muslims, then it is all the more reason for insisting that this is where they stay, particularly since the legacy of Islamic immigration into the West is becoming a series of unilateral concessions to appease Muslims that not only go unreciprocated, but are then the new foothold for even bolder demands.

Muslim immigration is a losing proposition for America. At best, it is an unnecessary risk that offers no comparable benefit. At worst, it is suicidal.

#  #

FamilySecurityMatters.org  Contributing Editor Glen Reinsford is Editor of www.thereligionofpeace.com.

© 2003-2007 FamilySecurityMatters.org All Rights Reserved

If you are a reporter or producer who is interested in receiving more information about this writer or this article, please email your request to PR@FamilySecurityMatters.org.

 

Note — The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of The Family Security Foundation, Inc.

 Click here to support Family Security Matters

The Defeatocrat Agenda

The Defeatocrat Agenda
By Peter Brookes
New York Post | October 31, 2006

If the “Defeatocrats,” er, Democrats, triumph next week, taking the majority in Congress, expect U.S. foreign and defense policy to veer sharply left, with little guiding philosophy beyond ABB – Anything But Bush. For many Democrats and liberals, this vengeful approach may provide much-needed therapy after 12 bitter years in the minority. But it’s no basis for a defense or foreign policy.

Other than attacking what the Bush administration is doing, Democrats have done little to articulate foreign and national-security policies of their own. But here are some of the possible outcomes if the majority changes hands on Capitol Hill:

On Iraq, many Democrats – led by Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) – have said they’d push for an immediate “redeployment” (i.e., withdrawal) of U.S. troops, leaving who-knows-what kind of nightmare behind.

A premature withdrawal would cause unimaginable instability in the Middle East. And there’s no doubt that jihadists would chalk up Iraq as proof positive that terrorism works – adding it to other “successes” in Lebanon (1983) and Somalia (1993).

Worse, an ignominious U.S. retreat would prove to countless other troublemakers that America is nothing more than a paper tiger.

A liberal majority would also drastically change course on North Korea, pushing for direct U.S. talks with dictator Kim Jong Il – despite his recent missile tests and nuclear blast. Caving in to Pyongyang’s demands for one-on-one negotiations would reward its nuclear brinkmanship and blackmail. The lesson wouldn’t be lost on its nuclear kindred spirit, Iran.

Speaking of Iran, it’s not clear what a liberal congressional leadership would do. They don’t seem to say much about it – other than carp about the White House’s multilateral efforts to curb the mullahs’ nuclear ambitions.

But you could clearly forget about missile defenses to protect the homeland and troops deployed overseas. Liberals see such defenses as provocative. (In fact, leaving ourselves deliberately vulnerable to ballistic missiles is truly provocative – and foolhardy.)

What would a liberal Congress propose regarding the terrorists/terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay? Some of these prisoners are so dangerous even their own countries won’t take them back. What of the Patriot Act, Terrorist Surveillance Program or the terrorism-financing surveillance efforts that have been so successful in preventing another attack on the homeland for more than five years?

Here’s a clue: 90 percent of House Democrats voted against the NSA’s Terrorist Surveillance Program; 80 percent voted against the terrorist interrogation bill. All these counterterror programs are at risk if House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi gets the speaker’s gavel next year . . .

OK, some will say: Don’t worry about Congress. The president holds the real power in foreign affairs and national security. Sure, the prez controls the State Department, Pentagon and intelligence community – the key tools of national security. But don’t constitutional checks and balances give Congress the almighty “power of the purse?”

Through the appropriation process, Congress can fund – or defund – our foreign-policy and national-security efforts, including wars, law enforcement, intelligence, defense and other counterterrorism programs.

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-Harlem), who’d become chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, gave us a sneak preview of what the Dems might do: “You’ve got to be able to pay for the war, don’t you?” You get the picture: No money – no war.

Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman hit the nail on the head: “America faces a critical question, will it elect leaders who recognize we’re at war and want to use every tool to win it, or politicians who would surrender important tools we need to win?”

The Liberals’ plan for our foreign affairs and national security has been to have no real plan at all, other than categorically opposing whatever the administration is doing to protect us. But having no strategy or policy for conducting our international affairs is certainly no way to keep us safe at home – or advance and protect our interests abroad.

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.