ARCHIVES


001
ALLAH vs JEHOVAH 

When serving their own purposes, Muslims hold forth that they worship the same God as Christians and Jews.  Nothing could be farther from the truth!  Allah is not the God of Christians and Jews, and no amount of propaganda by Muslims or rationalization by well meaning “Pollyannas” can make it so!

Persons attempting to emphasis similarities between Islam and Christianity point to the numerous passages in the Koran, coinciding with stories from the Bible and Talmud.  In many instances the stories are widely divergent, and in others, read like passages from the “Arabian Nights”!  Examples: In the Koran, Abraham offered Ishmael instead of Isaac as sacrifice, and on a mountain in Arabia instead of Mount Moriah in Israel; Moses was plucked from the Nile by his own mother, not sister; and a Samaritan molded the golden calf, even though the Samaritans did not appear on the historical scene until after the exile of the Jews to Babylon.  And, in his second revelation, his “Journey to Heaven”, revered by Muslims, he was supposedly picked up by Gabriel for a trip to Heaven, and on the way prayed twice at the “Furthest Mosque”, alluding to the second Jewish Temple of Jerusalem.  Local skeptics, after Muhammad’s revelation, more knowledgeable regarding the matter, gleefully pointed out that at that time, the Temple had been a pile of rubble for over 500 years.  It might be supposed that a few lost their heads for such insolence. However, the treatment of Jesus in the Koran is even more interesting. 

Jesus, or “Isa”, as he is known in the Koran, is well mentioned, but with several critical distinctions.  According to Muhammad, Isa was not the Son of Allah (God), only a special prophet, and according to Muhammad, did not die on the cross.  Instead, a man named Shabih, who resembled Jesus, took his place.  And, according to Muhammad, (Allah) Christians are mortal sinners to believe in the divinity of Christ.  He said, “Allah will forbid him the garden (Heaven) and the fire (Hell) will be his abode.”  The Koran is also explicit in its rejection of the concept of the Holy Trinity. Muhammad said, “Allah begets not, and was not begotten, that is, he is no son; and no one is like him, which means he is no Holy Spirit.”

Under Islam, a passport to Heaven is based on a continuous effort based on good deeds to other Muslims, but not to infidels.  The exception is that of a Muslim who dies in Jihad,  or Holy War against infidels!  If killed fighting infidels, he then proceeds directly to Heaven, regardless of his worldly conduct.  Christians aspire to Heaven based on an acceptance that Jesus is the Son of God; good works are secondary.   

The different perceptions of Heaven and Hell between Muhammad’s Allah and the Christians concept of Jehovah are certainly distinct.  Christian Heaven is a place of spiritual communion with God and his followers, and Hell is described as a “lake of fire” where the condemned will suffer.  The Koran is replete with detail regarding both of mankind’s destinations after death. 

Muslim Hell is a place where the damned will be continuously tortured by having scalding water poured down their throats.  They will be burned repeatedly with fire, as fresh skin re-grows between tortures and they will be scourged with iron implements.  And, according to Muhammad, most inhabitants of Hell are women.     

For Muslim men, Heaven is certainly a desirable place.  It is described as having many streams, some flowing with water, others with honey or wine.  Precious jewels abound along the stream banks.  A quote: “But the pious shall be in a secure place, amid gardens and fountains, clothed in silk and richest robes, facing one another.  Thus shall it be: and we will wed them to virgins with dark eyes.”  Allah will give each Muslim 72 of these “houris”; beautiful young women with erect, not sagging, breasts whose bodies are made of musk.  Allah will also give each man an eternally erect penis to enjoy himself.  And between bouts with the houris, three hundred young servant boys, each bearing a golden dish, will supply each Muslim with a different delicacy.  The serving boys are described as being “pure as pearls”, dressed in green garments of silk and brocade, adorned with silver jewelry, and accustomed to drinking wine.  These do not seem to be ordinary servants.  If so, why the need to be, ever young, handsome, and so well adorned?  The question arises; with whom would they be tippling, surely not the houris.     

Allah’s (Muhammad’s) Muslim Heaven was deliberately designed to provide his warriors with the earthly comforts and pleasures largely denied them while alive.  They would have many women, or perhaps boys, for sex, a constantly erect penis, wine, tasty food, beautiful clothing, a pleasant climate with plenty of water, security from enemies, and unlimited wealth.  And, surely attractive for the warriors of Islam; a straight passage to Heaven, if falling in Holy Jihad, regardless of one’s earthly conduct. 

If we assume that there is only one Supreme Ruler of the Universe, then He cannot be both Allah and Jehovah, unless of course, God has one face for Muslims, and another for Christians, Jews, and those of all other religions.  It is most likely, as evidenced by the atrocities committed throughout history in the name of religion that some religions have attempted to hold God hostage for their own ends.  Of this, several are guilty.  

Muslims point to the Christian Crusades and the Old Testament treatment by Jews of their enemies, when attempting to justify the conduct of Islam over the last 1,350 years.  But then was then, and now is now!  Judaism has been a peaceful religion for well over 2,000 years; not responsible for a single violent subjugation of another society in that entire period.  Indeed, except for the Hindus and Persians, the Jews have suffered more deaths at the hand of Muslim Jihad than any other society and continue to suffer Muslim Jihad even today.  In contrast, Islam has, throughout its entire history, conducted systematic genocide, responsible for the deaths of not millions, but hundreds of millions, many more victims than those of Hitler’s Holocaust and those of World Communism combined!  This genocide continues even today, principally in the Sudan, Mauritania, Ivory Coast, the Philippines and Indonesia, though to a lesser extent in several other countries.
           
As regarding the Crusades, they were only Christianity’s belated attempts to reclaim previous Christian and Jewish lands conquered by Islam.  Facts: The Dome of the Rock Mosque, in Jerusalem, was constructed atop the Second Jewish Temple and the city of Constantinople, the previous seat of Christianity, is now called Istanbul.
  
To a considerable extent, the core beliefs of the Jewish and Christian faiths are well summarized by the Ten Commandments, as handed down over 3,000 years ago by Moses.  Any society, if adhering to these commandments, will live in peace and harmony with other societies.  The core belief system of Muslims, however, is based on the infallibility of Muhammad’s revelations, as set forth in the Koran, and augmented by his casual sayings in the 7th Century A.D.  “Kill, kill the unbelievers, wherever you find them”, and “I am the Prophet who laughs when killing my enemies”, are good examples.

Islam, from its inception has been a religion of hate, while Christianity was founded on love for one’s fellow man.  Most Christians and Jews are taught from early childhood to love and respect others, regardless of race, creed or color; Most Muslims are taught from infancy to hate and despise all non-Muslims.  It is paradoxical that a Muslim not following Islam is a better human being, while a person professing to be a Christian or Jew, and not following his or her religion, is much less of a person.   

A practicing Christian or Jew will attempt to bring an unbeliever to God through showing love for his fellow man and by peaceful means; a Muslim practicing his religion is obliged, by numerous passages of the Koran, to offer only servitude or death for those rejecting Islam.    

No, Allah and Jehovah are NOT the same!  
                                                             
End Notes:  For those readers interested in comparing passages from the Koran and Hadith with the Bible, the following are offered.

“And, when the forbidden months have passed, kill the idolaters wherever you find them and take them prisoners and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush.”  (Sura 9:5)   “Thou shalt not kill (do murder).”  (Exodus 20:13)

“And, how many populations we destroyed, which exulted in their life of ease and plenty!  Now, those habitations of theirs, after them are deserted…all but a miserable few!  And, we are their heirs!”  (Sura 28:58)   “Thou shalt not covet.”  (Exodus 20:17) 

“Allah sent me to complete the excellent virtues and to perfect the good actions.”  (Hadith) “For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.”  (Matthew 22:12)
  
 On marrying his daughter-in-law, wife of his adopted son, Zaid:  “So when Zaid had accomplished what he would of her, then We (Allah) gave her in marriage to thee (Muhammad), so that there should not be any fault in the believers, touching the wives of their adopted sons, when they have accomplished what they would of them; and Allah’s commandment must be performed.”  (Sura 33:37)  “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”  (Exodus 20:14) & “Thou shalt not covet.”  (Exodus 20:17).   

“A woman is a toy; whoever takes her, let him care for her.”  (Hadith)
“A wife of noble character; who can find?  She is worth far more than rubies.”  (Proverbs 31:10) 

“Your wives are a tilth (field) unto you, so approach your tilth when and how you will.”  (Sura 3:195)  “Husbands love your wives, just as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her.”  (Ephesians 5:25)

“I have been sent in the best of the generations of the children of Adam, one generation after another generation, until I am born in the generation in which I am born.”  (Hadith)  “A man’s pride brings him low, but a man of lowly spirit gains honor.”  (Proverbs 29:23)

“It is not fitting for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he has made slaughter in the land.”  (Sura 8:67)  “Thou shalt not kill (do murder).”  (Exodus 20:13)
    
“When We (Allah) decide to destroy a population, We send a definite order to those among them who are given the good things of this life and yet transgress; so that the word is proved true against them; then we destroy them utterly.”  (Sura 17:16-17)  “Thou shalt not covet.”  (Exodus 20:17) & “Thou shalt not kill (do murder).”  (Exodus 20:13)
                                                           


002
THE KORAN

The Qur'an, or Koran, is for Muslims, Allah’s Holy Word, as revealed to Muhammad, through various supposedly divine revelations.  These revelations occurred over a period of 23 years, commencing when Muhammad was 40 and lasting until his death at age 63.  For Muslims, the Koran is infallible, as Allah’s direct word, and as such, cannot be interpreted.  This is just as well, since for well over a thousand years, not even the most studious and brilliant scholars, of Islam as well as infidels, have agreed as to the exact meanings of many of its passages.  In the words of the German scholar, Gerd-R. Puin, “About a fifth of Koranic passages make no sense at all!”  He further says, “If the Koran is not comprehensible, not even understood in Arabic, then it isn’t translatable.”  Today, even the most educated Arab speaking Muslims would need some sort of translation to make any sense of the Koran.  However, for Muslims, any attempt at an objective analysis of the Koran is considered as the most heinous heresy, and in numerous instances, has led to the death of the analyst.    

Notwithstanding the difficulties of translating the Koran, several are available, and in several languages.  A good English translation is “The Meaning of The Holy Qur’an” by ‘Abdullah Yusuf  ‘Ali, published by Amana Publications.  Its main quality is the use of extensive footnotes of the translator attempting to justify Muhammad’s numerous crimes through the revelations from Allah.  Also recommended is the only modern English translation by  N.J. Norwood, published by Penguin Books.         

There are several difficulties regarding any serious consideration that the Koran is the clear and immutable voice of God.  The first, being the passage of some 150 years after Muhammad’s death before the Koran was codified into its present form.  While alive,   Muhammad’s revelations were mostly committed to memory by his followers on scraps of parchment, stone, clay tablets, wood, or whatever else happened to be at hand.  The Tradition says that, about a year after the Prophet’s death, his closest friend and the First Caliph, Abu Bakr, ordered that the Koran be set down in writing.  Then, the Third Caliph, ‘Uthman (644-656), ordered that an official version of the Koran be established, and the book took more or less its present form.  He then ordered all other versions to be burned.  ‘Uthman was also one of the first Muslim martyrs to the Koran, accused of apostasy, the worst crime for a Muslim. 

The Koran is roughly equivalent in length to the New Testament, and divided into 114 sections, or “suras”.  The present day version of the Koran consists of 28 suras revealed in Medina, and 86 in Mecca.  They vary considerably as to length and format, and with no chronological or thematic order as to their placement.  In general, the suras are organized according to their length, beginning with the longest first.    

The Koran has borrowed extensively from the Talmud and the Christian Bible, and a significantly large part of the Koran re-tells various stories of the Bible, though with some interesting changes.  Additionally, besides these appropriations, there are several stories which could only be compared with those of “A Thousand and One Nights”.  It is not known if Muhammad was literate or not, but he always dictated his revelations.  Besides the revelations from Allah, as set forth in the Koran, several thousand sayings, often of a trivial nature, called hadiths, are revered because they were said by Muhammad.  Examples are how to entertain guests, keep one’s hair, and conduct marital relations.  Secondly, the intricacies of the Arab language, one of the most difficult in the world, can lead to gross interpretations as to the meaning of a word or phrase.  Muhammad belonged to the Quraysh clan, whose dialect differed considerably from that of the other nomadic tribesmen of the area.  According to Muslims, for the most part the Koran is written in Classical Arabic, the style of language born out of the Quraysh dialect.  This, in itself, seems to be erroneous, since most scholars agree that Classical Arabic did not become standardized until between the 8th and 9th centuries.  Unfortunately for Arabic speaking Muslims, only a limited number can understand spoken Classical Arabic, and even fewer can read it!  Colloquial dialects are spoken in all Arabic speaking countries, and the divergence between these dialects can be considerable.  However, Muslim law dictates that the Koran must always be read in Arabic, which is basically Classical Arabic.  The result is that the imam, or religious head of a mosque, well knows that most of his congregation will not understand what is read, even if he himself can read Classical Arabic.  The result is that an imam leads his congregation in rote memory recitals, in Arabic, of prayers and innocuous passages from the Koran, followed by a homily in the local language.  The expression of: “The blind leading the blind” comes to mind!

Another difficulty for Muslims to understand their religion is that most Muslims do not speak Arabic.  They reside in non-Arabic speaking countries, including Turkey, Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iran, the Philippines, and the Muslim countries previously a part of the Soviet Union.  And, since they are prohibited from reading the Koran except in Arabic, they remain in abject ignorance of their own religion.  

Though Muslims believe the Koran descended from Allah to Muhammad, in its present form, forgetting for the moment the interventions of Caliphs Bakr and ‘Uthman, the discovery of a “grave” in Yemen, in 1972, gives lie to this claim.  While restoring the Great Mosque of Sana’a, the workmen discovered a remarkable grave, not of human remains, but of a large cache of parchment fragments of the Koran, seeming to date back to the 8th and 9th centuries, or that is, during the first two centuries of Islam.  The president of the Yemeni Antiquities Authority, Qadhi Isma’il al-Akwa’ sought the help of a visiting German scholar.  This, in turn led to a project, funded by the German Government, to preserve and study more than 1,000 individual pieces of parchment.   Though still an ongoing project, which will take several years to complete, the overwhelming evidence is that the Koran, as Muslims proclaim, is not the timeless, perfect, and unchanging word of God!  However, considering the increasing influence of Muslims in Germany, it is extremely doubtful that the abovementioned study will ever be completed.                                                              
                                                                 
                                                                                                            

003
MODERN DEMOGRAPHIC CONQUEST
 
As Islam was spread by the scimitar in past centuries, the religion is now being spread by demographic conquest.  The savage Muslim cavalry of the past has been replaced by millions of Muslim women, in thousands of hospital delivery rooms in Western societies doing their part to impose Dar Al-Islam on the civilized Western nations.  And, as with other aspects of Western societies’ struggles with Islam, we are paying for our own burial.  That is, most of these births are paid for by the social services of the effected countries.

Over the last thirty years, several European countries have imported Muslims as a source of cheap and unskilled labor.  France has its Muslims, mostly from Algeria, Germany has favored the importation of workers from Turkey, England allows Muslims in from practically any country, and all European countries have extensive Muslim communities. 

Those hundreds of thousands have now, by the highest index of demographic rate in the world, been converted into millions of under skilled, undereducated, and resentful Muslims willing to further Jihad against their host countries.  And, because these Muslims reject Western values and education, they account for a considerable percentage of the expenditures of social services of their host countries.  A good case could be made that the benefit of cheap Muslim labor has been largely, if not completely, been nullified by the cost of social services plus spiraling costs associated with rampant crime, especially in the larger European cities.  In Berlin, Paris, London, Brussels, and a score of other European cities, the Muslims have congregated in self-imposed ghettos where “dhimmis” or non-Muslims, dare not enter, not even the police!  The United States is more fortunate; it can count on Mexico as a source of cheap and unskilled labor.  Though the costs of social services and law enforcement continue to spiral upwards with the estimated 10 to 15 million illegal Mexican immigrants, the U.S. can be thankful that 99% are Catholics, and not dedicated to the violent overthrow of our country.   

Though perhaps not originally planned by Muslim leaders of Jihad, the demographic conquest of Europe is working to perfection.  In large part this is fueled by the declining demographic rates of most European countries.  Of the 47 European countries, only one, Muslim Albania, has an increasing population; the 46 others are actually decreasing in numbers.  In 17 countries there are more deaths than births; more coffins sold than cradles!  In all of Europe, fully ten percent of babies are born Muslim.  Ten percent of births in France are Muslim babies, half of all births in Brussels are to Muslims and the most popular name for new born males in England is Muhammad!   

The Muslim conquest of Europe is well underway, and probably irreversible.  All Europe is now under Dar Al-Sulh, or that is, the consolidation of strength before launching into Dar Al-Harb, or open warfare.  However, it appears that the Islamic conquest of Europe may never require open warfare.  It may well be accomplished by Muslim women, having more and more little Muslims, and with only an occasional act of terrorism.  The election of Liberals in Spain, and the subsequent withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq, in April of 2004, after the Madrid train bombings, is a good example.  Muslim leaders will continue to exert pressure on all governments for more power, with the threat of terrorist strikes as an alternative.  Many consider that Europe is already lost to Islam!      

End Note: If wishing to understand the crisis in Europe, our readers are urged to buy or access the book written by Pat Buchanan, “The Death of the West.”  

                                                

004
SEXUALITY IN ISLAM
Jamie Glazov

[Editorial Note:  It would be exceedingly difficult to in any way improve on the following article regarding male sexuality of the Islamic World.  Its author, Mr. Jamie Glazov, the Managing Editor of frontpagemag.com , and an internationally recognized authority regarding Islam, holds a  PhD. in History, with a specialty in Soviet Studies.  The following is an article published on October 4, 2001.]


THE SEXUAL RAGE BEHIND ISLAMIC TERROR
    
     “SERIAL KILLERS, almost without exception, are severely sexually abused as children.  The kind of people who hijack a plane with innocent people and drive it into a building with thousands of other innocent people are related to this phenomenon.  When sociopath rape and kill, they do not see their victims as human beings, but only as objects.  This is because the sociopath were themselves, at one time, used as objects…as their bodily integrity was repeatedly violated.  The rage that results from sexual abuse is one thing, but when combined with living in a dysfunctional culture of repression and misogyny, where love is reduced to violent domination, it is quite another.
 
     Throughout the Islamic Middle East, men and women are taught to be vehe-mently opposed to pleasure, especially of the sexual variety.  Men are raised not only forbidden to touch women, but to even look at them.  Sex before marriage is not just a sin…but a criminal offense!  It is punishable by a severe beating at best, or an execution at worst.

     The sexual privileges that are allowed in Islamic cultures are permitted (only) to men.  Women's sexuality and social independence represent major threats to male supremacy and are tightly controlled.  Thus, as a Moroccan feminist Fitna Sabbah reveals in her book "Women in the Muslim Unconscious", there is a deep-seated fear of, and hostility to, individuality prevails, and its main disturbing conflict in the Middle East between sexual libido and repression.  A deep-seated fear of, and hostility to, individuality prevails, and its main expression exists in misogyny.
 
     Socially segregated from women, Arab men succumb to homosexual behavior.  But, interestingly enough, there is no word for "homosexual" in their culture in the modern Western sense.  That is because having sex with boys, or effeminate men, is seen as a sexual norm.  Males serve as available substitutes for unavailable women.  The male who does the penetrating, meanwhile, is not emasculated any more than if he had sex with a wife.  The male who is penetrated is emasculated.  The boy, however, is not, since it is rationalized that he is not yet a man.  In this culture males sexually penetrating males becomes a manifestation of male power, conferring a status of hyper-masculinity.  It is considered to have nothing to do with homosexuality.  An unmarried man who has sex with boys is simply doing what men do.  As the scholar Bruce Dunn has demonstrated, sex in Islamic  societies is not about mutuality between partners, but about the adult male's achievement of pleasure through violent domination.
   
     There is silence around this issue.  It is the silence that legitimizes sexual violence against women, such as honor crimes and female circumcision.  It is also the silence that forces Arab boys into invisibility.  Even though the Society does not see their sexual exploitation as being humiliating, the psychological and emotional scars that result from their subordination, powerlessness and humilia-tion is a given.  Traumatized by the violation of their dignity and manliness, they spend the rest of their lives trying to get it back. 

     The problem is that trying to recover from sexual abuse, and to recapture one's own shattered masculinity, is quite an ordeal in a culture where women are hated and love is interpreted as hegemonic control. 

     With women out of touch…and out of sight…until marriage, males experience premarital sex only in the confines of being with other males.  Their sexual outlet mostly includes victimizing younger males---just the way they were victimized. 

     In all of these circumstances, the idea of love is removed from men's understanding of sexuality.  Like the essence of Arab masculinity, it is reduced to hurting others by violence.  A gigantic rupture develops between men and women, where no harmony, affection or equality is allowed to exist.  In relationships between men, meanwhile, affection, solidarity and empathy are left out of the picture.  They threaten the hyper-masculine order. 

     It is excruciating to imagine the sexual confusion, humiliation, and repression that evolve in the mindsets of males in this culture.  But it is no surprise that many of these males find their only avenue for gratification in the act of humiliating the foreign "enemy", whose masculinity must be violated at all costs…as theirs once was. 

     Violating the masculinity of the enemy necessitates the dishing out of severe violence against him.  In the recent terrorist attacks, therefore, violence against Americans served as a much-needed release of the terrorists’ bottled-up sexual rage. Moreover, it served as a desperate pathological testament of the remasculinization of their emasculated selves. 
                                                              . . . . . . . .  


Mr. Glazov’s article regarding the rage of Muslims, due to the shortcomings of their society when dealing with human sexuality well illustrates the dysfunctional, misogynistic and hypocritical legacy handed down by Islam’s founder, Muhammad.

Before Muhammad destroyed his own society, that of the Arabian Peninsula of the 7th Century, women were seen as equals, not chattels or objects!  The women of Arabia, before Islam, such as his first wife, Khadija, were allowed to conduct business in their own name, a practice not allowed in present day Saudi Arabia.  Allah’s (Muhammad’s) revelations destroyed that equality.  Several revelations of the Koran do compliment women but their value is erased, by others that denigrate women. 

Another example of Muhammad’s hypocrisy is the stern language of the Koran regarding homosexual acts, and in his personal sayings, of the Hadith.  Muhammad must have known that, whenever access to the opposite sex is denied for an extended period, such as long caravan journeys, some homosexual behavior will occur.  Remember, he spent thirteen years with his uncle’s caravans.  Why then, were his words so uncompromising regarding homosexuality?  Examples: “When a man mounts another man, the throne of Allah shakes.”, and, “Kill the one that is doing it, and kill the one that it is being done to.” It is quite possible that Allah’s (Muhammad’s) revelations regarding homosexual acts were a result of his own sexual mistreatment when a boy.

At present, seven Islamic countries specifically proscribe death for homosexuals, including Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Iran.  In Iran, since the Fundamentalist revolution of 1979, the number of homosexuals executed there has been estimated between several hundred and 4,000, perhaps equaling, or even surpassing those political prisoners executed by the Shah in several previous years.  The broad range of estimates is because many sentences were not reported.  The Iranian Islamic Penal Law, made effective in November of 1991, contains these following articles.  Article 110:  “Punishment for sodomy is killing; the Shari’a judge decides on how to carry out the killing.”  Article 129:  “Punishment for lesbianism is 100 lashes for each party.”, and Article 131: “If the act of lesbianism is repeated three times and punishment is enforced each time, the death sentence will be issued the fourth time.”    

As well outlined by Mr. Glazov’s article, in practice, a distinction is made between the sexual act, itself, and any possible emotional attachment, which would be unpardonable.  A man who engages in homosexual acts himself is not necessarily considered to be a homosexual; he might just be using boys or men as a substitute for women.  He would be proving his dominance, as he might prove with a woman.  What is intolerable would be the presence of love, affection, or equality between sexual partners, be they male or female.  When the sexually mistreated boys become men, an extreme distinction within Muslim societies is made concerning what are considered homosexual acts in Western societies.  The man who still permits him self to be mounted finds himself a pariah of his society, but little or no stigma is placed on the dominant partner. 

In the dysfunctional Islamic societies around the world, where women are jealously guarded against any type of relationship with a man before marriage, the incidence of lesbian relationships can only be imagined.    
                                                                                
Perhaps a tragic incident of Saudi Arabia can illustrate the twisted mindset of Muslims regarding sexuality.  As reported by the BBC on March, 2002, a girls’ school caught fire.  Since there were no men present in the school, the girls had taken off their Islamic outer garments.  The Saudi religious police, the “Muttawa”, arriving on the scene, would not let them out of the building, since they were not properly clothed, and fifteen girls burned to death!  The reasoning, if it could such be called, was that it was preferable for the girls to die than for the men at the scene to be subjected to “impure thoughts”.
 
                                                              

005
WOMEN UNDER ISLAM

In his day, Muhammad would have been considered as one of the foremost advocates of women’s rights.  In the 7th Century, before he gained control of the Arabian Peninsula, women of the region had even fewer rights than Muslim women today.  Female babies were often buried alive, spousal abuse was the norm and women had no rights of inheritance.  After revelations from Allah (Muhammad), infanticide was prohibited, spousal abuse was codified, and a female inheritor could obtain half that of a male beneficiary.  Unfortunately, every revelation from Allah of the Koran, and every casual comment of his Prophet concerning women, became a part of Islamic Law, the Shari’a.  Thus, any improvement of women’s status since the 7th Century has been extremely difficult in all Muslim countries and practically impossible in others.       

Today, Muslim women, under the calloused and cruel thumb of Islam are the most repressed of any society in the world.  A woman, even a wife, is a chattel, lower than a bondservant, and only slightly above a slave.  A woman's only purpose is to please her husband.  Allah (Muhammad) said: “Men are in charge of women because Allah has made one of them excel the other."  Other quotes are:  “The woman is a toy; whoever takes her, let him care for her.”, “Women shall with justice have rights similar to those exercised against them, according to what is equitable, but men have a degree of advantage over them.”, “Your wives are a tilth (field) unto you, so approach your tilth when and how you will.”  And another, which sanctions wife beating is: “As for those wives, from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them”.  These quotes, reflecting Allah’s (Muhammad’s) low esteem of women, have influenced the Muslim religion since its beginnings.  Muhammad was also reputed to have said that he had glimpsed Hell, and most of its population were women!

Under Islam, a Muslim is allowed four wives by custom, but many men have several more.  Muhammad had more than ten; some historians say fifteen.  Another type of quasi-wife is permitted; the practice is referred to as Al-Mesyar, or “short day-time visit”.  Under this male biased arrangement, a woman receives a one-time payment, or dowry, before the “marriage”, but then relinquishes all rights to legal support, for her self and any issue from the union.  She also relinquishes any nighttime visits, in order to be able to receive her “husband” during daylight hours.  And, there are no limits as to concubines or access to slave women, even if a slave woman is married.  Thus, even adultery, for a Muslim man, is sanctioned under the Koran.  Muhammad fared even better however; he received a revelation, which permitted him, without restrictions, to marry his cousins or any other woman, even if she were married, who desired to be his wife.        

As well documented by Muslims, Muhammad was 49 when making a marriage contract with his third wife, Aisha, who was either six or nine at the time.  In the 7th Century, child brides were common in several societies.  Under Islam, unfortunately, this practice continues to this day.  The Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran, married his wife when 28, and she was 10.  In this particular instance, it appears that the marriage was a success.  He appears to have been deeply in love with her; wrote tender verses to her expressing his affection, and on her death, never re-married.  He counseled Muslim fathers to, “Do your best to insure that your daughters do not see their first blood (menses) in your house.”  In Iran, in one of the more “enlightened” Muslim countries, their laws permit girls to marry when 9 and boys at 14! 

A tragic by-product of child marriages sanctioned by Islam is the harm done to these child brides when becoming pregnant.  Pregnancies often occur before their young bodies are mature enough to endure childbirth without suffering serious side effects.  In a profiled case of UNICEF, the following was documented:

Zeinab is 26 years old.  She was married at the age of 10, and at 12 gave birth to a girl.  However, the trauma of the early delivery was too much for her young fragile body, whose left side became paralyzed.  As a result, her husband sent her back to her family.  He eventually abandoned her completely and re-married.  She and her daughter, now 13, are now living with an aunt and earn some money selling potatoes.  But Zeinab cannot afford to send the girl to school.

The above UNICEF report does not identify the poor girl as being Muslim, but Zeinab was the name of one of Muhammad’s several wives.  However, regardless of her religion or ethnic identity, this is a story repeated hundreds of times daily in the Muslim world.  That is, with the combination of child marriages and easy divorces by Muslim men, these tragedies are common.       

A man can divorce his wife by simply saying, "I divorce you!” three times in succession.  In some Muslim countries divorce can also be accomplished, by a note to the wife.  A discussion is presently ongoing in some Muslim societies as to whether this can be accomplished by telephone.  However, in most Muslim countries, a woman cannot divorce her husband; she can only seek a judicial annulment.  Grounds for such a release are:  a sexual physical deficiency, mutilation, or malfunction before marriage; madness or leprosy, impotence, or a husband's vow not to have intercourse with a wife for a period of four months.  As can be imagined, there are few marriages dissolved by a wife in the Muslim world.  And, since an Islamic marriage does not produce any community property, upon being divorced, a woman is entitled to a once only payment, for an amount agreed upon before the marriage.  She then has no further recourse regarding assistance for herself or her children. 

Muslims like to point out that the incidence of prostitution is quite low in Islam, but this claim is due more to semantics than reality.  Muhammad invented a short-term marriage, the “mut’ah”, a ploy to allow his troops an outlet when campaigning.  This was a marriage of three days, generally to prostitutes.  As with several other customs of Islam, the short-term marriage, has been even further corrupted, than its original corrupt concept.  Today, in Iran, a short-term marriage can mean only an hour of nuptial bliss.  A one time payment, or dowry, is paid before consummating the marriage.  Then, in a few days, or in the case of Iran, perhaps only an hour or so, three “I divorce you’s”, and a man can be on his merry way.  It might be imagined, that if the recent divorcee had excelled in her temporary marital duties, the recently divorced husband might return to marry her again, in a matter of days, or perhaps hours!  A cynic of the Western world might consider this arrangement as being prostitution, but under another name.  In Tehran today, there are an estimated 60,000 “ladies of the evening”, almost all divorcees, willing to enter into a short-term marriage of an hour or more, that is, once an acceptable amount has been agreed upon as to the dowry.    

A Muslim mother loses all control over her children when a boy becomes seven, and a girl when nine.  In legal matters, two women's testimony is needed to equal that of a man.  A female inheritor is entitled to only one half of that of a male heir.  In most Muslim societies, no statistics are kept as to spousal abuse, and a male relative’s permission must generally be given before a wife or a child can be admitted to a hospital. 

A wife is expected to sexually gratify her husband, but not to take any pleasure of her own.  She is to be only the vessel for his gratification.  A true Muslim considers a woman's orgasm repugnant and sinful, since it might indicate mutuality.  This mindset has led to the barbaric practice of subjecting girls, on or before reaching puberty, to a horrible and painful operation, a clitoridectomy.  This operation severs the nerves giving pleasure through the clitoris.  The practice is more prevalent in parts of Africa, but not unknown in countries of the Western world within Muslim societies.  In Africa, the operation generally entails the young girl being held to the ground by other women, often her mother or older sisters while a woman skilled in this procedure performs the actual operation.  In many cases, this atrocity is accomplished without local anesthesia or any sterilization of the knife used.  In Egypt, an estimated 80% of Muslim girls are subjected to this horrific practice.  

 In 2002, a Muslim family living in England was upset because Britain's National Health Service would not provide such an operation for their daughter.  They had to go abroad for the operation "to make her more desirable for marriage".  A law passed in 2003 by the English Parliament makes this barbaric practice punishable with 14 years of prison.  

When a girl reaches nine years of age, she enters "Purdah", and takes the veil.  Thereafter, her every movement is severely restricted and, in most Muslim countries, cannot leave her home unless completely covered, from head to toe, and accompanied by a male relative.  As to education, in most Islamic societies, a woman, unless of the ruling class, has little chance of any additional schooling past that of the religious indoctrination of the Sunnah.  Turkey and Iran are two notable exceptions, where in both countries many women are allowed to pursue a higher education.
 
Much of the above is not from a history text describing conditions of medieval Arabia, but reflects life in Saudi Arabia in the 21st Century.  A considerable amount of the above information is contained in a document of the U.S. State Department, entitled: “Country Report on Human Rights Practices in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for A.D. 2002”.  This report is available in most public libraries of the United States. 

Honor killings, or a better description would be "honor murders", are a phenomenon largely confined to the Muslim world.  Not a single Islamic country is free of the custom.   Honor murders have their root in a vulgar and ancient Arabic expression, "A man's honor lies between the legs of a woman."  Muslim women who have had sexual relations outside of marriage, including rape, or to have raised suspicions regarding their conduct, i.e.- be only suspected of having illicit relations with a man outside of marriage are subject to being killed to "regain the family honor."  But adultery, or the loss of virginity, or its suspected loss, is not the only justification, in the minds of Muslims, for brutal murder.  Marrying without permission of the family, disobedience, leaving home without permission, or even a flirtatious glance has provided motives for murder.  And, in a few cases, women observed smoking cigarettes has led to their deaths. 

However, for whatever of the above reasons that the male members of a Muslim family feel that a female member of the family has brought dishonor to the family, the execution is generally carried out by close male relatives, generally by a father, brother, or uncle.  These murders reflect a mind-set almost incomprehensible to more civilized societies, but are every day practice in Muslim countries, and beginning to appear in other countries with Muslim populations.  Statistical evidence is difficult to obtain, not so much as a desire of the Muslim countries to hide the facts, only that "honor murders" are such an accepted custom of Muslim societies, that many officials of the different countries would be surprised of any interest in the matter.  The United Nations Population Fund estimates that around 5,000 honor killings (murders) occur each year! 

Muslim courts are especially lenient concerning honor murders.  Jordan, one of the more "enlightened" countries of Islam, if this expression can be used concerning any Muslim country, has even codified honor murders.  Until quite recently repealed, Article 340 of the Jordanian Penal Code was clear on the matter.  Quote: "He who discovers his wife, or one of his female relatives committing adultery, and kills, wounds or injures one or both of them, is exempt from any penalty."  And, Jordan is one of the more "enlightened" Muslim countries.  But still on the books are other articles of the Penal Code that insure that a Jordanian man will be exempt from prosecution or be treated with leniency if conducting an honor killing (murder).  At most, the sentence would be a few months in prison. 

Dr. Mu'men Hadidl, a previous Director of Jordan's National Institute of Forensic Medicine, has stated that even the conduction of a hymenal examination is practically a death warrant for a woman there.  That is, even the suspicion that an unmarried woman is not a virgin, as evidenced by an examination demanded by a male member of her family, in many instances will lead to her murder!  Dr. Hadidl further stated that he has performed post mortem examinations on several victims of honor killings (murders) that still possessed an intact hymen.  As an "enlightened" Muslim country, a good percentage of women in Jordanian prisons are there for their own protection against being subject to honor killings (murders). 

In 2003, an article was reported in the "Jordan Times" newspaper, and later was used in a segment of a broadcast by the BBC.  Two sisters, 27 and 20 years of age, were hacked to death by their own brothers.  Their crimes, in the eyes of the family were that the older sister had left home to marry a man without her family's permission, and a couple of years later, the younger sister had run away to join her.  Some "well wisher" of the family revealed the sisters' address, and the brothers entered their residence with axes and hacked the women to death!  It is not known if the family was too poor to have owned a gun for the executions, which would have been rare in the Muslim world, or just that such a dishonor of the sisters deserved a more horrendous death.  According to a Jordanian policeman at the scene, "One victim's head was nearly cut clean off."  However, the family's honor had been preserved!  

In Egypt, the Ministry of the Interior reported that of the 775 cases of reported homicides in 1988, 49 of the murders, or 16% of them, were to "wipe out shame", a term used in Egypt to describe honor killings (murders). 

In addition to the murders, which at least in the eyes of many Muslim families, are justified; many fake honor murders occur.  These are instances where a man kills another man with the pretense that the victim had had relations with one of his female relatives, and he is only upholding the family "honor".  In this manner, he is not accused of murder and keeps his own head.  Unfortunately, in many instances, the female relative is then sacrificed on the altar of "family honor." 

In some cases, the family members of a Muslim woman are relieved of the duty of protecting the family honor and the pertinent country, where a woman has dishonored her family, then assumes this obligation.  In some countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan, but certainly not exclusively limited to these countries, the pertinent country where the "dishonor" has occurred, may step forward to resolve the situation. 

Then, these public executions take on the festive manta of a bullfight in Madrid or a major league baseball game in the U.S.  The main exceptions are that generally there is no charge for admission and the snacks sold by the vendors at the stadium are quite different, but the atmosphere is much the same.  And, the wild cheering of the crowds are not for a brilliant veronica by a matador or a home run knocked out of the stadium, but for the clean decapitation of a human head!  Two separate incidents illustrate the Muslim mind-set. 

Several years ago, the International Monetary Fund contributed to the construction of a new sports stadium in Kabul, Afghanistan.  Until the fall of the Taliban regime, it was used for public executions and amputations.  When U.S. officials complained of this use of the stadium, the Justice Minister promised that such events would be moved elsewhere. 

The second illustration, indicating Muslim attitudes towards honor murders, has to do with a public execution held in Saudi Arabia in July of 1977.  An English journalist concealed a small camera and recorded the public execution of a Saudi princess,  Mishael 'bint Fahd 'bin Mohjammad, and her lover, Khalid Muhallah.  She was a woman still married, but separated from her husband.  She and her lover, also a Saudi, had initiated a liaison when both lived in England, and were sufficiently naive to continue the relationship once returned to Saudi Arabia.  They were arrested, hurriedly tried for adultery and sentenced to death.  Before a capacity crowd, the Princess was shot six times in the head and her lover beheaded.  The photos taken by the English journalist became part of the basis for a documentary entitled "Death of a Princess", produced by Anthony Thomas.  The documentary aired in England and caused strained relations between Great Britain and Saudi Arabia.  When the program was to air on PBS, our State Department appealed to PBS not to use the documentary, and Exxon threatened to withhold its sponsorship of further support of PBS programming.

With the immigration of so many Muslims to Europe,most in the last twenty-five years, honor murders are no longer confined to Muslim countries.  They have been reported in every European country, as well as Ecuador, Brazil and Canada.  In 2002, English authorities believe that twelve of their murders could be described as "honor killings". 

One horrific murder was that of a sixteen year old Muslim girl who made the mistake of befriending a young Christian boy.  Her father stabbed her 17 times with a kitchen knife to maintain the "family Honor."  He was sentenced to life in prison by an English court. 

The present law enforcement statistics of several Western nations do not as yet reflect the incidences of honor murders; perhaps it is time to do so! 



006
SLAVERY IN ISLAM

Slavery, since its inception, has been a cornerstone of Islam, for over thirteen centuries!  After consolidation of his power, Muhammad provided several revelations to justify and codify slavery.  He also set the precedent in his own life, with dozens of slaves, which he purchased, sold, traded, rented, hired, and exchanged during his lifetime. A considerable number of the Jewish women and children enslaved at the Banu Qurayzah Massacre of Medina, of which surely over 500 became his property, made him a wealthy man. 

Muhammad soon reasoned that corpses were worth little, but a poll tax, the Jisyah, would insure a continuous source of wealth from conquered societies.  The Jisyah, as explained by apologists for Islam, was to provide “protection” for conquered societies, and as an exemption from service in the armies of Islam.  In few cases, if any, was protection needed from any other than the conquering hordes of Islam, and certainly Islam had little desire to incorporate recent enemies or unskilled warriors into their ranks.  However, if an unfortunate family did not have the wherewithal to pay the Jisyah, a boy or girl-child would do just fine, and was taken into slavery as payment for the Tax.  The price was generally set by local authorities of Islam, or by a mandate from higher up.    

In the middle of the 7th Century, as Muslim expansion into Africa accelerated, the slave trade flourished, becoming an integral part of commerce and exchange of the Islamic World.  Depending on circumstances, men and pubescent boys of conquered societies were enslaved or put to death.  Older men and women, deemed not strong enough to serve as slaves, were killed outright.  Attractive women and pubescent girls could expect to be raped before becoming a concubine or destined for the auction block, and pre-pubescent girls and boys were also highly prized.  The boys were generally made into complete eunuchs, with many dying in the process.   

In the 15th and 16th centuries, Spain and Portugal, and later other countries, purchased black African slaves for their colonies in the New World.  It is interesting to note, however, the distinctions between slaves destined for export to the Americas, and those to be used in the Muslim World.  Slaves sent to the various colonies of the New World were predominately male, as being stronger workers.  A lesser percentage of females were sent; certainly enough to provide succeeding generations, but of that primary importance.  Over ten million black Africans were taken to North, Central, and South America, and the Caribbean.  Their descendants now number in the tens of millions.  Not so in the case of the Muslim World.  With the Koran’s approval of slavery, and certainly due to an over-abundance of product, most slaves destined to the Muslim World were female, for the harems.  Male slaves were generally made into eunuchs, thus, outside of Africa, there are considerably fewer descendants sired by black slaves. The progeny of harem slave girls and their Muslim masters were sometimes incorporated into higher stations, and sometimes not.

The Abolitionist fervor that swept England, and later the United States, had its roots in Christianity.  Though both the Bible and Talmud recognized slavery; neither recognized the practice as “divinely ordained”, as does Islam. 

Slavery is alive and well today in the Muslim World, principally in Sudan, Mauritania, and Saudi Arabia, but to a lesser extent in the other Arab-speaking countries of Islam.  In 2001, the price of a young man in the Sudan was fifty dollars; and a few thousand miles to the East, in Afghanistan, a young girl can still be had for as little as twenty-five dollars.  Virgins command a slightly higher price.

Saudi Arabia supposedly abolished slavery in 1962, and Mauritania became the last Muslim country to (again) abolish slavery in 1982.  However, an estimated 250,000 slaves, almost all women, are held in Saudi Arabia alone!  With those additionally held in Mauritania, Sudan, Afghanistan, and several other mostly Arabic speaking countries, there can be no less than a half million, but probably closer to a million slaves in the Islamic world.  Most presently held in the abovementioned countries have been obtained from sub-Saharan Africa, but not all.  Interpol files are replete with dossiers; missing persons reports, of hundreds of Caucasian women, in many instances tourists, that have disappeared over the years while visiting Muslim countries or countries bordering Muslim countries.       
As an indication that slavery is still an integral part of Islam, the following quote from a lecture of a Saudi religious leader, Sheikh Saleh Al-Fawzan, in 2003, is offered:  “Slavery is part of Islam; slavery is a part of Jihad and Jihad will remain as long as Islam.”  Sheikh Al-Fawzan is a member of the Senior Council of Clerics that dictates the law in Saudi Arabia, an imam of a mosque in Riyadh, and a professor at Bin Saud University, the main Wahhabi center of learning of Saudi Arabia.  He is also the author of a religious textbook, “Al-Tawhid” (Monotheism), which is widely used both in Saudi Arabia, and in schools funded by the Saudis throughout the world.  (Editorial Note: It would be interesting to determine if the Saudi funded school of Georgetown, in Washington, D.C. uses this textbook.)     

The Muslim Religion is the fastest growing religion in the World, including the United States.  And a disproportionate percentage of these converts are Black Americans.  They are pledging their lives and allegiance to the very society that most harmed their ancestors!                                   
 
                                                                 

007
ONGOING GENOCIDE

For several years now, the United States has placed itself as a willing accomplice, as directed by our political leaders, and well implemented through our State Department, on the side of Muslim Jihad, to pursue systematic genocides against defenseless societies.  And, in many instances, other Western nations have been guilty.  For most of the world  media these atrocities are non-events.  In several cases, this “ethnic cleansing” has been directed against Christian and Jewish societies, though Islam has always been an equal opportunity oppressor, and other infidels have suffered as well.  Though certainly not limited to the Sudan, Mauritania, and Indonesia, these three countries of the world are perhaps the best examples of the ongoing genocide of Islam.  The ending of colonial rule in Sudan and Mauritania marked the re-establishment of slavery and the beginning of systematic genocide and in Indonesia as well, but with a lesser emphasis on slavery.     

THE SUDAN:  In 1983 the Muslim controlled government of Sudan instituted the strict Islamic Law, the Shari’a, in the entire Country.  Black Christians, principally of the Nuba tribe, and other non-Muslims were of course subject to this decree.  In 1992, a “fatwa”, or religious edict, was issued giving justification for the Sudanese military to commence an ongoing persecution of all non-Muslims.  A fatwa, once issued, can not be rescinded or amended!   

The ongoing genocide in the Sudan was well planned by the leaders in Khartoum, the capital.  It uses systematic attrition of the non-Muslims to slowly convert the Sudan into a totally Islamic state.  First, soldiers attack villages and indiscriminately kill.  They are unpaid except by the value of the loot and slaves they can obtain.  The elderly and sick are slaughtered and food stores are set afire.  The main objective of these raids against villages is to obtain healthy slaves.  The following is an excerpt from a paper, entitled,  “Facing Genocide: The Nuba of Sudan”, published by African Rights on July 21,1995.

Thousands of men, women, and children are captured when their villages are surrounded, or are snatched while tending their crops, herding their animals, or collecting water.  Many people run to hide in caves to avoid Government attacks, but they are driven even from these refuges by hunger or thirst, or by attacks using tear gas.  Captives are taken to garrisons, forced to carry their own looted possessions, or drive their own stolen animals in front of them.  These captives or “returnees”, as the Government calls them—usually never see their families or villages again.  Men are either killed or forcibly conscripted into a militia known as the “People’s Defense Force”.  Many are tortured.  Women are raped and
forced to work, often in special labor camps.  All but the youngest children are separated for “schooling”, (i.e.- conversion to Islam and training for a role in the new, extremist Islamic Sudan).     

The American Anti-Slavery group also published a recent expose of current conditions in the Sudan:  Women and children abducted in slave raids are roped by the neck or strapped to animals and then marched north.  Along the way, many women and girls are repeatedly gang-raped.  Children who will not be silent are shot on the spot.  In the north, slaves are either kept by individual militia soldiers or sold in markets.  Boys work as livestock herders, forced to sleep with the animals they care for.  Some who try to escape have their Achilles tendons cut to hamper their ability to run.  Masters typically use women and girls as domestics and concubines,     cleaning by day and serving the master sexually at night.  Survivors report being called “abeed” (“black slave”), enduring daily beatings , and receiving awful food. Masters also strip slaves of their religious and cultural identities, giving them Arabic names, and forcing them to pray as Muslims.

According to hearings held by the first session, of the 107th U.S. Congress,
(H. CON. RES. 113), “Regarding human rights violations and oil development in Sudan”, over 2,000,000 black Sudanese have been killed since the Country became subject to Islamic law.” This report is available in most public libraries. 

MAURITANIA:  Slavery has flourished there since the first Muslim invasions of the 7th century.  Slavery was supposedly abolished several times, the last time in 1982.  Nevertheless, slavery is alive and well, combined with a systematic genocide similar to that of the Sudan.  This is accomplished by slave armies, the Haratines.  These are blacks that were previously captured, enslaved, and then trained to kill and enslave their fellow countrymen.  After taking over a village, they remain as the new masters, and the systematic genocide continues. 

INDONESIA:  This country has also provided its share of martyrs to the avarice of Islam.   In approximate chronological order, they are:

Indonesia (1965):  The then dictator Suharto unleashed an orgy of killing which took a minimum of 500,000 lives in less than a year.  Actually, no accurate records were kept; some estimates were much higher; U.S. newspapers of the day gave estimates of up to 2,000,000.  The U.S. public, told that most were Chinese Communists, applauded this genocide, but there were many Christians and other faiths represented in this massive genocide.  Perhaps needless to say, the lands and possessions of the murdered were confiscated by Indonesians.    

Dutch New Guinea (1962 – 1990):  This territory was re-named Irian Jaya after being handed over to Indonesia in 1962.  By September 1973, an estimated 30,000 had been killed, and by 1990, an estimated 100,000.  Most were animists, but a considerable number of Christians were among the murdered.     

East Timor (1975 – 2003):  East Timor was invaded on December 7, 1975.  Using the words of Franklin Roosevelt, this was a “day of infamy”.  But in this case, the “day of infamy” was not of Japan, but of the United States.  Gerald Ford and Henry Kissinger, his Secretary of State, were in Jakarta, and knew that Indonesia was on the brink of its invasion of East Timor.  They only asked that the invasion be delayed, until their departure.  Kissinger told reporters, “the United States understands Indonesia’s position on the question of East Timor”, and the U.S. abstained from a United Nations vote condemning the invasion.  Our then Ambassador to the United Nations, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, said in a cable to Secretary of State Kissinger, on January 23, 1976, “The United States wished things to turn out as they did and worked to bring this about.  The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook.  This task was given to me, and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success.”  Mr. Moynihan seems to have taken pride in his “laudable” accomplishment.
          
Perhaps an article by Lorrie Goldstein, entitled, “Our Selective Morality”, which appeared in the Toronto Sun, on September 14, 1999, might be appropriate.
         
         “If East Timor was Kosovo, we all know what would have happened by now.  U.S. President Bill Clinton would have gone on national television to denounce  Indonesian President B.J. Habibie as a new Hitler and a threat to world peace!  There would have been American led cries,....to indict Indonesia’s generals for war crimes.  The media would be referring to what is now happening as a “new Holocaust”.  The reason none of this is happening is obvious.  The United States, the key player in both conflicts, regards Serbia as a pariah state and Indonesia as a valued trading partner..…(It) pursued its’ interests by minimizing Indonesian       atrocities and portraying the Indonesian military and political leadership as positively as possible.  In both cases, the dead are still the dead.”  

A quotation of Serge Trifkovic, from his book, “Sword of the Prophet”, epitomizes the situation:  “In the motivation, patterns, and perceptions of the actors on the ground—killers and victims alike---East Timor was an Islamic jihad against Christian infidels, identical in form and purpose to other tragedies caused by Islam’s insatiable appetite for other people’s land, property, bodies, and souls.” 

Muslim genocide is presently ongoing in Indonesia, Sudan, Mauritania, Ivory Coast and the Philippines, but to a lesser extent wherever Muslims have absolute or even partial control of a country. 
                                                                 


008
ISLAMIC  JURISPRUDENCE
Hamid al-Ghazali

Secular jurisprudence is almost entirely absent in Muslim countries; Islamic Law, the Shari’a rules!  This legal code is essentially based on Muhammad’s revelations, as set forth in the Koran, as well as “hadiths”, collectively known as the Hadith, or Tradition.  The Hadith is the collection of Muhammad’s sayings, as for example, how to conduct certain rituals of the faith.  The Hadith contains tens of thousands of binding precedents, which extend to such varied subjects as to how to trim one’s hair, put on slippers, and  entertain guests.  Since Muhammad was Allah’s prophet, these details must have come directly from Him.  There are six collections of “hadiths” which are regarded as being authoritative by most Muslims.  “Sunnah” is the body of law conveyed through the Koran and hadiths, and one hadith may form precedent for various parts of the Sunnah.  Over more than 1,300 years, some have become binding and supply the base for a large part of Muslim Law.  Others are non-obligatory, but can be, and are, extensively used in Muslim jurisprudence.  Early legal doctrines and practices were codified by the theologian, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, (780 – 855) and well over a thousand years later the penalties, for different crimes remain much the same. 

Under the Shari’a a private citizen or judge can put forth a case, or inquiry.  Then, a religious leader, a “mufti” will render and issue a legal opinion, or “fatwa”, which is considered as a final judgment.  There is no judicial review; the “fatwa” is final, and cannot be rescinded or reversed.  A fatwa can be issued regarding practically any issue, from issuing a death sentence and offering a compensatory reward for its execution, as in the case of Salman Rushdie, or for authorizing genocide in the Sudan, or to serve more mundane purposes, such as severing a marriage between a Muslim and non-Muslim. All that Osama ‘bin Laden needed, in order to obtain a fatwa for the destruction of the United States, was a single mufti sympathetic to his cause.  This fatwa, in the mind of all true Muslims, is now an obligation, or at least a justification, for its execution!

The Shari’a applies to both Muslims and infidels, but in practice infidels are judged more harshly since they have no rights under Islamic law.  A non-Muslim’s testimony is not accepted or allowed in a Muslim court, against Muslims or even non-Muslims.  Listed below are several crimes, and how they are handled under the Shari’a.  

RAPE:  Rape is supposedly punishable by death, but in most circumstances, only if the woman is Muslim.  But few rapes are prosecuted in the Muslim world, even when the victim is Muslim.  Under the Shari’a, the testimony of the victim is not admissible; instead that of four Muslim men is necessary.  Additionally, their testimony must be to have seen the rape, with actual penetration!  Naturally, if four men were to see the rape, and not intervene, they would be considered, at least in practically any other society, as accomplices!  On the other hand, a Muslim woman who complains of rape may find herself executed because she had relations with a man other than her husband.  Many women of my previous society have suffered this penalty. 
 
This corruption of justice was evidently due to an incident relating to Muhammad’s problems with his child bride, Aisha, when she was suspected of adultery.  When some suspicions concerning her conduct were revealed to the Prophet, Allah fortunately stepped in with a revelation to save her, and which thereafter dictated the requisite of the four male witnesses.  Allah (Muhammad) asked of his wife’s accusers: “Why did they not provide four witnesses to prove it?  When they have not brought the witnesses, such men, in the sight of Allah stand forth themselves as liars!” (24:13)  Though we have no way of knowing if Aisha was guilty of any indiscretion; what we do know is that, due to Allah’s (Muhammad’s) revelation, thousands of Muslim women, for over 1,300 years, have paid with their lives after being raped!  In some Muslim countries, a sizeable percentage of the inmates of women’s prisons, are actually being held for their own protection.  If released, they could be killed by male relatives, who consider that a woman has dishonored the family name, by having suffered the rape.  

Since Islam was established and even today, non-Muslim women are raped as normal practice.  After rape, unless a woman is acceptably attractive, or circumstances permit her enslavement, her throat is cut!   During the recent Balkan conflict, when Muslim forces took few slaves, some Christian women escaped with their lives after being raped. 

KILLING / MURDER:  One of the Ten Commandments is, "Thou shalt not kill (do murder)."  For Muslims, a similar prohibition applies only to those of their own faith.  Towards infidels, the Koran says:  "Kill, kill the unbelievers wherever you find them."  However, if a Muslim kills a fellow believer, the sentence is normally death.  But a killer may escape punishment by paying a “death duty” to the victim’s family, if acceptable to the family.  This option is not normally extended to an infidel killing a Muslim.  And, killing an infidel or “dhimmi” is not normally considered murder!  In some Islamic societies, and depending on the individual circumstances, such as the social or political importance of the victim, some action may be taken, but rarely any long imprisonment, and almost never a death sentence. 

SLAVERY:  There are no prohibitions, sanctions, or penalties concerning slavery, and  slavery has been a cornerstone of Muslim society since the religion emerged.  Indeed, the Koran dedicates several passages regarding, and justifying the practice.
 
APOSTASY:  The worst crime is for a Muslim to renounce Islam, of which I am guilty, upon embracing Christianity.  Allah (Muhammed) ordered the death sentence for apostates, and it is the Law of the Land of all Muslim countries.  His (Muhammad’s / Allah’s) words were:  "One who changes his faith is to be killed."  A Muslim renouncing the religion may first be examined for insanity since, for Muslims, it is incomprehensible that a believer would renounce his or her religion.  This attitude is reminiscent of Communism in the former Soviet Union, when many dissidents were considered to be mental cases, and sometimes interned in mental hospitals, instead of the “gulogs.  Once the sentence has been pronounced, the execution is generally accomplished by beheading, often as a public spectacle.  Though rarely enforced, a Muslim who consistently misses prayers might also be considered to be an apostate, leading to a death sentence.   

BLASPHEMY:  It is doubtful that any person of Western Civilization has been put to death for blasphemy in over 200 years.  But in Muslim countries, arrests, imprisonment, trials, torture, and frequent executions are a daily occurrence for this crime.   In many instances, those accused are Christians or Jews.  Since any non-Muslim is completely devoid of rights in a Shari’a court, a Muslim can denounce an infidel with impunity.  This has led to false charges, against which a non-Muslim can offer no defense.  

Soon after the establishment of Islam, blasphemy covered any lack of respect of Allah, Muhammad, the Koran, the Muslim faith or the Shari’a, by even suggesting that any of these concepts or entities may be in any way defective.  It was, and still is, also considered blasphemy to demonstrate any lack of respect for the “umma”, the Muslim community.  This, of course, in my previous society, can mean practically anything!   

Under the present day blasphemy laws of Pakistan, a person “Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad…shall be punished by death and shall be liable to a fine.”  The vague wording of this Law, can and does, lead to gross injustices, especially if directed against an infidel unable to offer a defense or even to appear in a Shari’a court.

ADULTERY: This is also an offense, punishable by death.  One choice manner of punishment is to sew the adulterers into a sack and throw them from the highest building in the area, often the minaret of a local mosque.  But other forms of carrying out the death sentence are acceptable.

In a news story of the New York Times (May 17, 2002), a young woman of Pakistan, who had been raped by her husband's brother, was sentenced to death, and executed, by stoning, for adultery.  The brother who raped his sister-in-law was not punished.  The judge's ruling was based on the woman's own testimony, that is, that she had had intercourse, by the rape, outside of marriage!  In the Muslim world, few husbands are convicted of adultery.

SPOUSAL ABUSE / CHILD ABUSE:  Spousal abuse is sanctioned in the Koran so this crime, per se, is not recognized as a crime!  And, regardless of the circumstances or gravity of any child abuse, it would not be considered as a crime in a Shari’a court!

THEFT:  Penalties for theft in Muslim countries are specific; for a first offense, the thief's right hand would be amputated.  For a second offense, the left foot is amputated.  In Muhammad’s day, he ordered that the severed hand be worn around a thief’s neck.  Interestingly, the looting of public property or embezzlement of a treasury, do not carry those sentences.  And, theft from an infidel is never considered a crime!   
  
MAIMING OR DISFIGUREMENT:  The Code of Hammurabi comes into play in Muslim Jurisprudence; "an eye for an eye" can be invoked.  A Muslim deliberately gouging out the eye of another Muslim might also lose one of his own eyes as punishment.  Or, a person who is responsible for the loss of a limb might have his own limb removed.  In some countries, such as Egypt, my country of origin, the appropriate body part will be surgically removed in a hospital.  But in more backward Muslim countries, amputations are performed publicly in sports stadiums, sometimes as preliminary entertainment for spectators before the main event of public executions.     

HOMOSEXUALITY:  The Koran, and the Shari’a are specific; death is ordained for the homosexual, and penal codes of several Muslim states reflect this.  The execution of homosexuals is common in Saudi Arabia as it was in Afghanistan, until the fall of the Taliban regime.  In Iran, since the 1979 revolution, estimates by Amnesty International, as to the number of homosexuals executed in that Country range up to 4,000.  The more accepted method of execution is, as the case with adultery, to throw the condemned from the highest building of a town or city, or by toppling a wall on top of him, but both methods are used.  Notwithstanding the mandated punishments for homosexuality, Muslim societies have the highest incidence of homosexual abuse of male children in the world, especially by older siblings or other male family members.  Though considered an abomination on earth, the Koran alludes to the righteous being served in Heaven by young boys, "pure as pearls" dressed in green garments of silk and brocade, and adorned with silver jewelry, and used to drinking wine.”  It might be supposed that homosexuality occurs with the same percentage in Muslim societies as in others.  However, in Islam, the "sin" for Muslims is not that a man commits homosexual acts with other men; the sin would be if there were to be any emotional attachment involved.  In Muslim society, the presence of any measure of equality or romantic love in a sexual union, heterosexual or homosexual, is deemed abhorrent and intolerable.    

End Note:  We wish to express our appreciation to Dr. Hamid al-Ghazali for sending us this brief, but incisive article on jurisprudence.  In his communication with us, he claims to be one of the few ex-Muslims with a law degree from a Western university, who is also conversant with the Shari’a.  We understand that he now resides in Switzerland under an assumed identity.



009
ENEMY NUMBER ONE
N.T. Nelosni

Saudi Arabia, supposedly the most supportive Muslim country of the U.S. in the Middle East, is actually its worst enemy!  It is no coincidence that of the nineteen suicide terrorists of 9/11, fifteen were Saudis!  And their leader, Osama ‘bin Laden, the head of Al-Qaeda, is a Saudi.  In 2002, James Bissett, the ex-Ambassador of Canada to Albania, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria said: "It is common knowledge that Saudi Arabia is the most extremist of the Muslim states.  It finances the infamous Madrassas (schools) that preach a litany of hate and turn out thousands of fanatical Islamist zealots.  It indirectly provides the funding and its citizens provide most of the fighters for Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda organization.  It supports, financially, financially and by other means, the Palestinian terrorists and other Muslim anti-Western groups throughout the world."    

Saudi Arabia is the Muslim country most responsible for the spread of Islamic terrorism throughout the world, bank-rolled by the billions paid that country by the United States and other countries for its oil.  The U.S., and other Western countries depend, at least partially, on Saudi Arabia for a considerable amount of their energy needs.  The U.S. alone depends on Saudi Arabia for about one fifth of its petroleum needs, paying that country around twenty billion dollars each year.  The greed of the international oil companies and our venal or uninformed politicians will almost certainly maintain this status quo for some time to come, i.e.-that the United States and other Western countries will continue to put petro-dollars into the pockets of the country most responsible for Islamic world terrorism.     

And it is Saudi petro-dollars that has funded and maintained thousands of mosques and centers of Islamic studies throughout the civilized world, though there is not a single church or synagogue in Saudi Arabia.  The Saudi Government also funds, at least initialy, courses in Islamic Studies at more than 100 U.S. universities.     

Saudi Arabia is the seat of Islam, the birthplace of Muhammad, and the site of Medina and Mecca, the two most revered cities of the Muslim world.  Also, the Kaaba shrine is situated in Mecca, to which every Muslim is obligated to attempt a pilgrimage during his or her lifetime. 

The Country is also the most repressive society of the Muslim world.  Though nominally ruled by the Saudi Royal Family, they do so at the pleasure of the most extreme sect of Islam, the Wahhabis.  The Wahhabis, named after their founder, Abdul Wahhabi, remain the power behind the throne.  Wahhabi, born in 1703, was a zealot, who like Muhammad, married a wealthy woman.  On her death he dedicated her considerable fortune to the return of Islam to its principal goal of world domination.  

In the middle of the 18th Century Wahhabi found a powerful political backer in Muhammad ‘ibn Saud, the leader of a powerful clan in Central Arabia.  Since then, the fortunes of the descendants of the Wahhabi and Saud families have been inexorably intertwined.  The Saudi Royal Family, consisting of perhaps as many as 30,000 princes and princesses, may soon be deposed by a fundamentalist revolution. When this occurs, the Wahhabis will probably endure. 

The Saudis are “riding the tiger”, and sooner or later will fall off!  But until then, they dare not withhold their considerable support of Islamic world terrorism.  Their policy has been to continuously funnel funds to various terrorist groups with the understanding that these groups will conduct their attacks outside of Saudi Arabia.  This has not always been the case.      

Of the mosques established in the U.S. and other Western countries, with Saudi money, about 60% of their clerics are Wahhabis….preaching hate from the pulpit!       

For a better understanding of our “Enemy Number One”, we recommend a fascinating book entitled “Hatred’s Kingdom”.  Its author, Mr. Dore Gold, was an advisor to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and served as Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations from 1997 through 1999.  Copies of certain documents, as shown in his book, leave no doubt that Saudi Arabia has been the principle source of Muslim Terrorism throughout the world, and especially of Al-Qaeda!

In the words of R. James Woolsey, former Director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, “If you read one book to understand the roots of al-Qaeda’s fury, it should be this one.”
                                                                                                                                       
End Note:  For a greatly amplified explanation of the above, please consult “The Saudi Fifth Column”, number 013 of the Archives Section, if not already read.    



010                                      
ALLAH’S BUTCHERS
Ralph Peters
                                   
Perhaps the greatest blasphemers  in any religion are those who appoint themselves as God’s executioners.  When an entire civilization embraces such butchers, both the civilization and the religion are in trouble.

The ritual slaughter of Paul Johnson Jr. in Saudi Arabia wasn’t simply the act of a cluster of terrorists, but a reflection of the entire Arab world. 

Religions are what man makes of them.  In the Arab heartlands of Islam, Muslims are making a gory mess of their faith.  It’s time to end the politically correct baby-talk that Islam isn’t the problem.  In the decaying Arab world, Islam is the problem…because of the way bitter old men interpret and deform its more humane precepts while embracing its cruelest injunctions.     

The decapitation of yet another American civilian can’t be dismissed as an aberration from “true” Islam.  The tradition of beheading unarmed prisoners dates to the earliest decades of the Muslim faith.  The butchering of Paul Johnson, Nick Berg and others isn’t a new phenomenon…it’s revivalism, “that old time religion” returning for a re-match with secular devils. 

Millions of Muslims find such atrocities inspiring.  Millions more view such cruelty as just.  It’s the vicarious revenge of the self-made failure.  And for every rent-a-cleric the Saudi government pushes in front of a television camera to condemn such acts, thousands of other mullahs continue to preach anti-Western hatred…the brutal specificity of which would horrify even America’s leftists, if only they stopped apologizing to terrorists long enough to listen. 

The Saudis, especially, have sown the wind and now are reaping the whirlwind.  I personally have seen their attempts to “purify” Islam and provoke anti-Western rage, from Africa to Southeast Asia, from Central Asia to the Arab homelands.  No matter how many terrorists the Saudis kill on their own soil hereafter, they will remain guilty…in great part…for every murder committed by Muslim extremists.  They created the monsters who now have run amok. 

But the problem is far greater than the degenerate House of Saud.  We face a phenomenon new to history: A once-great civilization falling before our eyes.  Whether or not one subscribes to the idea of a “clash of civilizations,” we are incontestably witnessing the crash of an entire civilization, that of Middle Eastern Islam. 

After centuries of self-destructive behavior, Arab civilization is unable to compete in a single field of human endeavor relevant to progress.  Instead, Arab societies are racing backward into superstition, bigotry and a narcotic culture of blame.  They have grown so impotent in every other regard…unable even to translate great wealth into minor power…that Arabs rich and poor, educated and illiterate, are enraptured by their rare “triumphs” over the West, from 9/11 to the barbaric murder of Westerners doing the work that Arabs themselves are too slothful or incompetent to do. 

Baghdad fell, to the collective shame of those Arabs who prefer homegrown despots to Western-inspired democracy.  The Arab revenge is to slaughter innocent captives.  As with the worst demagogues in every religion, the apostles of terror cite religious texts selectively.  But if such practices are limited to fringe elements in other world religions in  our time, the perversion of faith pervades today’s Islamic mainstream. 

One can’t say that, of course.  Arab Muslims are allowed to spew anti-Western, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, anti-Hindu, anti-everybody-else hate speech.  That’s just their culture, you see.  But it’s taboo for a Westerner to suggest that the roots of terror may go a bit deeper than a black sheep or two in a few Middle-Eastern families.  

Leftist apologists for terror here in the United States attack any attempt at a frank discussion of the Middle East’s problems with charges of bigotry and neo-imperialism.  But if we examine the madness of the American Left dispassionately, we find that it’s the Noam Chomskys, Susan Sontags and their acolytes from the campus greensward who are the true bigots.  Imperialists, too.  
By refusing to hold Middle Eastern civilization to reasonable standards of behavior and responsibility, our domestic Left has given new life to the “little brown brother” school of colonialist thought.  According to the Left’s internal logic, Arabs aren’t capable of the same moral reflection and behavioral maturity well-educated whites demonstrate.  And, of course, Arabs are oppressed (no matter that their oppressors are all Arabs).  

Arab extremists and dictators have become the ghetto blacks of hard-Left foreign policy.  They’re all victims of Washington and bear no personal responsibility for their own errors, failures or crimes.  It isn’t the Saddams, Abdullahs, Assads or Mubaraks who oppress the Arab masses, you see.  Despots are never guilty… unless they get too chummy with the Americans.  Anyway, dictators are victims, too.  The mass graves and misery that haunt the Middle East (if such inconveniences must be mentioned at all) are my fault.  And yours, dear reader.  We’re to blame for all that’s wrong with the world.  And, don’t you forget it! 

The family secret of the hard-Left is that its followers share one powerful trait with Osama 'bin Laden.  They need to look down on others, to feel superior and just.  If the lords of terror dispense with displays of pity for their victims, it’s only because they haven’t yet attained the leftist’s level of hypocrisy. 

Why shouldn’t we hold a civilization accountable for its own failures and horrors?  Why does our domestic Left revel endlessly in the excesses of a few renegade guards at Abu Ghraib prison while remaining silent on the industrial-scale massacres of Saddam Hussein…and other terror regimes?  Why don’t our self-appointed “voices of conscience” speak out against the beheading of Paul Johnson Jr. or Nick Berg?  What about the hundreds of Iraqi doctors, lawyers, engineers and educators slain by terrorists for trying to build a humane government in the Middle East?  What about the countless civilians killed by car bombs?  What about the victims of 9/11? 

The silence isn’t just deafening.  It’s revolting.

End Note:  The above article was taken from FrontPageMagazine.com of June 21, 2002.                                                               



011
BECAUSE THEY HATE
Brigitte Gabriel  
                                       
We gather here today to share information and knowledge.  Intelligence is not merely cold hard data about numerical strength or armament or disposition of military forces.  The most important element of intelligence has to be understanding the mindset and intention of the enemy.  The West has been wallowing in a state of ignorance and denial for thirty years as Muslim extremists perpetrated evil against innocent victims in the name of Allah. 

I was ten years old when my home exploded around me, burying me under the rubble and leaving me to drink my blood to survive, as the perpetrators shouted “Allah Akbar!”  My only crime was that I was a Christian living in a Christian town.  At 10years old, I learned the meaning of the word “infidel.”                                                                                      

I had a crash course in survival.  Not in the Girl Scouts, but in a bomb shelter where I lived for seven years in pitch darkness, freezing cold, drinking stale water and eating grass to live.  At the age of thirteen I dressed in my burial clothes going to bed at night, waiting to be slaughtered.  By the age of 20, I had buried most of my friends—killed by Muslims.  We were not Americans living in New York, or Britons in London.  We were Arab Christians living in Lebanon. 

As a victim of Islamic terror, I was amazed when I saw Americans waking up on September 12, 2001, and asking themselves “Why do they hate us?”  The psychoanalyst experts were coming up with all sort of excuses as to what did we do to offend the Muslim World.  But if America and the West were paying attention to the Middle East they would not have had to ask the question.  Simply put, they hate us because we are defined in their eyes by one simple word: “infidels.” 

Under the banner of Islam “la, ilaha illa allah, Muhammad rasoula allah,” (None is god except Allah; Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah) they murdered Jewish children in Israel, massacred Christians in Lebanon, killed Copts in Egypt, Assyrians in Syria, Hindus in India, and expelled almost 900,000 Jews fro  m Muslim lands.  We Middle Eastern infidels paid the price then.  Now infidels worldwide are paying the price for indifference and shortsightedness. 

Tolerating evil is a crime.  Appeasing murderers doesn’t buy protection.  It earns one disrespect and loathing in the enemy’s eyes.  Yet apathy is the weapon by which the West is committing suicide.  Political correctness forms the shackles around our ankles, by which Islamists are leading us to our demise. 

America and the West are doomed to failure in this war unless they stand up and identify the real enemy: Islam.  You hear about Wahabbi and Salafi Islam as the only extreme form of Islam.  All the other Muslims, supposedly, are wonderful moderates.  Closer to the truth are the pictures of the irrational eruption of violence in reaction to the cartoons of Muhammad printed by a Danish newspaper.  From burning embassies, to calls to butcher those who mock Islam, to warnings that the West be prepared for another holocaust, those pictures have given us a glimpse into the real face of Islam.  News pictures and video of these events represent a canvas of hate decorated by different nationalities who share one common ideology of hate, bigotry and intolerance derived from one source: authentic Islam.  An Islam that is awakening from centuries of slumber to re-ignite its wrath against the infidel and dominate the world.  An Islam which has declared “Intifada” on the West. 

America and the West can no longer afford to lay in their lazy state of overweight ignorance.  The consequences of this mental disease are starting to attack the body, and if they don’t take the necessary steps now to control it, death will be knocking soon.  If you want to understand the nature of the enemy we face, visualize a tapestry of snakes.  They slither and they hiss, and would eat each other alive, but they will unite in a hideous mass to achieve their common goal of imposing Islam on the world.

This is the ugly face of the enemy we are fighting.  We are fighting a powerful ideology that is capable of altering basic human instincts.  An ideology that can turn a mother into a launching pad of death.  A perfect example is a recently elected Hamas official in the Palestinian Territories who raves in heavenly joy about sending her three sons to death and offering the ones who are still alive for the cause.  It is an ideology that is capable of offering highly educated individuals such as doctors and lawyers far more joy in attaining death than any respect and stature, life in society is ever capable of giving them.

The United States has been a prime target for radical Islamic hatred and terror.  Every Friday, mosques in the Middle East ring with shrill prayers and monotonous chants calling death, destruction and damnation down on America and its people.  The radical Islamists’ deeds have been as vile as their words.  Since the Iran hostage crisis, more than three thousand Americans have died in a terror campaign almost unprecedented in its calculated cruelty along with thousands of other citizens worldwide.  Even the Nazis did not turn their own children into human bombs, and then rejoice at their deaths as well the deaths of their victims.  This intentional, indiscriminate and wholesale murder of innocent American citizens is justified and glorified in the name of Islam. 

America cannot effectively defend itself in this war unless and until the American people understand the nature of the enemy that we face.  Even after 9/11 there are those who say that we must “engage” our terrorist enemies, that we must “address their grievances”.  Their grievance is our freedom of religion.  Their grievance is our freedom of speech.  Their grievance is our democratic process where the rule of law comes from the voice of many not that of just one prophet.  It is the respect we instill in our children towards all religions.  It is the equality we grant each other as human beings sharing a planet and striving to make the world as better place for all humanity.  Their grievance is the kindness and respect a man shows a woman, the justice we practice as equals under the law, and the mercy we grant our enemy.  Their grievance cannot be answered by an apology for who, or what we are. 

Our mediocre attitude of not confronting Islamic forces of bigotry and hatred wherever they raised their ugly head in the last 30 years, has empowered and strengthened our enemy to launch a full scale attack on the very freedoms we cherish in their effort to impose their values and way of life on our civilization. 

If we don’t wake up and challenge our Muslim community to take action against the terrorists within it, if we don’t believe in ourselves as Americans and in the standards we should hold every patriotic American to, we are going to pay the price for our delusion.  For the sake of our children and our country, we must wake up and take action.  In the face of a torrent of hateful invective and terrorist murder, America’s learning curve since the Iran hostage crisis is so shallow that it is almost flat.  The longer we lay supine, the more difficult it will be to stand erect. 
 

End Notes:  (1) The above article are excerpts from a speech of Ms. Gabriel given at the Intelligence Summit in Washington, D.C. on the 18th of February, 2006.  (2) A recently published book, of the same name as the above article, is now available at most book-stores.  (2)  Ms Gabriel continues her fight against Islam through her foundation, the American Congress For Truth, based in Virginia Beach, Virginia.    



012
CALLING TRUTH "ISLAMAPHOBIA"
Robert Spencer

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) demanded an apology from National Review and the removal of a book, “The Life and Religion of Muhammad”, from sale by National Review’s Book Service.  This was wrongfully focused: NR didn’t publish the book and wasn’t the sole source for it (it’s available from HEBookService.com), but it was revealing of what CAIR wants Americans to know…and not know…about Islam. 

CAIR took issue with an advertising description of the book that touted it as explaining “why Mohammad couldn’t possibly be a true prophet.”  CAIR was angered by the ad’s assertion that “Muhammad posed as the apostle of God… while his life is marked by innumerable marriages; and great licentiousness, deeds of rapine, warfare, conquests, unmerciful bucheries, all the time invoking God’s holy name to sanction his evil deeds.” 

CAIR’S Ibrahim Hooper demanded that NR clarify its position on Islamaphobic hate speech and offer a public apology for promoting a book that so viciously attacks the faith of one-fifth of the world’s population.”

In fact, it’s true that “Mohammad posed as the apostle of God…while his life is marked by innumerable marriages; and great licentiousness, deed of rapine, warfare, conquests, unmerciful bucheries, all the time invoking God’s holy name to sanction his evil deeds.”  Aside from the judgment that all this is “evil,” what is CAIR actually denying?  That Muhammad was married more than once?  That’s universally acknowledged by Muslims.  So are the other points:

“Great Licentiousness”:  These are judgmental words, but the judgment is not unfounded.  Just one of many examples comes from Allah allowing Muhammad to have more wives than are allowed to other Muslims (Koran 33:50).   

“Deeds of Rapine”: Yet again this is not an unreasonable judgment.  The Koran assumes that Muslims will wage war and seize booty, and only insists that the Prophet get a share: “And know that whatever ye take as spoils of war, lo! A fifth thereof is for Allah, and for the messenger…(Koran 8:41).

“Warfare”: Muhammad fought in many battles and enjoined warfare on his followers.  He started almost all the battles in which he fought.  His earliest biographer notes, for example, that “he made an expedition to Tabuk and he (the Holy Prophet) had in his mind (the idea of threatening the) Christians of Arabia, in Syria and those of Rome.”

“Conquests”: Not only did Muhammad conquer; he won followers through his conquests.  One contemporary of the Prophet explained: The Arabs…delayed their conversion till the Conquest of Mecca…So, when Mecca was conquered, then every tribe rushed to embrace Islam.”    

“Unmerciful Bucheries”: Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad’s earliest biographer (and a pious Muslim), recounts the massacre of the Jewish Banu Qurayzah: Muhammad sent for (the men of Banu Qurayzah) and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches … There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900.” 

Muslim apologists try to justify Muhammad’s marriages, battles and killings in various ways, but it would be the height of chutzpah to deny they took place at all.  Would CAIR, in contrast, paint us a picture of Muhammad the Rotarian? 

“The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, to which CAIR compares this book, is fictional.  But the Islamic sources I have cited are not fiction.  Now that CAIR has intimidated NR, which removed the book from its web-site last week, it is a victory for those who don’t want Americans to know uncomfortable details about Muhammad.  Unfortunately, jihad terrorists know these elements of the life of Muhammad quite well and are imitating them.  Ignorance of them will only make us more vulnerable. 
 
End Note:  The above piece appeared in a May 2005 edition of the Human Events newsletter.  



013
THE  SAUDI  FIFTH  COLUMN  ON  OUR  NATION’S  CAMPUSES
Lee Kaplan

From Riyadh to Ramallah to the Ivy League, the Saudi Wahhabi lobby and money machine is funding the goals of radical Islam and undermining America’s efforts to prosecute the war on terror. 

The press recently reported new closures by the Department of Justice of Saudi
“charitable” fronts like the Muslim World League, the Al-Haramain Foundation, the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO), and others which raised money for Al Qaeda, Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

[1]  But the government has so far ignored an even larger network of Saudi front groups working towards parallel ends. This network is embedded deep within our system of higher education, including many of our most prestigious universities.  The Saudis have steadily infiltrated American educational institutions, using vast infusions of money to turn the American educational system against U.S. support for Israel and in favor of the Saudi vision of a global Muslim state in which not only Jews, but Christians and all infidels will have subordinate status to the followers of the “true faith.”

[2]  At the same time they look to affect American policy in the Middle East and public opinion in the U.S. in a way to aid their Wahhabist goals.

[3]  Saudi Wahhabism fuels a particular hatred for the West and its liberalism regarding religious tolerance and human rights.  It views attempts by the West to promote democratic reforms in the medieval Arab monarchy of the Saudi royal family as an affront to Islam.  In other words, it shares the religious and political views of its wayward-but not forgotten-son, Osama Bin Laden.  Accordingly, the Saudi royal family has been waging its own quiet Jihad of ideas and disinformation to advance its goals.  It has also financed terrorist activities of Al Qaeda and Palestinian radicals.  The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee recently heard testimony from fellow senators and terrorism experts that the Bush administration has failed to recognize the dangers of Saudi influence, having left the Kingdom in control of most of the Muslim organizations in the United States.  For instance, 80% of the mortgages on mosques in the U.S. are paid for by the Wahhabist Saudis. Over the last 30 years the Saudi royal family has contributed upwards of 70 billion U.S. dollars to infiltrate worldwide institutions with propaganda against the West and Israel.  This sum, it has been observed, makes the one billion dollars per annum spent by the Soviet Union during the Cold War for Communist propaganda pale by comparison.

[4] The Saudis see donations to our universities as a way of promoting their political and religious propaganda.  To quote their English language daily, Ain Al Yaqueen: “The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, under the custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Fahd Ibn Abdul Aziz has positively shouldered responsibility and played a promising role in order to raise the banner of Islam all over the globe and raise the Islamic call either inside or outside the kingdom.”

[5] The new head of Middle East Studies at UC Santa Barbara, Stephen Humphreys, holds a chair named after Aziz himself.  The head of the Muslim American Society, W. Deen Muhammad, has stated that Saudi gifts require the receiver to prefer the Saudi “school of thought.”  While Humphreys denies there are strings attached, one wonders how likely a thesis on Saudi misogyny or their educational system teaching hatred of Americans, Jews and Christians would go over in Saudi funded departments if someone hoped to advance or be tenured.

[6] One wonders why a theocratic totalitarian regime where 30% to 50% of the population is illiterate,

[7] and where PhD’s teach that Jews use the blood of gentile children to make matzoh,

[8] would take such interest in the American educational system instead of their own.  Yet the money the Saudis are pouring into our universities and colleges as gifts and endowments is alarming: King Fahd donated $20 million dollars to set up a Middle East Studies Center at the University of Arkansas; $5 million was donated to UC Berkeley’s Center for Middle East Studies from two Saudi sheiks linked to funding Al Qaeda;

[9] $2.5 million dollars to Harvard; $8.1 million dollars to Georgetown including a $500,000 scholarship in the name of President Bush; $11 million to Cornell; $1.5 million to Texas A&M; $5 million to MIT; $1 million dollars to Princeton; Rutgers received $5 million dollars to endow a chair as did Columbia which tried to hide where the money came from.

[10]  Saudi largesse included UC Santa Barbara; John Hopkins; Rice University;
American University in Washington, D.C.; University of Chicago; Syracuse University;USC; UCLA; Duke University; and Howard University, among others.

[11] Saudi infiltration works on several levels.  By creating new Middle East Studies Centers and such endowed chairs on campuses across the U.S., the Saudis are able to influence the curriculum taught to the next generation of American students about the Middle East situation as taught at Saudi-funded madrassas both here and abroad.  That curriculum is decidedly anti-Western and full of incitement against Christians and Jews.

[12]  Based not on truth as much as the agenda of the totalitarian regime in power, it “molds” the next generation to hate Israel and to hate America as an “imperialistic” or “racist” nation.

[13]  For example, according to Middle East historian Martin Kramer, Columbia University has become the “Bir Zeit (University) on-the-Hudson.”

[14]  Bir Zeit is a university built for the Palestinians by Israel in the West Bank.  Instead of being a source for educational prosperity and peace, it is a breeding ground for totalitarian terrorist ideologues and their ilk.  Faculty write scholarly works about Middle East history against the U.S. and Israel as a matter of course.  At Columbia, Palestinians dominate the teaching of the modern Middle East and do not encourage a diversity of approaches in doing so.

[15]  When a chair is endowed with Saudi money it is filled by academics known more for their Palestinian  or Saudi activism and less than for their scholarship.
Thus, Columbia’s new chair was given to Rashid Khalidi, a University of Chicago historian and Palestinian activist.  Khalidi took over the “Edward Said Chair of Arab Studies.”  Said, who died recently, and who was raised in Egypt, was a member of the Palestinian National Council and an anti-Israel activist who thought the Oslo peace process was a “sellout.”

[16]  He was an English literature professor whose expertise was Jane Austin, yet his anti-American and anti-Israel writings dominate the perspectives of Middle East departments across the nation.  Khalidi is on record defending the killing of Israeli soldiers: “Killing civilians is a war crime, whoever does it, but resistance to occupation is legitimate in international law.”

[17]  Khalidi is an obsessive Israel basher and has stated that Americans are “brainwashed” by the Middle East’s only democracy.  He also considered U.S. popular support for overthrowing Saddam Hussein an “idiots’ consensus”.

[18]  Another Palestinian professor in Columbia’s Middle East Studies program is Joseph Masad, who also rails against the U.S. and Israel.  Massad likes to denigrate American democracy by alluding to early 19th century history when slavery was a worldwide institution, and accuses America of nuclear genocide for using the atomic bomb to end World War II.  He has also characterized Israel as an “imperialist” and “colonial” concoction of the Europeans.

[19]  With Khalidi’s appointment as chair and Massad as the main teacher of politics and history of the Middle East at Columbia, what students will be exposed to with no alternative views isn’t hard to imagine.  Even Lisa Anderson, head of International Studies at Columbia has conceded publicly that Middle East studies at Columbia are not balanced, nor are they at other Middle East Studies centers nationwide.

[20]  What is more telling is that Columbia tried to conceal where the money came from to fund Khalidi’s chair until pressure from outside academics and even the State of New York required it.

[21]  Daniel Pipes has remarked that choosing Khalidi for the Columbia chair is particularly egregious because he is one of a team of…“Palestinian falsifiers who are giving us all this propagandist, non-scholarly interpretation of the Middle East,” and that Columbia’s cover-up of the donors…“doesn’t smell right”.  Steve Emerson, who reports to Congress frequently on terrorism issues, has stated publicly that “Khalidi’s statements raise serious questions about his attitudes on violence.”

[22]  But Columbia is not alone.  Such departments and professors are now found in Middle East Studies programs nationwide.  UC Berkeley’s Center For Middle East Studies website boasts of receiving a $5 million dollar grant courtesy of Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud and Sheikh Salahudin Yusef Hamza Abdeljawad, another major donor.  Both are linked to Islamic charities which the U.S. Government says are front groups for funding Al Qaeda and both are now a part of a $ 1 trillion dollar lawsuit by the families of the victims of 9/11. Their contributions link through a labyrinth of front banks and charitable institutions that ultimately finance terrorism against the West.  Al-Saud gives generously to the International Islamic Relief Organization International (IIRO), the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, the Muslim League and World Assembly of Muslim Youth…all established fronts for terrorist funding named by the U.S. State Department.  And, Abdeljawad is linked to the Saudi Dar-Al-Maal-Islami Bank founded by Osama Bin Laden and managed by Osama Bin Laden’s brother that is known by the State Department to also fund terrorism as well.  Did the Sultan Al-Saud give money knowingly to charity that made its way to Bin Laden?

[23]  A visit to the Sultan’s foundation website in Saudi Arabia tells much more.  It lists a “Higher Council,” or board of directors, which includes one Abdulrahman bin Ali Jeraisy, who according to a report to Congress has been openly funding Al Qaeda.

[24] UC Berkeley’s Saudi funded academics have more than satisfied Saudi goals of using U.S. campuses to teach hate for America and Israel.  The Israel divestment petition was begun at UC Berkeley and has been promoted by faculty there.

[25]  A Jewish student who complained about her Arabic instructor telling her class that the anti-Semitic “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” was indeed written by Jews, was then attacked by the instructor’s supervisor, who openly called her a liar and threatened her with a libel suit by the University.  He even lied to the press saying that an investigation had been conducted of the student’s claims when the student was never interviewed.  The instructor held so firm to his comment about Jews being authors of the forgeries that the campus newspaper suggested afterwards that the protocols could actually have been written by Jews.

[26]  Saudi endowed chairs and departments have produced faculty at the college level in America that spout the propaganda to 8th graders in Saudi Arabian schools, where textbooks claim that Jews “are people of treachery and betrayal.”  At Connecticut State University Norton Mezvinsky has declared Judaism a religion of “racism” whose followers believe that “the blood of non-Jews has no intrinsic value” and that the killing of non-Jews does “not constitute murder according to the Jewish religion” and that Judaism teaches “the killing of innocent Arabs for revenge is a Jewish virtue.”  While textbooks in Saudi Arabia claim “the Zionist Jews are the enemies of Islam and supporters of the modern Crusaders,” Joel Beinin, Middle East Studies professor at Stanford and former head of the Middle East Studies Association (MESA), rails against America’s “Zionist Lobby” that controls a U.S. Government responsible for “blocking democracy and economic development in the Arab world,” and uses power “to make and unmake regimes”.

[27]  The University of Arkansas Middle East Studies department, set up under King Faud, offers an Arabic language program.  A sample newsletter published by the department contains a full-page poem translated by some of the student body’s Arabic language students entitled “A Letter To A Faraway Friend (from inside the occupied territory).”  The poem subtly demeans Israel and praises martyrdom and death.  The sole guest lecturer to the department mentioned on its site is Joel Beinin.

[28]  Examples abound on campuses all over the country.  Harvard received a $2 million dollar grant from Sheik Khalid Al Turki.  For its graduation ceremony it chose a student, Zayed Yasin, for commencement speaker.  His speech? “My American Jihad.”  Yasin has voiced his support for Hamas and said suicide bombers should be paid.  He also has raised money for the Holy Land Foundation, one of the Islamic charities shut down by the Bush administration as a front for Al-Qaeda.

[29]  Prince Alaweed Bin Talal recently donated $500,000 to Georgetown University for a scholarship program in President Bush’s name.  Alaweed also recently donated $27 million dollars to Hamas.  Martin Kramer’s book “Ivory Towers On Sand: The Failure Of Middle East Studies” illustrates many other similar situations on U.S. campuses to show how pervasive this has become.

[30]  Saudi money sets up these academic departments with anti-American and anti-Israel agendas, but U.S. taxpayers underwrite the programs themselves.  This is done through Title VI funding mandated by Congress.  Originated in the late 1950’s during the Cold War, Title VI received an additional $86 million dollars after 9/11 as part of the Education Act.  This allowed the creation of 118 Middle East Resource Centers at U.S. colleges and universities where Arabic would be taught and security analysis developed in the War on Terror.  Yet the program has been seriously abused.  The idea was that the universities would provide an understanding of the Middle East and Arab language experts for the military and intelligence services.  But most Middle East Studies departments let their students slide by with minimal Arabic instruction.  The focus is on research articles that serve the worldwide cause of Jihad when they have any contemporary relevance at all.

[31]  It goes also for “outreach” programs to secondary schools that are little more than propaganda efforts against Israel and the United States.  At Georgetown University such an outreach program is provided for teachers from kindergarten through the 12th grade.  Seminars are packed with Arab anti-war activists opposed to the removal of Saddam Hussein by the U.S. military.  One of these “academics” was in fact once a public relations consultant for Saddam Hussein and blamed the oppression of Iraq’s people on the United States.  No opposing views were presented. 

[32]  Once the Saudi endowments are complete, matching funds are then provided by the U.S. taxpayer, who refreshes the Saudi investment with matching funds through Title VI.  One “scholar” who lobbied for the continuation of such funding to the State Department recently was Hussein Ibish, a non-academic and leader of the radical American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, a lobbying group funded mainly by the Saudis.

[33]  He was paid by the Middle East Studies Association.  Thus, a professional lobbyist for Saudi interests was lobbying our Congress at U.S. taxpayer expense for the status quo in our universities.  Besides paying the salaries of academics who advance the Saudi “point of view”, Title VI money goes to what could be considered the Saudis’ “foot soldiers” on campus, activists who will spread the word beyond the scholarly community.  Co-mingled funding for Middle East centers goes into stipends, scholarships and fellowships for Arab students to support them in their work as activists spearheading Muslim and Palestinian groups on campus.  While handpicked Arab professors and sympathizers “reeducate” the student body to the proper “point of view,” these student activist groups carry it forward by creating an atmosphere that permeates campuses with anti-American and anti-Israeli propaganda.  A tour of any major campus will reveal the noted presence of professionally produced flyers posted against Israel and “Zionists” (the new euphemism for Jews), or against American policy in Iraq, and “film festivals” and lectures devoted to crude attacks on alleged Israeli “massacres” and other alleged atrocities.  All this is made possible by the Title VI funding of stipends to Middle East Studies students.  Arab students may train overseas during the summer in “activism” then return to campus to ply their skills.  As a result, anti-Semitic attacks are on the increase on our college campuses.  Not long ago Jewish students at San Francisco State needed to be escorted to safety by off-campus city police during a pro-Israel rally, causing one professor to remark it was like Germany in the 1930’s.  At Concordia University, 1,500 “students” showed up to create a riot and prevent former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu from speaking about terrorism on that campus where ticket holders needed a police escort off campus as well.      

This tide of abuse needs to be addressed.  Academic departments with political agendas is a new phenomenon on American campuses and directly violates the principles of Academic Freedom established by the American Association of University Professors and long recognized by accrediting institutions.  Congress has recently taken a needed step to oversee the way it provides Title VI funding and needs to take a hard look at the way it provides money to underwrite these programs.  University trustees and admini-strators need to do likewise.   
                                                                
ENDNOTES:
[1]  www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/mowbray/mowbray122002.asp
[2] 
www.ropma.net/saudi-education.htm#edn1
[3] 
http://216.26.163.62/2003ss_terror_06_27.html
[4] 
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=static&page=
       alexievtestimony  
[5]
http://216.26.163.62/2003/ss_terror_06_27html 
[6} 
Same address as [4]
[7] 
http://biz.bahrainedb.com/NewsIn.asp?Article=1605&Sn=6
[8] 
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP35402
[9] 
http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/675
[10] 
http://www.campuswatch.org/article/id/794
[11] 
Source:  US Dept. of Education (figures may be higher due to more current
donations).
[12] 
http://nationalreview.com/comment/comment-stalinsky020703.asp
[13] 
http://www.meforum.org/article/538
[14] 
http://geocities.com/martinkramerorg/2003_09_08htm
[15] 
http://campus-watch.org/article/id/663
[16] 
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1157
[17] 
http://campus-watch.org/article/id/756
[18]  
http://campus-watch.org/about.php
[19] 
http://electrontronicintifada.net/v2/article1825.shtm
[20] 
http://dafka.org/NewsGen.asp?S=4&PageID=57
[21] 
http://senatorlavalle.com/press_archive_story.asp?id=199
[22] 
www.campus-watch.org/article/id/756
[23] 
www.campus-watch.org/article/id/627 also,
http://sultanfoundation.org/english/advisory.htm
[24] 
http://financialservices.house.gov/media/pdf/031103me.pdf
[25] 
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3804
[26] 
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=7785
[27]  http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/comment/comment-
harris063903.asp ;  and  
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=2783
[28} 
http://www.uark.edu/depts/mesp/newsletter/fall03.pdf
[29] 
http://campus-watch.org/article/id/22  & hyyp://www.academia.org/news/struggle.        
[30] 
http://www.ivorytowers.org/pages/832317/index.htm
[31] 
http://www.meforum.org/article208/
[32] 
http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/740
[33] 
www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5101  and www.wrmea.com/backissues/1188/8811050.htm (note discussion of American Arab Anti-discrimination Committee touring Saudi information minister), also: http://kyl.senate.gov/legis_center/subdocs/091003_epstein .pdf , also
www.us-israel.org/jsource/US-Israel/lobby.html
     
                     
End Notes:  (1)  The above article appeared on the web-site of FrontPageMagazine.com on April 5, 2004.  No additions or deletions were made.  (2)  For those agreeing that our school systems should not be influenced by a corrupt religion, dedicated to the overthrow of our government, we ask that you use your influence to educate school systems at every level.  And, for you college graduates who have been generous in supporting your Alma Mater in the past, how would you feel about supporting Americas ’s enemies when  writing  your next check?  I doubt that few of you would have contributed to the Communist Party a few years ago?  Study the matter, and if convinced we’re on the right track, contact your Alumni Association, your Board of Regents, and the President of your university. 


          
014
THE WAR ON TERROR – AN OPEN LETTER
Craig Winn

Earlier today I did something I had not done in a long while.  I consented to doing an interview on Islam – this one on WABC in New York.  While I have done one thousand five hundred hours of national and regional talk radio interviews and debates on the direct connection between fundamental Islam and terrorism, I had retired from doing more because it became clear to me that the hosts and I were speaking a different language and using an entirely different filter to discern right and wrong. 

Today was no exception.  So, to help remedy that problem, I have composed this Open Letter.

WHAT IS A WAR ON TERROR?
Let’s begin with the most ignorant and injurious slogan: “the war on terror.”  It is ignorant because it is senseless and it is injurious because it camouflages our actual enemy, making us more vulnerable. 

Terrorism is a tactic, not a foe.  To declare war on terror is akin to saying that World War II should have been fought to rid the world of naval armadas and blitzkrieg.  If we had focused our energies on killing every kamikaze suicide bomber and every S.S. terrorist, the political and religious regimes that manufactured them, unchecked, would have produced far more of them far faster than we could have killed them. 

Terrorism is a common tactic.  Sherman used terror when he marched to the sea, making war intolerable for the South.  America used terror when we fire-bombed German and Japanese cities, making support for the war wane. 

According to the Islamic Hadith and Qur’an, Muhammed was a terrorist – having established Islam through a series of armed raids against civilians.  The most brutal and unjustified were against the Jewish communities of Qurayza and Khaybar.  You can read what the Islamic scriptures have to say about them in the “Islam’s Holocaust” and “Blood and Booty” chapters of Prophet of Doom. 

The simple fact is that all wars are the result of religion politics, or both.  The current war is no exception.  It is against a poligious (political-religious) doctrine called Islam. 

For most of man’s history, religion and politics have been inseparable.  Cleric and king united to control and fleece the people.  Islam is the best example – an equivalent blend of religion and politics.  But let us not forget Communism and Nazism, the religions of man.  They promote collectivism and control under the guise of secular humanism.  These poligious doctrines caused the murder of over 100,000,000 people in the 30 years between 1917 and 1947.  Today, the biggest killer is Islam.  Over 90% of today’s wars and terrorist acts are directly attributable to Muhammad’s legacy.  If only 20% of Muslims are fundamentalists and thus Jihadists, it means that they are 2000% more lethal than the rest of us.  Ought we not examine the religion that makes them that way? 

In its first one hundred years, a river of blood flowed from Muhammad’s feet.  His religion turned a once peaceful and self-reliant people violent and dependant.  In the 3,000 years of recorded history between 2500 B.C.E. to 500 C.E. there isn’t a single incident in all of recorded history of Arabs leaving Arabia to conquer or plunder anyone.  Then Muhammad invented a religion based upon jihad – holy war and plunder.  He called it Islam – submission.  Muhammad personally led 75 terrorist raids, all against civilians and exclusively for the purpose of stealing booty and gaining power and control.  Within a year of his death, his successor led the War of Compulsion and forever robbed Arabia of any semblance of freedom.  In the next ten years, without any provocation, the first Muslims attacked and conquered civilians in Israel, Syria, Egypt, Yemen and Turkey.  Within its first 100 years, Islamic terrorists had ravaged and plundered every civilization from Spain to India.  What changed these people if it was not Islam?

While Islam continued to be tyrannical, brutal and bloody, in the interest of time, I’m going to jump ahead to the obvious:  Islam was solely responsible for causing Muslims to fly planes into our buildings.  The suicide bombers not only used Islam’s signature tactic, they confessed to the crime leaving video taped recitals from the Qur’an behind and by shouting “Allah Akbar” – Allah is greatest, as they perpetrated their attack.  Moreover, like the Jihadists who are killing us in Iraq, they all came out of mosques. 

In the case of the second World Trade Center bombing, the plan was conceived by, and the participants were recruited from, the al-Kod mosque in Hamburg, Germany – not Kabul, Afghanistan.  And the first World Trade Center bombing was masterminded by Sheik Ar-Rahman – a man named after Muhammad’s first god.  The blind sheik is the world’s foremost authority on the Qur’an – having served as the senior professor of Qur’anic studies at Islam’s premier university, Al-Azhar in Cairo – before he was exiled for having assassinated Anwar Sadat.  If Islam is peaceful, that’s hard to explain.

A nation that lashes out against a tactic rather than the actual enemy, the religious and/or political doctrine motivating the assault, is destined to lose.  Until Americans come to understand who the terrorists are (good Muslims) and why they (Islamists) kill, we have no chance of protecting ourselves from them.  They will destroy our largest cities with nuclear or biological weapons and we will lose all we hold dear as a result. 


CAN AMERICA ESTABLISH DEMOCRACY?
The first, last, and only democracy in human history was an oligarchy called the Delian League, which in less than fifty years disintegrated because its leaders became imperialists and elected to do what we are doing – compel compliance.  So when politicians claim to be establishing a democracy in Iraq, they are displaying their ignorance of democracy and the cultures in which it flourishes and shrivels. For democracy to prevail, even a republic to succeed, the voters need to be enlightened and responsible.  And, they need to cherish the virtues which nurture education, freedom and choice. 

So, let’s survey the political landscape.  Over 90% of nations in which the majority of the people consider themselves Christians are republics.  Relative freedom, choice, enlightenment and prosperity reign.  Over 90% of nations in which the majority of the people are Muslims are dictatorships in which the people have relatively no freedoms, choice, access to truth, or prosperity. 

So what is it that causes one culture to embrace freedom, choice, enlightenment and prosperity and the other to be hostile to these things?  The answers are as obvious as the evidence is clear.  The Judeo-Christian Scriptures are based upon knowing and understanding truth and embracing it while condemning deception.  Yahweh wants people to be free to choose.  The Islamic scriptures are the opposite.  The fifth surah says that Muslims that question the Qur’an will loose their faith and become apostates.  The fourth surah tells good Muslims to murder apostates.  There is a significant disincentive to learn and question, to be enlightened.  More importantly, Islam revolves around the concept of “submit and obey”.  The Qur’an is completely hostile to freedom and choice.  As proof, I organized every comment Allah made on the subject under the banner of “Freedom of Choice” in the “Muhammad’s Own Words” appendix of Prophet of Doom.  Check it out for yourself. 

For freedom and choice to prevail, the culture/religion/politics of the people must promote them.  Islam does not.  It never has and it never will.  The evidence is overwhelming and undeniable.  To ignore the obvious does not make us enlightened or compassionate.  But, it will make us dead. 

Following World War II America was able to promote freedom, choice, enlightenment,  and prosperity in Germany and Japan because we had correctly identified and defeated the politicians and doctrines responsible for tyranny and terror.  We banned them before we attempted to establish what they strove against.  Yet, in Iraq, we have partnered with, financed, and promoted our real enemy, and the enemy of freedom, choice, enlightenment, and prosperity.  As a result, we will fail. 

WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IN IRAQ?

Iraqis will elect a Shi’ite government and they will impose an Islamic state.  The Suni’s will fight them and America will be caught in the middle of a civil war.  It will be like Vietnam all over again. 

Under Islamic law and unified with Iran, Iraq will become what it was not – a clear and present danger to America.  We will have set our actual enemy and the enemy of freedom on the throne.  And, we will have squandered American prestige and wasted thousands of American lives and billions of dollars in the process.
 
As in the case with Vietnam, where we allowed Americans to die until we had achieved “peace with honor”; so it will be in Iraq.  The peace accords were of no value because the signatories did not share our values.  The Communists ignored the document and imposed their will on the people.  It was as if we had never been there.

Muslims, like Communists, do not honor treaties.  The Qur’an says that any treaty between a Muslim and a non-Muslim is not binding on the Muslim.  Muhammad used this tactic when he had too insufficient a force to invade and control his hometown, Mecca.  He signed the peace treaty of Hudibyah in which he agreed not to fight with, rob or terrorize Mecca for ten years.  The following year, with 10,000 men, carrying swords and spears, he returned and conquered them – imposing Islamic law.  Throughout his career, Muhammad authorized lying to achieve his means.  It is why he is noted for saying: “I have been made victorious with terror,” and “war is deception.”

Sad to say, but our engagement in Iraq will end just like Vietnam.  The only question is: how many will die before we declare victory and leave? 

HAVE THE TERRORISTS HIJACKED ISLAM?
While it’s not true, if it were, it wouldn’t matter.  History tells us that as little as 3% of the population, sufficiently indoctrinated and vicious, will hold sway over the 97%.  As evidence, only 3% of Russians were Communists in 1917 and only 3% of Germans were Nazis in 1924, yet they controlled everyone.  While no one knows what percentage of Muslims are good ones – fundamentalists following Muhammad’s example – versus peaceful Muslim hypocrites, at least three times three percent and most likely ten times that amount are jihadists.  That is why most Muslims revere Osama 'bin Laden and continue to praise and protect him.  That is why so many Muslims strap bombs to their bodies – murdering and mutilating everyone in their path.   

The minority will tyrannize and terrorize the majority when the few are immersed in sufficiently vicious and hateful doctrines.  This is why I dedicated 75 pages of Prophet of Doom to a side-by-side comparison of Hitler’s Mein Kamph with remarkably similar passages from Muhammad’s Qur’an and Hadith.  When we come to realize that Islam and Nazism are virtually indistinguishable in their prophet, his words, ambitions and deeds, we will be empowered to save ourselves from them. 

The Qur’an is a declaration of war against all mankind. The Hadith is a terrorist manifesto.  Islam’s lone prophet, Muhammad, according to these sources, was a mass murderer, pirate, pedophile, rapist, slave trader and terrorist.  Therefore, rather than having corrupted Islam, the terrorists have actually been corrupted by it.  Simply stated, all good Muslims are terrorists and all peaceful Muslims are hypocrites. 

If you’d like proof of these conclusions, either read tomorrow’s newspaper or Prophet of Doom.  The book puts every deed and word Muhammad perpetrated and declared on the subject of war and terror in chronological order and into the context of his life so that we would stop living in denial.  But for those pressed for time, turn to the sections of the “Muhammad’s Own Words” Appendix entitled “Terrorism, Jihad, Fighting, Martyrdom, War, and Torture.”  There you will discover over 1,000 quotes from the Islamic scriptures on the subject.  While the truth isn’t pretty, knowing it is the first step in saving our nation. 

ARE THERE MORAL JUSTIFICATIONS FOR WAR?
There are only three moral motivations for war: (1) To defend the nation against a people and doctrine that have attacked it.  (2)  To preemptively strike a people and doctrine that represent a clear and present danger so as to keep them from attacking the nation in the future.  (3)  To rid otherwise defenseless people from tyrants who are terrorizing them.  To impose ones value system on others isn’t a worthy or achievable goal.  And, in cases two and three above, the will to engage must be tempered with an analysis of the cost and the likelihood of achieving a favorable result. 

In this light, let’s look at the American invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.  Our initial justification was to lash out at those who had bombed our buildings.  But there were no Afghanis or Iraqis on those planes.  The suicide bombers were Muslims, 80% of whom were from Saudi Arabia.  And yet we continued to enrich Saudi Arabia, sending the Islamic warlords $350,000,000,000 since the attack took place and at the same time removed our troops and planes – all of them from Saudi soil. 

The plan to bomb America was conceived, staffed, and financed from the Al-Kod mosque in Hamburg, Germany.  The mosque still exists and the imams there still preach hate and violence so we have not retaliated against the source of our anguish.  But by invading Afghanistan and blaming al-Qaeda rather than Islam, we have squandered American blood and coin, making ourselves more vulnerable in the process. 

America pushed the two fundamentalist Islamic regimes in Afghanistan – the Taliban and al-Qaeda - out of a relatively meaningless dirt hole of a nation into one of only two Islamic countries with nuclear bombs.  So today, the Islamic forces who wish us harm are more comfortable, more plentiful, better financed and better armed than they were before we began.  In time they will assassinate the tyrannical general who controls Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.  In so doing fundamentalist Muslims will gain access to the very weapons we sought to keep from them, and they will use them on us.  In other words, what we did was stupid, even suicidal. 

For those who believe our invasion was humanitarian, and thus justified, consider this: American forces only control a five mile ring around Kabul.  The rest of the nation is still under the control of Islamic warlords.  Only now, they are better armed.  Afghanistan is now the Islamist Republic of Afghanistan and their new constitution is based on Islamic law.  In other words: we put our enemy on the throne.  The country has become so savage, the bravest humanitarian organization on the planet – Doctors Without Borders has withdrawn from it. 

Turning to Iraq, the picture is no less horrific.  In Tea With Terrorists I predicted that GWB would invade Iraq a year before he did so.  Moreover, I predicted the consequence of his actions.  That does not make me a profit – jut informed.
 
The reasons we went into Iraq were political.  GWB and his advisor Karl Rove craved the popularity and adulation that goes along with being a war time president.  They succeeded.  A failed administration, legislatively and economically, and an unpopular and inarticulate man, were re-empowered.  In my meeting with Karl and George during the infancy of the first campaign, the soon to be president told me that he longed for a crisis because that’s when he would shine.  All three books, written by insiders of this administration, say that during January of the first inauguration, GWB was actively perusing reasons for invading Iraq. 

So during a time that the C.I.A. was briefing Congress with news that Iran, not Iraq was the nation in possession of the most deadly WMD’s and the nation most likely to use them against America, GWB told the American people just the opposite.  He told us the “smoking gun” would be a “mushroom cloud” if we did not invade Iraq and rid Saddam of his Weapons of Mass Destruction.  So we invaded; but there were none.  Someone wasn’t telling the truth – bad, considering he’s our president.  But, it’s horrific considering two American soldiers have been sacrificed and $1.5 billion dollars of taxpayer money have been wasted on average every week since we attacked – all based upon a lie.  It’s like Vietnam.  The Gulf of Tonkin incident that caused Congress to approve LBJ’s invasion never occurred. 

So, what did the liar do?  He lied again.  This time he said that we have to invade Iraq because he said Saddam was working with and equipping al-Qaeda.  But that was not true.  In fact the truth is bone-chilling.  GWB’s father’s decision to invade Iraq in the First Gulf War is what led to the 9/11 attack. 

Saddam Hussein invaded his neighbor, Kuwait, because he coveted power and money.  Saudi Arabia would have been next.  So, the Saudi hero, Osama 'bin Laden, still reveling in his rousing (and American aided) victory against the Russians in Afghanistan and his instigation of Islamist holocaust against 2,000,000 Christians in the Sudan, also American aided, came home.  He told the Fahd warlords that he and his al-Qaeda holy warriors would be Islam’s savior.  They would push the infidel, Saddam Hussein – a man and regime they detested and saw as un-Islamic – out of the holy Islamic lands.  But the Fahd family knew better than to trust a good Muslim, so they turned to the United States for help.  Jealous and enraged, the spurned warrior aided and abetted the ruthless attack on his rival – America.  9/11 was the result.             

While al-Qaeda and Saddam were bitter enemies, once Saddam was out of power, thanks to America, al-Qaeda jumped right in to fill the void and continued its terrorist assault against us.  We created the climate and the opportunity for our enemy to succeed where they had previously failed.  No meaningful links between Osama 'bin Laden and Saddam Hussein have ever been found.  They have proved to be as much of a mirage as were WMD’s. 

Thwarted again, GWB hypocritically stood on his soapbox and told the American people that the justification for spilling American blood and coin in Iraq was that Saddam was a bad guy.  At least it wasn’t a lie.  But now, as a justification for war, we were required to consider the cost and evaluate the likelihood of achieving a superior result.  Question one: Would you trade the lives of 1,500 men and women for Saddam’s head?  Question two: Would you spend $300,000,000,000 taxpayer dollars to rebuild what you destroyed?  Is an Islamic state under the control of Shi’ite clerics (who possess nuclear weapons and the second largest oil reserves) better for America than a secular state under the control of a two-bit tyrant who had no WMD’s and was spending his money on palaces? 

The question no politician or journalist in America seemed willing to contemplate before our invasion of Iraq was this: If Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and if he had intended to use them against Americans then the cost of occupying Iraq would have been far too high for he would have deployed them against our troops - 250,000 of them.  If Saddam didn’t have WMD’s and/or didn’t intend to use them against Americans, then there was no justification for risking one American life to remove him, much less a thousand.       

While there can be moral justification for helping people who are oppressed, Iraq wasn’t a rational or moral candidate for salvation.  The people of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Libya, and especially the Sudan are considerably more terrorized by their Islamic tyrants than were the Iraqis by their secular thug.  Further, the likelihood, while slim, of leaving a less brutal and tyrannical regime in our wake, was more favorable in those other nations.  At the very best, in the Sudan or in East Timor, we could have prevented Muslims from murdering 3,000,000 Christians. 

GWB, living in denial, ignorantly and arrogantly, changed his story once again.  Without dealing with the underlying reason that 95% of Islamic nations are dictatorial, he praised Islam, calling it good and peaceful, and then said that establishing a democracy in Iraq would be good for the world – a goal worthy of an ever escalating number of American lives.  But Islam and freedom, Islam and choice, Islam and enlightenment, Islam and prosperity, are as distant from one another as Nazism was from peace. 

Had we chosen to partner with, enrich and support, Nazism in Germany following the Second World War, would they be enjoying freedom and prosperity today?  Did America’s willingness to partner with Stalin and Mao during that war liberate the Russian and Chinese people or doom them?

SO WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO?
Is unjustified optimism, born in ignorance and denial, compassionate or enlightened when it leads to the loss of 1,500 American lives?  Was it moral to re-elect a president who has consistently deceived while leading America into a morass from which there is no escape?  Is the real problem the people who voted for him or the man who misled them?  Mind you, as a Constitutionalist, I am more conservative than anyone reading this open letter and as a Christian I am part of the group responsible for GWB’s empowerment.  So it is with a heavy heart that I ask Americans these questions: Is Islam solely at fault for the terror that Muslims have perpetrated or do those who have embraced, enriched and tolerated Islam share some blame?  Who is responsible for the mess we find ourselves in?  Is there any way out?

The answers are yes, we are, and Yahweh.  I encourage you to read the "Future’s History" if you seek salvation, "Tea With Terrorists if you wish to live free of Islamic terror, and "Prophet of Doom" if you want to understand the true nature of the enemy.  They are all available on the www.ProphetofDoom.net site.  


End Notes: (1) The above article was accessed from the web-site ProphetofDoom.com belonging to Mr. Winn.  He is a renowned and erudite scholar and also the author of "Yada Yahweh".  (2)  From Mr. Winn’s writings, it is apparent that he is a Christian.  However, those of all other faiths should realize that to Islam, all non-Muslims are infidels and deserve only death or subjugation. 


015
WHO’S RESPONSIBLE FOR ISLAMIC TERRORISTS
Khaled Kishtainy

The phenomenon called Islamic terrorism has many roots and causes, and much has already been written about this.  But I have personal input on this matter.

I place on the Islamic intellectuals and leaders of Islamic organizations part of the responsibility for this phenomenon of Islamic terrorism, as nearly all of them advocate violence, and repress anyone who casts doubts upon this.  Naturally, every so often they have written about the love and peace of Islam…but they did so, at best, for purposes of propaganda and defense of Islam.  Their basic position is that this religion was established by the sword, acts by the sword, and will triumph by the sword, and that any doubt regarding this constitutes a conspiracy against the Muslims.   

The best proof of what I am saying is the 1984 world congress on “The Nonviolent Political Arab Struggle” in Amman (Jordan), that was nothing but hypocrisy and propaganda.  In the congress documents in the English version, they published my speech, but they removed it from the edition in Arabic!!!  All this was an attempt to deceive the Westerners, and not in order to educate the Arabs to peace. 

In my opinion, the sword played a minor role in Islam’s triumph over polytheism.  Moreover, the Muslims will only lose by their adherence to the perception advocating violence.  This is due first of all to the military supremacy of others, and second because in this generation the alternative of nonviolent struggle is a more effective weapon.  I have adopted this perception and called it by the Islamic name “Civil Jihad”. 

I tried to establish in London an organization to disseminate this perception among the Muslims.  I contacted some Arab ambassadors and activists in Islamic organizations, and all I got from them was their turning their backs, and even threats.  Only three Muslims shared my belief…one from Ethiopia and two from Iraq.  Over the course of two years, we struggled for the sake of this goal; then we gave up.   

Most of the people we contacted were of the opinion that the Westerners are sons of dogs who understand only force, and that the Muslims have no choice but to strap on their weapon and fight.  Some cooperated with us in private meetings but after the meeting was over asked us not to mention anything of it to others…as if nonviolence and peace  were a kind of adultery that must be hidden.  This was the atmosphere that helped the emergence of the terrorists, the suicide bombers, and all those who use weapons and explosives. 

In the framework of this personal effort, I devoted a great deal of time to writing a book about nonviolence.  It is the only book that presents in depth, in Arabic, the perceptions and methods of Civil Jihad.  A large section of it is devoted to peace and nonviolence in Islam. 

In vain did my friend Anis Sayegh try to find a publisher for the book.  Some publishers refused to even permit the draft of the book to enter their office.  Finally, the Dar Al-Karmel publishers in Amman put it out, after omitting many paragraphs, and even that was in an abbreviated edition, replete with mistakes. 

The publisher did not manage to distribute it in a courageous way, perhaps because some Arab governments prevented him from doing so.  Even the Institute of Arab Unity refrained from publishing my research on this subject in its journal. 

I reiterate that the Arab and Islamic ideologues and media leaders bear much of the responsibility for the involvement in terrorism and violence of the Muslims of the world.  Of course, they will reject my statement arrogantly.  But my statement can be tested: The draft of my book is still in my office in two languages, Arabic and English, waiting for someone to come along and publish it.  I offer it for free, without asking a fee for my work.


End Notes:  (1)  The above piece by Mr. Kishtainy appeared in the London Arabic language daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat on April 11, 2004.  It was then translated and promulgated by the Middle East Media Research Institute, and then later by the website of jihadwatch.org on April 16, 2004.  (2)  Mr. Kishtainy’s article should be required reading for every person attempting to understand Islam.  His experience, over several years, in attempting to publish a book emphasizing the less violent aspects of Islam, has met with total failure.  There are, undoubtedly, countless Muslims sympathetic to Mr. Kishtainy’s viewpoint, i.e.- to emphasize and adhere to the numerous peaceful passages of the Koran.  However. they well realize, that to do so could expose themselves and their families to danger from religious zealots adhering to the more violent exhortations of Muhammad.      

                                                    

016
DEUTSCHLAND UBER ALLES
( Germany  Over Everyone )                                         
E.T. Nelosni
                                                       
Previous to attacking the U.S., Germany, as directed by its madman, Hitler, through a brilliant combination of emigration, demographic conquest and subversion of cultural, political and academic values, punctuated only occasionally by terrorist attacks, had effectively subdued all of Europe!  Today, throughout that entire continent, including Great Britain, any criticism of Germany could result in fines or imprisonment, or both!  Even Canada has capitulated, and it appears that other countries are not far behind.  These same tactics are now being used towards the total domination of the United States.  

The U.S. has been at war with Germany for some time now, with our country sustaining numerous casualties, almost evenly divided between the military and civilians, both abroad and on the home front.  In the last ten years, that is from 1997, estimates range between 8,000 and 10,000 deaths, and countless wounded, but no exact figures are available since the media largely ignores civilian casualties outside the U.S.

Germany’s single most horrendous attack on U.S. soil, which caused the most casualties, and which outraged the American public, was directly traceable to Germany!  But our politicians, of both parties, were complicit in allowing our President to misdirect public anger away from Germany.  The President, or his “spinmeisters”, borrowed a word describing a popular military tactic of our enemy.  Then, “Blitzkrieg”, not Germany, became the enemy, and this misdirection of guilt is parroted tens of thousands of times daily by our media and that of other Western nations.   
 
Most of our own media, and that of a goodly portion of the world not as yet controlled by Germany, are influenced by powerful political and economic forces wishing to maintain favorable relations with our enemy for their own agendas, and at any cost!  Our President, George W. Bush, treats our enemy’s representatives cordially and respectfully and they are frequent guests at the White House or on his Texas ranch.  This is at least partially due to the fact that, except for Communist China, Germany is the most important trading partners of the U.S.  Our country yearly buys somewhere between 75 to 80 billion dollars of their products.  A conservative estimate of money paid by the U.S. over the last 35 years for German imports is well over a Trillion dollars!  Additionally, several thousand U.S. companies enjoy lucrative contracts with Germany.  Germany, of course, buys several billion dollars of our own products, but has enjoyed a favorable balance of trade with the U.S. for many years.     

This favorable balance of trade, has allowed Germany, in the last 35 years, to invest somewhere between 50 – 70 Billion dollars towards the destruction of our democracy, more than World Communism spent in a period of 75 years.  This has been a good investment, directed along various paths.

Undoubtedly, Germany’s most productive investment has been the subversion of our educational systems, from universities downwards, even occasionally reaching to kindergarten level!  At the university level, Germany’s efforts were considerably assisted by the fall of the Soviet Union.  Thousands of university professors and administrators, previously expressing their hatred for democracy and this country through allegiance to World Communism, began flocking to Germany’s banner of world conquest.       
  
After the previously mentioned attack, our government decided to encourage our universities to initiate Germanic Studies curricula in those schools not already offering such courses.  Our Government’s stated purposes for the establishment of such curricula was to provide our nation with university graduates fluent in the German language who would then be useful in security analysis.  However, as often happens when our federal government becomes involved in a project, the end results bear little or no resemblance to the project’s original stated objectives.  Over 86 million dollars were set aside, of taxpayer money, under Title VI funding to initiate or expand Germanic Studies curricula.  The results were disastrous, at least as concerning our Government’s objectives, but a resounding success for Germany! 

Many professors teaching Germanic Studies were already sympathetic towards Hitler’s agenda and now Germany stepped forward to reward those academics with grants and suggest that they be placed in charge of the soon to be amplified curricula.  Those not sympathetic were often demoted or dismissed.  In almost all cases, the recommendations of Germany were followed.  And, in those universities inaugurating new curricula of Germanic Studies, professors were often rapidly imported directly from Germany.  Since Germany was paying for the establishment of the courses, and the universities were receiving large infusions of money, there was little complaint.     

From Germany’s deep pockets, millions and millions of dollars flowed into universities throughout the U.S. to expand and create new courses or to endow “chairs” or scholarships.  Some examples of the initial funding are:  University of Arkansas $20M, Berkeley $5M, Harvard $2.5M, Cornell $11M, Texas A.M. $1.5M,  MIT $5M, Princeton $1M, Rutgers $5M, Columbia $5M,  and Georgetown $8.1M.  Of the amount donated to Georgetown, $500,000 was to establish the “George W. Bush” scholarship fund!  In effect, our enemy established a scholarship fund in our President's name!  Other universities participating include Rice, UC Santa Barbara, John Hopkins, American University of Washington (D.C.), University of Chicago, University of Oklahoma, Syracuse, USC, Duke, UCLA, Howard University and several others.       

Once the initial funds are exhausted, the American taxpayers pay the bills under Title VI allocations.  Mein Kamph is invariably used as a principle course book.  In other words, we are digging our own graves and buying the shovel!  At present (2007), there are over 150 universities teaching courses in Germanic Studies as well as countless high schools, middle schools, grade schools, and even some kindergartens.  And Islam is now a required course in California schools.  The universities have already produced a few “all-American boy” homegrown terrorists, not even of Germanic descent, and will continue to do so at an accelerated rate!  One was resident at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, captured in Afghanistan fighting for the Taliban.    

Concurrently with the promotion of Germanic curricula, over 120 multi-million dollar Germanic centers were established throughout the U.S.  Their locations largely coincided with urban centers with large populations of Germans or near major universities.  Indeed, some universities allowed the construction of these meeting centers on land owned or previously owned by a university; the University of Tulsa is one example.  In these centers, the resident directors, or guest speakers, read from Mein Kamph, and openly urge their audiences to work towards the destruction of the United States.   

The F.B.I. and Homeland Security have infiltrated most, if not all, of these centers, but their hands are tied.  From higher up, their superiors, of the Justice Department, have ordered them not to move against these traitors and seditionists except when having an airtight case!  Any indictment brought that does not possess strong or conclusive evidence of an imminent attack would surely wither under the attention of the Leftist media, the A.C.L.U. and any one of several German organizations, of which there are several.  Indeed, in 2006, a direct link was forged between the A.C.L.U. and the most active German front organization of the U.S. when an official of the A.C.L.U. was named to the board of directors of the German organization in Florida.  Notwithstanding the limitations imposed from higher up, the F.B.I. and Homeland Security have prevented several attacks and have provided sufficient documentation to the Justice Department that  has led to the quiet expulsion of over 2,300 Germans, a fact largely unknown or ignored by our media, and almost completely ignored by the general public.     

Another largely unreported aspect of the German subversion of our country has been the establishment of numerous German training camps for teen-agers and even pre-teens, of both genders, where basic infantry tactics are taught, mostly with mops and brooms, but sometimes with assault weapons and live ammunition!  Some of these training camps are known to the F.B.I., but are still in operation!    

From Colonial days through the 1950’s, the increase of Germans in our population was practically insignificant, perhaps as few as 200,000 by 1950.  However, by the start of the 21st Century, due principally to their high demographic rate, the highest in the world, and partially due to our lax  immigration procedures, the number is now somewhere between one and a half to two million!    

Every one of these Germans are terrorists or potential terrorists, if called upon to be so by Germany!  Regardless of any superficial appearance of being assimilated into our society, their loyalty will always be towards Germany, Hitler and his guide for world domination, Mein Kamph!  Additionally, an unknown number of German terrorists have entered through our leaky borders.     

Now, with the concentrations of Germans in several major cities, they are making their voices heard on the political scene, to the extent that we have a German in the House of Representatives, whose allegiance is to Germany,  and another is a Senator who is a front-leading Democrat candidate for the Presidency of the United States in 2008! 

The situation is surreal; we’re at war with Germany, and have been for some time, but our Administration is actively facilitating the destruction of our democracy, using the auspices of the F.B.I. and Homeland Security to protect Germans!  That is, any overt act against a German would more than likely be chastised on a par, or even more severely, than the discovery of a German plot which could result in a considerable loss of life or of the infrastructure of our society. 

And now, in 2007, certain members of Congress are attempting to pass “hate crime” legislation similar to that of the European Union which would make it a “crime” to  criticize Germans, verbally or in print.  This legislation was ostensibly drafted for the protection of homosexuals but its wordage would apply equally to Germans!  Those found guilty would face fines or imprisonment, or both, as is the case in all of Europe.  Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” is taught in our schools; is available in most book stores and practically any public library as well as school libraries throughout the nation.  In this book, Hitler directly outlines his vision of world conquest by systematic genocide, but it appears that few are paying attention.  It is time to do so!      

Editorial Notes:

(1) To better understand the above, make the following substitutions in the title and in the appropriate underlined spaces.
      “Allah Akbar” should perhaps be the title. 
      “Islam” for Germany.
      “Muhammad” for Hitler.
      “Muslims” for Germans.
      “The Koran” for Mein Kamph.
      “War on Terror” for Blitzkrieg.
      “Middle-Eastern or Islamic Studies” for Germanic Studies 
      “Arabic” for the German language.
      “Mosques” for Germanic centers.  

(2) For those doubting the truthfulness of the above article, we recommend the following well documented article: “The Saudi Fifth Column on our Nation’s Campus”, written by Lee Kaplan of FrontPageMagazine.com and published on April 6. 2004.  You may wish to access this article in our Archive 013, and then use the following web-site for reference of: http://www.frontpaghemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=12833.  Also, the  U.S. State Department report of 2000, on Saudi Arabia, entitled: “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices” is most informative.  This report is available at most public libraries.    

                                                                                         

017
COMMENTS ON ISLAM
Professor Will Morrisey
                                                                                               
To think about Islam, we find ourselves first of all engaged in the question of what Islam is.  To be entitled to an independent view, one would need a mastery of the principal Islamic texts in their original language.  Neither I, nor (to my knowledge) anyone else associated with this college, claims such authority.  So how are we to try to think about Islam?  Blocked from the deepest inquiry, we must think primarily as informed citizens, as most of us will never be Islamic scholars.  As citizens, we must think politically.  To think politically, we must think in terms of regimes.  Regimes are the primary frame of reference for the political thinker. 

What is a regime?  That question, I can answer.  A regime is the most authoritative form of ruling in a political community.  To determine what regime rules in such a community, you need to know three things.

First, who rules there?  What persons are in charge, and how many of them are there---one, few, or many?  What kind of persons are they?  What is their character? 

Second, how do these people rule?  By what institutional structures?  Do the rulers rule through parliaments and courts?  Or through armies and secret police?

Finally, what way of life prevails in the country?  What are the habits of the heart of the people that live there?  For example, many of you were struck, as I was, by a film aired a few months ago on an Arab television network.  In this film, a three-year-old girl was asked, “What are the Jews?”  “The Jews”, she answered dutifully, “are apes and pigs.”  It is fair to say that this catechism of contempt is not a habit of the heart publicly honored in commercial republican regimes--- whether their peoples are Muslim, as in Turkey, Jewish as in Israel, or predominately Christian as in America. 

Islamism, as distinct from Islam, is the blend of Muslim law and the principals of radical modernity, characterized by terrorism and culminating in theocratic tyranny.  Islamists must target Americans and Jews---that is, the West generally---because the commercial republics represented by Americans and Jews hold up an understanding of the good for human beings that is antithetical to their own. 

When George Washington wrote to the Newport Synagogue, in the letter quoted this week by Prime Minister Bhutto, he told those Jews that they enjoyed the free exercise of religion in America, not on the basis of mere toleration, but on the basis of natural right  to life in the fullest sense.  In contrast, the Islam of the Islamists, and even the Islam of the Shar’ia---the Islamic law---offers Jews and Christians toleration, not on the basis of the natural right to life, but on the basis of the right to kill.  That is, in the status of dhimmitude, non-Muslims may live only on condition of strict subordination, enforceable by death.  Exclusion from citizenship is the price of survival.  A full life may only be lived if you believe rightly, and not because, as a human being, you are entitled to such a life, regardless of your religious beliefs. 

This regime conflict has now become urgent because Tocqueville was right about the modern world.  In 1836 he predicted that the decline of the old aristocracies, the master of nature by technology, and the rise of stateism, left two stark possibilities for modern man: the commercial republicanism seen in America or the despotism then seen in Russia.  World history since that time has been a struggle between commercial republicanism and tyranny in its many forms. 

In confronting the regimes of terror and tyranny, whether secular or religious, we hear the objection, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”  Empirically speaking, this is quite true.  But, let’s follow that line of thought to the end:  It is equally empirically true that one’s man freedom is another man’s slavery.  What Osama 'bin Laden calls freedom is tyranny to Milton Friedman, and vice-versa.  By the same token, we’ve seen that one man’s man is another man’s ape or pig.  While Dr. Friedman may be a man to us, to that Muslim three-year-old and her educators, he is an animal, and deserves to be treated as an animal. 

So the real question is, which are we?  Will we acquiesce if others are?  Will we accept the consequences of such classification, consequences we all see very plainly?

As Americans, we are now involved in a geopolitical struggle between regimes, one an empire of liberty, another a nascent empire of tyranny.  Like all past tyrants---King George in 1776, the slaveholders of 1860, the militarists of 1914, the communists and fascists who emerged from the ashes of that Great War---our enemies expect us to be cowardly, decadent, foolish and bourgeois.  I rather expect that, like those earlier Americans, we will disappoint them.  Indeed, I expect that we will defeat them. 


End Notes: (1)  Mr. Morrison is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Hillsdale College.  The college publishes a monthly newsletter entitled “Imprimis” free to the public on request.  A letter or postcard will serve to receive a monthly newsletter.  The address is:  Hillsdale College, 33 East College Street, Hillsdale, Michigan 49242.  (2)  For parents searching for a university with high academic, moral and patriotic standards for the education of their children, Hillsdale is certainly the answer! 



018                                         
HOW EUROPE BECAME EURABIA
Bat Ye’or
                                        
Last Tuesday, the 23 nations of the European Union (EU) voted unanimously to support a United Nations Resolution condemning Israel’s defensive fence (ignoring that this barrier was constructed to keep jihadist murderers from entering the nation via Judea and Samaria).  The EU’s craven, morally bankrupt stance was sadly consistent with Eurabian policies evident now for three decades.  In fact, the EU has been completing a slow metamorphosis into the “Christian” arm of the Pan-Arab world, different in religious observation (or lack of same) but united in its views of Israel and America. 

The European Community (EC), and later the EU, has been aligned with Arab policy regarding Israel and the United States since its June 1977 declaration.  Disruption of the Western alliance by separating Europe from America, and the piecemeal destruction of Israel were the pillars of the Euro-Arab alliance that gave birth to Eurabia.  The formation of this tactical alliance can be traced clearly to a document issued 24 years ago. Prompted  by fears of Khomeini’s Shi’ite theocracy in Iran, international Arab terrorism and the rise of oil prices, the EC adopted the 1980 Venice Declaration.  This declaration made clear that the EC, under French leadership, had adopted Pan-Arab conditions regarding Israel without qualification, including: the 1949 armistice as Israel’s legitimate borders; Arab sovereignty over East Jerusalem; an Arab Palestinian state; the recognition of the PLO as the sole representative of the Palestinians, as well as its participation in all negotiations, and the obligation of Israel to negotiate with Arafat, exclusively; and the refusal to recognize a separate peace between Israel and any Arab country, for the resolution of the “Palestinian problem.”  By adopting all those conditions (which contradicted UN Resolution 242) Europeans could in turn justify their ahistorical designation of Judea and Samaria as occupied Arab land.  Ultimately, the entire European effort to de-legitimize and vilify Israel hinges upon this inaccurate, disingenuous formulation.  In the 1970’s and 1980’s, the Communist bloc and the burgeoning Euro-Arab alliance granted international legitimacy to the denial of Israel’s rights by the PLO.  France, and to a lesser extent Germany, directed the entire European Community foreign policy in accord with Arab-Islamic sentiments.  A careful reading of the Venice Declaration (1980), the Fez Islamic Conference (1980), the Amman Arab Summit (1980), and the Taif-Mecca Islamic Summit (1981) reveals the similarities between the European and Arab positions in relation to Israel.  Europe’s modified wording is just a fig leaf. 

This subterfuge allows the EU to pose as a “neutral” agent between Israel and the Arab world and to retain a role in the peace-for-terrorists-process.  At the Durban “circus” in September 2001, European representatives tried in vain to conceal the anti-American and anti-Semitic animus that permeates Eurabian policies, most visibly through the collusion of Eurabian and Arab NGOs.  And, again, during the recently completed International Court of Justice proceedings in the Hague, Eurabian judges employed similar tactics but joined their colleagues from the Muslim world in finding Israel’s anti-terrorist barrier “illegal” (and thus denying the Jewish state its legal right to self-defense). 
   
Beyond a fleeting awareness, the overwhelming majority of Europeans and Americans do not understand the new Eurabian entity, which is only the first step in a steady progres- sion towards its Arabization and Islamization.  Europe has evolved from a Judeo-Christian civilization, with important post-Enlightenment/secular elements, to a “civilization of dhimmitude,” i.e.-Eurabia: a secular-Muslim transitional society with its traditional Judeo-Christian mores rapidly disappearing.     

This evolution of Europe has been duplicated internally within every EU country.  This deliberate, comprehensive process has taken place through several means: the control of Middle Eastern Studies departments at European universities, and the re-writing of historical textbooks; allowing Euro-Arab bodies to screen cultural exchanges and publications relating to Islam and the Arab Muslim world for unwelcome content; taboos imposed on issues related to immigration and Islam; disinformation campaigns demora- lizing Israel (and America), while fostering a comprehensive and “brotherly” alliance between EU and Arab League countries on the political, economic, cultural, and social levels; and the servile obedience of the EU’s mainstream media to all these initiatives.  

Most recently, this program of Euro-Arab symbiosis has been codified in a detailed report entitled, “Dialogue Between Peoples and Cultures in the Euro- Mediterranean Area.”  Released last October, this report (whose contributors included Umberto Eco and Tariq Ramadan) was to establish complete interdependence between Europe and the Arab-Muslim world.  Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission, established the High-Level Advisory Group which stated the aims, policies, and routine functions of the foundation.  The Advisory Group mandated that the foundation have complete financial and administrative independence in managing its budget and in choosing its partners.  In support of this remarkable request, the Advisory Group argued that the foundation needed considerable resources to cover its activities that would be extraordinarily expensive, as they will encompass all the countries of the EU.  The Advisory Group further justified such conditions by invoking its lofty aim, which “is nothing less than peace itself.”  And, this “peace”…accomplished through “brotherly love” and “dialogue” between the North and South of the Mediterranean…will be achieved by a total economic, political, and cultural fusion. 

This May (2004), the EU followed this report up by accepting the creation of the Euro-Mediterranean Foundation for the Dialogue of Cultures, named after Anna Lindh, the Swedish minister murdered by a deranged man.  Lindh was a staunch supporter of Arafat and advocated an economic boycott of Israel by the EU, a policy long desired by Euro- pean politicians.  Not surprisingly, the Anna Lindh Foundation draws inspiration from the spirit of Edward Said, the late dhimmi ideologue bent on subverting Western culture, and values.  The Anna Lindh Foundation endeavors to fight what it dubs as “Fortress Europe” on Arab immigration issues, and to establish a totalitarian academic structure which alone will be entitled to teach and publish material on the Euro-Arab Mediterranean.  It will also monitor the textbooks and university curricula for all of the EU.  Moreover, the Foundation promotes the vision of a unified Euro-Mediterranean world where people are not even defined as being from the North or the South, (terms considered too provocative as they might invoke visions of a once-Christian North and a very Muslim South).  The Euro-Arab continent will instead be populated by an amorphous mass called only “Us,” without acknowledged ethnic, national, or religious features.  In reality, Europe is creating a gigantic Muslim community, or “umma,” which is also inhabited by an anonymous (and precipitously dying) European dhimmi population.     

One can choose to ignore it, but Eurabia is a tangible entity.  Eurabia has a discernible historical development, and its functionaries are now well entrenched in each European parliament, and at the head of the European Commission.  Often Javier Solana merely parrots the Arab League’s Amr Moussa, or the Palestinian Authority’s Yasser Arafat.  Hence Solana parrots the pan-Arab refrain that no reforms can be achieved in any Muslim country before the settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, reiterating the same fatuous statements made by Amr Moussa.  The EU continues to proclaim that all negotiations must be con ducted with Arafat alone and that the Middle East conflict is at the center of world politics.  Those two assertions were repeated endlessly at the Fez, Amman , and Taif Summits (1980-81).  The EU’s unlimited funds finance anti-Israeli and anti-American campaigns, as well as the “dialogue” industry.  Regarding Israel in particular, it appears as if the EU has become the obsequious mouthpiece of the Arab League.     

The Eurabian ethos operates at all levels of European society.  Its countless functionaries, like the Christian janissary slave-soldiers of past Islamic regimes, advance a jihadist world strategy.  Eurabia cannot change direction; it can only use deception to mask its emergence, its bias and its inevitable trajectory.  Eurabia’s destiny was sealed when it decided, willingly, to become a covert partner with the Arab global jihad against America and Israel.  Americans must discuss the tragic development of Eurabia, and its profound implications for the United States, particularly in terms of its resultant foreign policy realities.  Americans should consider the despair and confusion of many Europeans, prisoners of a Eurabian totalitarianism that foments a culture of deadly lies about Western civilization.  Americans should know that this self-destructive calamity did not just happen, rather it was the result of deliberate policies, executed and monitored by ostensibly responsible people.  Finally, Americans should understand that Eurabia’s contemporary anti-Zionism and anti-Americanism are the spiritual heirs of 1930s Nazism and anti-Semitism, triumphally resurgent.


End Notes:  (1) The above article was published in FrontPageMagazine.com on July 27, 2004.  (2) Ms. Bat Y’or, a brave Egyptian writer, has been a pioneer in attempts to alert the United States and the world regarding Islam for over twenty years. Bat Y’or is her pen name.  Her real identity was recently disclosed by an unscrupulous person who felt that the right to know of the public should take precedence over her life.  (3)  Due to the passage of a recent law of the European Union, and binding on all of its members, it is now a punishable offense, even in England, to in any way criticize Islam.   



019
WILL EUROPE BECOME NEXT ISLAMIC MECCA?
Robert Spencer

How quickly is Europe being Islamized?  So quickly that even historian Bernard Lewis, who has continued throughout his honor-laden career to be strangely disingenuous about certain realities of Islamic radicalism and terrorism, told the German newspaper Die Welt forthrightly that “Europe will be Islamic by the end of the century.”

Or maybe sooner: Consider some indications from Scandinavia this past week:

     *  Sweden’s third-largest city, Malmo, according to the Swedish Aftonbladet, has become an outpost of the Middle East in Scandinavia: “The police now publicly admit what many Scandinavians have known for a long time: They no longer control the situation in the nation’s third largest city.  It is effectively ruled, by violent gangs of Muslim immigrants.  Some of the Muslims have lived in the area of Rosengard, Malmo, for 20 years, and still don’t know how to read or write Swedish.  Ambulance personnel are attacked by stones or weapons, and refuse to help anybody in the area without police escort.  The immigrants also spit at them when they come to help.  Recently, an Albanian youth was stabbed by an Arab, and was left bleeding to death on the ground while an ambulance waited for the police to arrive.  The police themselves hesitate to enter parts of their own city unless they have several patrols, and need to have guards to watch their cars, otherwise they will be vandalized. 

     *  The Nordgardsskolen in Aarhus, Denmark, has become the first Dane-free Danish school.  The students now come entirely from Denmark’s fastest-growing constituency: Muslim immigrants. 

     *  Also, in Denmark, the Qur’an is now required reading for all upper-secondary school students.  There is nothing wrong with that in itself, but it is unlikely, given the current ascendancy of political correctness on the Continent, that critical perspectives will be included.  

     *  Pakistani Muslim leader Qazi Hussain Ahmed gave an address at the Islamic Cultural Center in Oslo.  He was readily allowed into the country despite the fact that, according to Norway’s Aftenposten, he “has earlier made flattering comments about Osama ‘bin Laden, and his party, Jamaat-e-Islami, also has hailed al-Qaeda members as heroes.”  Elsewhere in Europe the jihad is taking a more violent form.  Dutch officials have uncovered at least 15 separate terrorist plots, all aimed at punishing the Netherlands for its 1,300 peacekeeping troops in Iraq.  And, in Spain, Moroccan Muslims, including several suspected participants in the March 11 bombings in Madrid, have taken control of a wing of a Spanish prison.  From there they broadcast Muslim prayers at high volume, physically intimidated non-Muslim prisoners, hung portraits of Osama ‘bin Laden, and boasted, “We are going to win the holy war.”  The guards’ response?  They asked the ringleaders please to lower the volume on the prayers. 

     *  What are European governments doing about all this?  France is pressing forward with an appeasement campaign to free two French journalists held hostage by jihadists in Iraq.  The Swedish state agency for foreign aid is sponsoring a “Palestinian Solidarity Conference,” which aims, among other things, to pressure the European Union to remove the terrorist group Hamas from the EU’s list of terrorist groups…despite Hamas’s long history of encouraging and glorifying the murder of civilians by suicide bombers.  What Europe has long sown it is now reaping.  Bat Ye’or, the pioneering historian of dhimmitude, the institutionalized oppression of non-Muslims in Muslim societies, chronicles in her forthcoming book, “Eurabia”, how it has come to this.  Europe, she explains, began 30 years ago to travel down a road of appeasement, accommodation and cultural abdication before Islam in pursuit of short-sighted political and economic benefits:  She observes that today “Europe has evolved from a Judeo-Christian civilization, with important post-Enlightenment/secular elements, to a “civilization of dhimmitude,” i.e.- Eurabia: a secular-Muslim transitional society with its traditional Judeo-Christian mores rapidly disappearing.” After the Beslan child massacres, however, there are signs from Eastern Europe that this may be changing.  Last Sunday Poland turned away one hundred Chechen Muslims who were trying to enter the country from Belarus.  This is the sort of measure that the countries west of Poland have been so far unwilling to take.  But since one cannot by any means screen out the jihadists from the moderate Muslims, and the moderates are not helping to identify the jihadists either, what choice did the Poles have?  It might not be too long before they will have to turn away entrants from Scandinavia and France as well.
                                                                  

End Notes:  The above piece appeared in “Human Events Weekly” on September 20, 2004.  Mr. Spencer, the author, is perhaps the most dedicated voice trying to alert America and the international community regarding Islam.  He is the Director of JihadWatch (jihadwatch.com) and the author of “Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West” (Regnery Publishing) and “Islam Unveiled” (Encounter Books).  “Islam Unveiled” is perhaps the best single book presently available for a broad understanding of Islam. 



020
THE KORAN CONTROVERSY: FLUSHING AWAY COMMON SENSE
Robert Spencer

Seventeen people have been killed and hundreds wounded by Muslims in riots since Newsweek published its story about an American interrogator flushing a Koran down the toilet at the detention center at Guantanamo Bay.  And yet the media establishment seems preoccupied only with the fact that Newsweek has published a false story, has done a very bad thing…and that the Bush Administration must do something to soothe Muslim feelings. 

There is no excusing Newsweek’s irresponsibility in this.  But this is not really a story about media bias or carelessness.  There is a much larger story that is getting hardly any attention at all.  The gorilla in the living room; that no one wants to notice, is that flushing a Koran down the toilet should not be grounds to commit murder.  
 
Spokesmen on both the left and the right are ignoring this aspect of the story.  After the initial reports of rioting, Juan Cole sputtered, “Whatever “g----m military genius came up with the bright idea of flushing the Koran down the toilet at Guantanamo should be court-martialed and Bush had better get out there apologizing before this thing spirals further out of control.”  On the other side of the political spectrum, Paul Marshall wrung his hands in National Review: “Even if Newsweek publishes a full retraction, the damage is done.  Much of the Muslim world will regard it only as a cover-up and feel re-confirmed in the view that America is at war with Islam.” 

Neither Cole nor Marshall, however, made any moral judgment about the rioters.  Marshall was furious with Newsweek: “It would be charitable to think that if Newsweek had known how explosive the story was it may have held off until it had more confirmation.  If this is true, it is an indication that the media’s widespread failure to pay careful attention to the complexities of religion not only misleads us about domestic and international affairs but also gets people killed.”  Cole directed his anger at the President:  “Bush should just come out and say we can’t be sure that it happened, but if it did it was an excess, and he apologizes if it did happen, and make sure it doesn’t happen again (if it did).”       

Neither one says anything whatsoever about a culture that condones…celebrates… wanton murder of innocent people, mayhem and destruction in response to the alleged and unproven destruction of a book.

The question here is of proportionate response.  If a Koran had indeed been flushed, Muslims would have justifiably been offended.  They may have justifiably considered the perpetrators boors or barbarians or hell-bound unbelievers.  They may justifiably have issued denunciations accordingly.  But that is all.  To kill people thousands of miles away who had nothing to do with the act, and to fulminate with threats against the entire Western world, all because of this alleged act, is not just disproportionate.  It is just not excessive.  It is mad.  And every decent person in the world ought to have the courage to stand up and say that it is mad. 

I suspect that even Cole and Marshall know that it is mad, too.  But, why don‘t they say so?  Because rule No. 1 in the establishment (left and right) view of this present conflict is that it has nothing to do with Islam.  To bring a moral judgment to bear upon Muslim people, or to explore the ways in which Islam fuels the conflict, is therefore absolutely forbidden. 

This kind of analysis, dominant as it is in the media, does the Western world an enormous disservice.  The reaction to the Newsweek story in the Muslim world only shows how critical it is that the elements of Islam that give rise to fanaticism and violence be examined and confronted.  Lives are at stake.  But, Cole and Marshall, and many others like them on both the left and the right, can’t see this necessity through the political fog of political correctness.  

                                                             
End Notes:  The above article by Mr. Spencer epitomizes the general public’s ignorance of Islam, including both the Liberal and even most of the Conservative media throughout the world’s free societies, caught up in the above named “political fog” of political correctness.   
   


021  
WINSTON CHURCHILL’S COMMENTS ON ISLAM

Update In Progress



022 
A DEADLY EQUATION
(The Forming of a Homicidal Bomber)
Charles O. Jones

Each Muslim homicidal bomber is, at least to a certain extent, unique, as of certainty are all humans.  However, there are common threads in the backgrounds of these persons, which lead them to explode themselves in their attempts to kill infidels, especially Christians and Jews. If placed in an equation, the path leading to a Muslim exploding him or herself, in an effort to kill as many infidels as possible, might be annotated as:

         Ignorance + Mind Control + False Pride = Resentment, Fear & Envy = 
                              Hatred & Anger = Murder & Mayhem.                                 

IGNORANCE:  If ignorance were a virtue, Islam would be the most virtuous society on earth!  With few exceptions, the curricula of most Islamic schools today is woefully inadequate for competing in the 21st Century, or for that matter, in practically any other century of recorded history.  Muslim religious schools, the Madrassas, base their curricula almost exclusively on the Sunnah, or that is, the contents of the Koran and the Hadith, the collection of the casual sayings of Muhammad.  Students learn basic skills of reading and writing, hatred of infidels and rote passages from the Koran, but little else. 

And, unbelievable as it may seem to persons of more advanced societies, the Sunnah forms the entire belief system of the Muslim world!  For a true Muslim, any knowledge not contained within the Sunnah must be false; hence, the abysmal ignorance of most Muslims.  Almost without exception, the Arabic speaking Muslim countries tenaciously hold on to their ignorance, since it is a legacy of Allah, as revealed to Muhammad, and mandated in the Koran.   

Of course, the children of the rich and powerful leaders of the Muslim world, including the children of some of the most dangerous terrorists, are educated in the Western world, principally in the U.S. or Europe.   

MIND CONTROL:  From infancy, even before any formal schooling, Muslim children are taught to hate and despise all non-Muslims.  The children are urged to act out their rage against infidels with classroom projects, such as the instance of a Saudi teacher, of an art class, immediately after 9/11, telling his 3rd grade students to, “Draw the sight of the two airplanes blowing up the twin towers.” And, a recent television clip showed a three year old Muslim girl describing Jews as monkeys and apes.   

FALSE PRIDE:  Also from infancy, Muslim children are told that they are Allah’s “Chosen People”.  They are taught that Allah’s revelations, as given through the mouth of His Last and Most Perfect Prophet, Muhammad, have provided the only perfect recipe needed to live the good life on earth, and that they will receive Allah’s bountiful blessings if only following the Prophet’s revelations.  Unfortunately for infidels, a goodly number of these revelations call for their killing or enslavement.   

ENVY AND RESENTMENT:  As Muslims mature, they plainly see the abject poverty and misery around them.  They also see, through magazines, movies, television, tourism and the Internet, the abundant life being enjoyed by other societies.  They are told that this abundant life, promised them by God’s Prophet, and presently being enjoyed by the infidels, has somehow been stolen from them, Allah’s chosen people!       

But, most insidious, Muslims are taught that the reason for their miserable lives is only their own fault, because they have not been sufficiently faithful to Allah.  That is, they have not sufficiently adhered to the exhortations of the Koran such as, “Kill, kill the infidels, wherever you find them.”, and numerous other like verses of the Koran.   For over 1,300 years, the worst excesses of Muslim Genocide have usually occurred whenever Islam suffered setbacks in its goal of world domination.  

FEAR:  Muslims are continuously reminded that their society is at war and under constant attack by the infidels, the oppressors.  For a Muslim, using the double-speak of Islam, this is true; any society that does not voluntarily enter into Dar Al-Islam, or the “Peace” of Islam, is considered to be at war.  Absolutely no other provocation is necessary!  This is a unique concept, but for Muslims is entirely logical.  Their reasoning seems to be that since Allah (Muhammad) has provided mankind with the perfect recipe for living on this earth, any society opposing His (Allah’s /Muhammad’s) holy mandates is undeserving of any consideration whatsoever!  That the consequences for these infidels entail genocide, rape, slavery and a host of other denigrating conditions is, in the eyes of Muslims, only their well deserved desserts.    

Another powerful motivation for the “homicidal” bombers is the fear of (Muslim) Hell and the desirability of reaching (Muslim) Heaven.  Few passages of the Bible describe Heaven and Hell, but the Koran has detailed descriptions of both destinations, and especially the torment of the Muslim Hell.  The only sure route to (Muslim) Heaven is by dying in Holy Jihad.  For many poor, ignorant and miserable Muslims, this option seems attractive.  They achieve a widespread and instant recognition on earth, for killing infidels, and supposedly a straight pass to heaven.  Once there, the men enjoy many pleasures denied them while on earth such as unlimited sex, wine, culinary delights, luxurious clothing and abundant wealth.  And, in many instances, based on a sliding scale of his or her activity, the Jihadist may receive cash rewards.  Naturally, in the case of a  homicidal bomber, it is his or her family that receives up to $25,000 from a terrorist organization.    

Recent additions to the ranks of suicide bombers have been women, often young girls that are given a choice of becoming a respected martyr to Islam or being murdered by male relatives because of some real or imagined “loss of honor”.  However the Koran has little to say concerning any pleasures reserved for women who die in Jihad.  Generally, the children of Muslim leaders seldom become human bombs, though there have been exceptions.    

HATRED AND ANGER:  A festering hatred taught from infancy and the anger engendered by their miserable lives, as compared to those lead by the hated infidels, that have supposedly somehow appropriated their inheritance, controls their emotions.  Some of the more intelligent eventually realize that their blind allegiance to Islam has been misplaced, but few try to escape.  To do so would practically guarantee loss of family, friends, and incur an immediate death sentence for apostasy.
 
THEN:   Ignorance + Mind Control + False Pride = Envy, Resentment & Fear = Hate & Anger = MURDER & MAYHEM !          

                                                                                                                                
End Note:   Please refer to “My Son’s Teacher Was a Terrorist”,  Archive #25  



023
FREEDOM AND JUSTICE IN ISLAM
Professor Bernard Lewis Professor
Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies, Princeton University

By common consent among historians, the modern history of the Middle East begins in the year 1798, when the French Revolution arrived in Egypt in the form of a small expeditionary force led by a young general called Napoleon Bonaparte – who conquered and then ruled it for a while with appalling ease – he wasn’t yet Emperor – proclaimed to the Egyptians that he had come to them on behalf of a French Republic built on the principles of liberty and equality.  We know something about the reaction to this proclamation from the extensive literature of the Middle Eastern Arab world.  The idea of equality posed no great problem.  Equality is very basic in Islamic belief.  All true believers are equal.  Of course, that still leaves three “inferior” categories of people – slaves, unbelievers and women.  But, in general, the concept of equality was understood.  Islam never developed anything like the caste system of India to the east or the privileged aristocracies of Christian Europe to the West.  Equality was something they knew, respected, and in large measure practiced.  But liberty was something else. 

As used in Arabic at that time, liberty was not a political but a legal term: You were free if you were not a slave.  The word liberty was not used as we use it in the Western world, as a metaphor for good government.  So the idea of a republic founded on principles of freedom caused some puzzlement.  Some years later an Egyptian sheikh – Sheikh Rifa’a Rafi’ al-Tahtawi, who went to Paris as chaplain to the first group of Egyptian students sent to Europe – wrote a book about his adventures and explained his discovery of the meaning of freedom.  He wrote that when the French talk about freedom they mean what Muslims mean when they talk about justice.  By equating freedom with justice, he opened a whole new phase in the political and public discourse of the Arab world, and then, more broadly, the Islamic world. 


IS WESTERN STYLE  FREEDOM  TRANSFERABLE?
What is the possibility of freedom in the Islamic world, in the Western sense of the word?  If you look at the current literature, you will find two views common in the United States and Europe. One of them holds that Islamic peoples are incapable of decent, civilized government.  Whatever the West does, Muslims will be ruled by corrupt tyrants.  Therefore, the aim of our foreign policy should be to insure they are our tyrants rather than somebody else’s – friendly rather than hostile tyrants.  This point of view is very much favored in departments of state and foreign offices and is generally known, rather surprisingly, as the “pro-Arab” view.  It is, of course, in no sense pro-Arab.  It shows ignorance of the Arab past, contempt for the Arab present, and unconcern for the Arab future.  The second common view is that Arab ways are different from our ways.  They must be allowed to develop in accordance with their cultural principles, but it is possible for them – as for anyone else, anywhere in the world, with discreet help from the outside and most specifically from the United States – to develop democratic institutions of a kind.  This view is known as the “imperialist” view and has been vigorously denounced and condemned as such. 

In thinking about these two views, it is helpful to step back and consider what Arab and Islamic society was like once and how it has been transformed in the modern age.  The idea of how that society is now is how it has always been is totally false.  The dictatorship of Saddam Hussein in Iraq or the Assad family in Syria or the more friendly dictatorship of Mubarak in Egypt – all of these have no roots whatsoever in the Arab or Islamic past.  Let me quote to you from a letter written in 1786 – three years before the French Revolution – by Mssr. Count de Choiseul-Gouffier, the French ambassador in Istanbul, in which he is trying to explain why he is making rather slow progress with the tasks entrusted to him by his government in dealing with the Ottoman government. “Here,” he says, “things are not as in France where the king is sole master and does as he pleases.”  “Here,” he says, “the sultan has to consult.”  He has to consult with the former holders of high offices, with the leaders of various groups and so on.  And this is a slow process.  This scenario is something radically different than the common image of Middle Eastern government today.  And it is a description that ceased to be true because of a number of changes that occurred.

MODERNIZATION AND NAZI AND SOVIET INFLUENCE
The first of these changes is what one might call modernization.  This was undertaken not by imperialists, for the most part, but by Middle Eastern rulers who had become painfully aware that their societies were undeveloped compared with the advanced Western world.  These rulers decided that what they had to do was to modernize or Westernize.  Their intentions were good, but the consequences were often disastrous.  What they did was to increase the power of the state and the ruler enormously by placing at his disposal the whole modern apparatus of control, repression and indoctrination.  At the same time, which was even worse, they limited or destroyed those forces in the traditional society that had previously limited the autocracy of the ruler.  In the traditional society there were established orders – the bazaar merchants, the scribes, the guilds, the country gentry, the military establishment, the religious establishment, and so on.  These were powerful groups in society, whose heads were not appointed by the ruler but arose from within the groups.  And no sultan, however powerful, could do much without maintaining some relationship with these different orders in society.  This is not democracy as we currently use this word, but it is certainly limited, responsible government.  And, the system worked.  Modernization ended that. A new ruling class emerged, ruling from the center and using the apparatus of the state for its purposes. 

That was the first stage in the destruction of the old order.  The second stage we can date with precision.  In the year 1940, the government of France surrendered to the Axis and formed a collaborationist government in a place called Vichy.  The French colonial empire was, for the most part, beyond the reach of the Nazis, which meant that the governors of the French colonies had a free choice: To stay with Vichy or to join Charles de Gaulle, who had set up a Free French Committee in London.  The overwhelming majority chose Vichy, which meant that Syria- Lebanon – a French-mandated territory in the heart of the Arab East – was now wide open to the Nazis.  The governor and his high officials in the administration in Syria-Lebanon took their orders from Vichy, which in turn took orders from Berlin.  The Nazis moved in, made a tremendous propaganda effort, and were even able to move from Syria eastwards into Iraq and for a while set up a pro-Nazi, fascist regime.  It was in this period that political parties were formed that were the nucleus of what later became the Baath Party.  The Western Allies eventually drove the Nazis out of the Middle East and suppressed these organizations.  But the war ended in 1945, and the Allies left.  A few years later the Soviets moved in, established an   immensely powerful presence in Egypt, Syria, Iraq and various other countries, and introduced Soviet-style political practice.  The adaptation from the Nazi model to the Communist model was very simple and easy, requiring only a few minor adjustments, and it proceeded pretty well.  That is the origin of the Baath Party and of the kind of governments that we have been confronting in the Middle East in recent years.  That, as I would again repeat and emphasize, has nothing to do with the traditional Arab or Islamic past. 

WAHHABISM AND OIL 
That there has been a break with the past is a fact of which Arabs and Muslims themselves are keenly and painfully aware, and they have tried to do something about it.  It is in this context that we observe a series of movements that could be described as an Islamic revival or reawakening.  The first of these – founded by a theologian called Abd al Wahhab, who lived in a remote area of Najd in desert Arabia – is known as Wahhabi.  Its argument is that the root of Arab-Islamic troubles lies in following the ways of the infidel.  The Islamic world, it holds, has abandoned the true faith that God gave it through His prophet and His holy book, and the remedy is a return to pure, original Islam.  This pure, original Islam is, of course – as is usual in such situations – a new invention with little connection to Islam as it existed in its earlier stages.

Wahhabism was dealt with fairly easily in its early years, but it acquired a new importance in the mid-1920’s when two things happened: The local tribal chiefs of the House of Saud – who had been converted since the 18th century to the Wahhabi version of Islam – conquered the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.  This was of immense importance, giving them huge prestige and influence in the whole Muslim world.  It also gave them control of the pilgrimage, which brings millions of Muslims from the Islamic world together to the same place at the same time every year. 

The other important thing that happened – also in the mid-20’s – was the discovery of oil. With that, this extremist sect found itself not only in possession of Mecca and Medina, but also with wealth beyond the dreams of avarice.  As a result, what would otherwise have been a lunatic fringe in a marginal country became a major force in the world of Islam.  And it has continued as a major force to the present day, operating through the Saudi government and through a whole series of non-governmental ganizations.  What is worse, its influence spreads far beyond the region.  When Muslims living in Chicago or Los Angeles or Birmingham or Hamburg want to give their children some grounding in their faith and culture – a very natural, very normal thing – they turn to the traditional resources for such purposes: evening classes, weekend schools, holiday camps and the like.  The problem is that these are now overwhelmingly funded and therefore controlled by the Wahhabis, and the version of Islam that they teach is the Wahhabi version, which has thus become a major force in Muslim immigrant communities. 

Let me illustrate the significance of this with one example: Germany has constitutional separation of church and state, but in the German school system they provide time for religious instruction.  The state, however, does not provide teachers or textbooks.  They allow time in the school curriculum for the various churches and religious communities – if they wish – to provide religious instruction to their children, which is entirely optional.  The Muslims in Germany are mostly Turks.  When they reached sufficient numbers, they applied to the German government for permission to teach Islam in German schools.  The German authorities agreed, but said they – the Muslims – had to provide the teachers and the textbooks.  The Turks said that they had excellent textbooks, which are used in Turkey and Turkish schools, but the German authorities said no, those are government-produced textbooks; under the principle of separation of church and state, these Muslims had to produce their own.  As a result, whereas in Turkish schools in Turkey, students get a modern, moderate version of Islam, in German schools, in general, they get the whole Wahhabi blast.  The last time I looked, twelve Turks have been arrested as members of al-Qaeda – all twelve of them born and educated in Germany. 

THE IRANIAN REVOLUTION AND AL-QAEDA
In addition to the rising spread of Wahhabism, I would draw attention to the Iranian Revolution of 1979.  The word “revolution” is much misused in the Middle East; it is used for virtually every change of government.  But the Iranian Revolution was a real revolution, in the sense that the French and Russian Revolutions were real revolutions.  It was a massive change in the country, a massive shift of power – socially, economically and ideologically.  And, like the French and Russian Revolutions in their prime, it also had a tremendous impact in the world with which the Iranians shared a common universe of discourse – the world of Islam.  I remember not long after the Iranian Revolution I was visiting Indonesia and for some mysterious reason I had been invited to lecture in religious universities.  I noticed in the student dorms they had pictures of Khomeini all over the place, although Khomeini – like the Iranians in general is a Shiite, and the Indonesians are Sunnis.  Indonesians generally showed little interest in what was happening in the Middle East.  But, this was something important.  And, the Iranian Revolution has gone through various familiar phases – familiar from the French and Russian Revolutions – such as the conflicts between the moderates and extremists.  I would say that the Iranian Revolution is now entering the Stalinist phase, and its impact all over the Islamist world has been enormous.          

The third and most recent phase of the Islamic revival is that associated with the name Al-Qaeda – the organization headed by Osama 'bin Laden.  Here I would remind you of the events near the end of the 20th century: the defeat of the Russians in Afghanistan, the withdrawal of the defeated armies into Russia, the collapse and breakdown of the Soviet Union.  We are accustomed to regard that as a Western, or more specifically, an American, victory in the Cold War.  In the Islamic world, it was nothing of the kind.  It was Muslim victory in a Jihad.  And, if we are fair about it, we must admit that this interpretation of what happened does not lack plausibility.  In the mountains of Afghanistan, which the Soviets had conquered and had been trying to rule, the Taliban were able to inflict one defeat after another on the Soviet forces, eventually driving the Red Army out of the country to defeat and collapse. 

Thanks to modern communications and the modern media, we are quite well informed about how Al-Qaeda perceives things.  Osama 'bin Laden is very articulate, very lucid, and I think on the whole very honest in the way he explains things.  As he sees it, and his followers see it, there has been an ongoing struggle between the two world religions – Christianity and Islam – which began with the advent of Islam in the 7th century and has been going on ever since.  The Crusades were one aspect, but there were many others.  It is an on going struggle of attack and counter-attack, conquest and re-conquest, Jihad and Crusade, ending it seems with a final victory of the West with the defeat of the Ottoman Empire – the last of the great Muslim states – and the partition of most of the Muslim world between the Western powers.  As Osama 'bin Laden puts it: “In this final phase of the ongoing struggle, the world of the infidels was divided between two superpowers – the United States and the Soviet Union.  Now we have destroyed the more difficult and the more dangerous of the two.  Dealing with the pampered and effeminate Americans will be easy.”  And then followed what has become the familiar description of the Americans and the usual litany and recitation of American defeats and retreats: Vietnam, Beirut, Somalia, one after another.  The general theme was: They can’t take it.  Hit them and they’ll run.  All you have to do is hit harder.  This seemed to receive confirmation during the 1990’s when one attack after another on embassies, warships, and barracks brought no response beyond angry words and expensive missiles misdirected towards remote and uninhabited places, and in some places – as in Beirut and Somalia – prompt retreats. 

What happened on 9/11 was seen by its perpetrators and sponsors as the culmination of the previous phase and the inauguration of the next phase – taking the war into the enemy camp to achieve final victory.  The response to 9/11 came as a nasty surprise.  They were expecting more of the same – bleating and apologies – instead of which they got a vigorous reaction, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq.  And, as they used to say in Moscow: It is no accident, comrades, that there has been no successful attack in the United States since then.  But if one follows the discourse, one can see that the debate in this country since then has caused many of the perpetrators and sponsors to return to their previous diagnosis.  Because remember, they have no experience, and therefore no understanding, of the free debate of an open society.  What we see as free debate, they see as weakness, fear and division.  Thus they prepare for the final victory, the final triumph and the final jihad. 

CONCLUSION
Let’s spend a moment or two defining what we mean by freedom and democracy.  There is a view sometimes expressed that “democracy” means the system of government evolved by the English-speaking peoples.  Any departure from that is either a crime to be punished or a disease to be cured.  I beg to differ from that point of view.  Different societies develop different ways of conducting their affairs, and they do not have to resemble ours.  And, let us remember, after all, that American democracy after the War of Independence was compatible with slavery for three-quarters of a century and with the disenfranchisement of women for longer than that.  Democracy is not born like the Phoenix.  It comes in stages, and the stages and processes of development will differ from country to country, from society to society.  The French cherish the curious illusion that they invented democracy, but since the great revolution of 1789, they have had two monarchies, two empires, two dictatorships, and at the last count, five republics.  And, I’m not sure they’ve got it right yet.     

There are, as I’ve tried to point out, elements of Islamic society, which could well be conducive to democracy.  And, there are encouraging signs at the present moment – what happened in Iraq, for example, with millions of Iraqis standing in line to vote, knowing they were risking their lives, is a quite extraordinary achievement.  It shows great courage, great resolution.  Don’t be misled about what you read in the media about Iraq.

The situation is certainly not good, but there are redeeming features in it.  The battle isn’t over.  It’s still very difficult.  There are still many major problems to overcome.  There is a bitter anti-Western feeling which derives partly and increasingly from our support for what they see as tyrannies ruling over them.  It’s interesting that pro-American feeling is strongest in countries with anti-American governments.  I’ve been told repeatedly by Iranians that there is no country in the world where pro-American feeling is stronger, deeper and more widespread than Iran.  I’ve heard this from so many different Iranians – including some still living in Iran – that I believe it.  When the American planes were flying over Afghanistan, the story was that many Iranians put signs on their roofs in English reading, “This way, please.” 

So there is a good deal of pro-Western and even specifically pro-American feeling.  But the anti-American feeling is strongest in those countries that are ruled by what we are pleased to call “friendly governments.”  And, it is those, of course, that are the most tyrannical and the most resented by their own people.  The outlook at the moment is, I would say, very mixed.  I think that the cause of developing free institutions – along their lines, not ours – is possible.  One can see signs of its beginning in some countries.  At the same time, the forces working against it are very powerful and well entrenched.  And, one of the greatest is that on their side, they are firm and convinced and resolute.  Whereas on our side, we are weak and undecided and irresolute.  And in such a combat, it is not difficult to see which side will prevail. 

I think that the effort is difficult and the outcome uncertain, but I think the effort must be made.  Either we bring them freedom, or they destroy us.  


Endnotes:
(1)  Partial Biography of the Writer:  Bernard Lewis was born and reared in London, studied at the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies, where he earned a Ph.D. in the history of Islam.  After military and other war service in World War II, he taught at the University of London until 1974 and at Princeton University until 1986.  He is currently Princeton’s Cleveland E. Dodge Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies.  For many years he was one of the very few European scholars permitted access to the archives of the Ottoman Empire in Istanbul.  In addition to his historical studies, he has published translations of classical Arabic, Turkish, Persian and Hebrew poetry.  Professor Lewis has drawn on primary sources to produce more than two dozen books, including “The Arabs in History”, “What Went Wrong?” and “The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror”. 

(2)  This article appeared in “Imprimis”, the monthly newsletter of Hillsdale College and was adapted from a lecture of Professor Lewis given aboard a cruise ship on July 16, 2006 during a Hillsdale College cruise in the British Isles. 
 


024                                               
HAMAS IN THE CLASSROOM
Daniel Pipes & Asaf Romirowsky

We broke the news in October 2003 that Mustafa Abu Sway, a visiting Palestinian professor at Florida Atlantic University, is “known as an activist” in Hamas, a group on the U.S. Government’s terrorism list.  We also revealed, that his salary is being paid by the U.S. taxpayer (via the Fulbright exchange program). 

Our little scoop met with yawns or with disbelief.  Abu Sway himself denounced our article as a “witch hunt”.  FAU ignored the revelation (“we have no reason to take any action”).  The hometown Palm Beach Post published four skeptical responses, including an editorial insisting that “there is no known evidence” against Abu Sway.

Actually, being named as a “known activist” in Hamas by the Israeli government---who knows terrorism better?---qualifies in itself as “evidence”, but we since October have learned that Abu Sway also: 

    Was a board member and raised funds for two Jerusalem-based Hamas-related organizations, the Heritage Committee and the Foundation for the Development of Society, both of which were shut down in February 2003.

    Has worked with the Palestinian “Charity Coalition” that includes such organizations as Al-Aqsa Foundation (South Africa) and Comite de Bienfaisance et de Secours aux Palestiniens (France), both known as Hamas fundraisers.  Is connected to Sheikh Ra’ed Salah’s Islamic Movement in Um al-Fahm, Israel, 14   members of which were arrested in May 2003 for Hamas fundraising. If this does not count as evidence of ties to Hamas, we are not sure what does.  In a written response to us, Abu Sway denies each of these points, other than board membership on the Foundation for the Development of Society and meeting Ra’ed Salah one time.  How does one assess his denial?  As, one usually does in such matters, by checking a person’s general credibility.  Abu Sway these days says, “I cherish the Jewish presence [in Israel] and advocate non-violence.”  But in the past, before he was under scrutiny, he spoke very differently:

    At a 2002 interfaith meeting in Israel, reports Christianity Today, he remarked, “to audible gasps from Jews in the audience, that, he wished the state of Israel ‘would disappear’.”   The Jerusalem Jewish Voice, reporting on the same meeting, recorded Abu Sway saying that he wished for “the end of the state of Israel.”  In a 2003 study published by the U.S. Institute of Peace, Abu Sway is quoted stating: “To imagine shared sovereignty or dual sovereignty is not being faithful to Islamic tradition.”, and specifically calling for an Islamic state of Palestine to replace Israel. 

The contradiction here points to a clever switching of messages as suits his needs of the moment.  Another example: speaking to an American audience via ABC News in 2002, Abu Sway deemed the Arabic term jihad “a very beautiful concept which is deep in the area of spirituality.”  But in his role as co-author of a Palestinian Authority textbook (available at w.w.w.edume.org), he explained to seventh graders that jihad is a military obligation that “becomes the individual religious duty of every Muslim man and woman…if the enemy has conquered part of its land.”

Should the American taxpayer honor someone credibly accused of supporting a terrorist organization with a Fulbright fellowship?  Should Florida Atlantic University continue to have him teach its students? 

Those students have their doubts, judging by a December 2003 memo sent by FAU Associate Dean Lynn M. Appleton in which she lamented the lack of interest in Abu Sway’s course on “Islam and Politics” this semester and exhorted the faculty to recruit more bodies. 

“Enrollment is small and stagnant,” she wrote, “Could you put up some posters…very rapidly!…Is there an email list of majors to which information could be sent?  Let me know what you are able to do.”  She ends on a plaintive note.  “I would hate to see the course cancelled.”  Her efforts succeeded; the once-endangered course now boasts 21 registered students. 

The Fulbright program and Florida State University can thus congratulate themselves on promoting militant Islamic indoctrination by a man connected to terrorism.  For those less thrilled with this class, FAU’s President Frank T. Brogan can be reached at skane@fau.edu.  The Fulbright program’s Chair Steven J. Uhlfelder (who is a former member of the board of governors that oversees FAU) is at steve@sulaw.net.


End Notes: (1)  The above article was made available to the public on the Internet on January 27th, 2004 from jewishworldreview.com. (2)  The abovementioned situation at Florida Atlantic University, is common throughout our nation’s universities.   



025
MY SON’S TEACHER WAS A TERRORIST
Badria ‘bint Abdallah Al-Bishr
                                                                                        
“One day after the events of September 11, my son, who was then in fifth grade, came in from school.  He entered my office as I was reading, sat down and crossed his legs, and said to me: ‘Mother, did you know that Osama 'bin Laden is a hero who left the entire world behind him and went to the mountains to fight for the sake of Allah?’ 

“When he saw my astonishment, he cockily shifted position, confident that he hadn’t yet finished surprising me, and asked: ‘Mother, why don’t we stop exporting oil to America so it will surrender to our terms?’  [I replied]:  What grave words you are saying!  Watch your mouth!”

“The day after the events of September 11, my other son, then in third grade in elementary school, showed me his charming drawing, the subject of which was: ‘Draw the sight of the two airplanes blowing up the twin towers.’  The art teacher was not aware that some of the children had not seen this because their parents protect them from harmful sights.  But the teacher had a different view, which he did not manage to repress even during art class.” 

“This happened four years ago, and during this time I was angered by instances such as these, which did not stop happening to my children…until the day that we could have anticipated arrived.” 

“After the December 2004 attack on the Interior Ministry, the photos and full names of the terrorists were published.  During dinner, while I was eating, my son told me that one of the terrorists had been his teacher at school.  At that moment, I choked.  One of the attackers of the Interior Ministry and security forces building was his teacher!!!”

“Before the attack, this teacher used to go around my children’s classrooms and talk to them.  Furthermore, before this incident they would say he was a good man…”

“How can a parent protect his children if he sends them to school certain that they are in good hands but, in fact, he doesn’t know that one of the terrorists will be his son’s teacher?”

“If children are surrounded like this by the terrorist ideology, whether on the computer screen or in the newspapers, where can fathers take their children to rescue them from those who act with hypocrisy, identify with the terrorist ideology, justify it, and think that we must first liberate Palestine before we can condemn terror?”

“The terrorist ideology was always present, and we did sense it.  But we called it by different names, not its true name, out of fear that it would be exposed and destroy us.  This ideology has taken control of us in full force, and has threatened all who disagree with it…to the point where we have become weak against it…”
 

End Notes:  (1) The above are excerpts from an article written by a lecturer of social sciences of King Saud University, and originally published in the Saudi newspaper Al-Riyadh on February 24, 2005.  She is also the concerned mother of two small boys.  This article appeared on the web-site of memri.com of March 11, 2005.  (2) Hopefully, this concerned Saudi mother has not been penalized for writing this expose of Saudi schools, but this will ultimately be determined by Saudi authorities.  (3) A Muslim school in Georgetown, teaching hate towards infidels and funded by Saudi Arabia, is located a scant distance from our nation’s Capitol building.   


026
VEILED THREAT
Paul Sperry 

When a bewildered Iraqi woman named Sajida al-Rishawl confessed on Jordanian state television last week that she had been part of the team that tried to blow up the Raddison Hotel in Amman, she showed that Iraq has become a base from which al-Qaeda launches attacks against its enemies and that suicide terrorism may be the one area in Mid-East culture where fundamentalist Muslim women are finally gaining equality with men. 

Wearing her defused bomb belt, which failed to detonate when the three other members of her team blew themselves up along with members of a Jordanian wedding party, al-Rishawl called into question the idea that Muslim women are little more than veiled victims of a brutal misogynistic culture and that their only connection to terror is as bystanders.  While no female Muslims here in the U.S. have blown up passenger jets as they have in Russia, or strapped on belts packed with TNT and ball bearings to blow up American hotels, as an older Iraqi woman has confessed to doing in Jordan, law enforcement has discovered an alarming number of cases in which they have helped Muslim men with terrorist plots or have planned to attack fellow Americans themselves. 

Here are a few examples, some of which have never been revealed: 

* Earlier this year, the FBI arrested two teenage Muslim girls in Manhattan on suspicion they planned to attack U.S. targets as suicide bombers.  The 16-year-old girls wore veils and regularly attended mosques. 

* Last year, a Pakistani women, who worked for years at EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) as a toxicologist was arrested after authorities learned she not only lied about being a U.S. citizen, but also ran a charitable front for al-Qaeda back in Peshawar, Afghanistan.  A mother of four, Waheeda Tehseen lived comfortably in the same leafy neighborhood as U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, according to law enforcement documents I’ve obtained.  She was “very devout”, but fellow EPA scientists found her religious beliefs quaint and completely non-threatening, and even unwittingly helped her raise money for Osama 'bin Laden. 

* Authorities are still looking for another Pakistani woman who they believe to be a “fixer” for al-Qaeda in the U.S.  MIT (Massachusetts’s Institute of Technology) educated Aafia Siddiqui is said to be involved in a plot to blow up underground gas tanks around  Baltimore.  The mother of three is known as a “good sister” who has memorized her Koran and is willing to help al-Qaeda out when they need her.  She was a hard-line Muslim activist on the MIT campus, where she wore head-to-toe traditional black gown and matching headscarf while raising money for jihadists around the world.  The Bostonians she ran into outside that circle of hate, however, knew her only as a soft-spoken “philanthropist.” 

* Two months ago, federal agents in Dallas accused three Muslim women of lying to the government to conceal their involvement in their husbands’ criminal support of outlawed terrorists.  Fay Elashi, for one, allegedly tried to hide from investigators checks and financial records bearing the names of the terrorists.  

* Last year, authorities in Baltimore spotted the wife of suspected Hamas operative Ismail Elbarasse videotaping the Chesapeake Bay Bridge from an SUV they were driving.  The couple was taken into custody and their camcorder tape seized as evidence.  On it, authorities found close-up shots of cables and supports “integral to the structural integrity of the bridge,” according to court documents.  Six other tapes found in their car contained footage of four other bridges and other structures they believed to be targets.  Authorities concluded Elbarasse’s wife was helping conduct “reconnaissance and surveillance” for a possible terrorist attack during rush hour.   

* They are not the only potential targets Muslim women have been casing in the Washington area.  Not long after it set up headquarters in Crystal City, Virginia, not far from the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security asked the Secret Service to conduct counter-surveillance of suspicious Muslim women who were videotaping the building on a regular basis. 

Prolonged static surveillance using operatives who look harmless and don’t attract police scrutiny is the hallmark of al-Qaeda, which does painstaking pre-attack planning.  Through its web-sites, al-Qaeda regularly encourages the faithful who are “far from the fields of jihad” to research the soft spots and weaknesses “of the American infidel crusaders” and report back locations and images of vulnerable structures – from bridges and pipelines to military installations and financial buildings –which might be suitable for attack.     

According to the Quran, jihad is not something a Muslim can opt out of.  It demands able-bodied believers to join the fight.  Those unable-largely women and the elderly-are not exempt; they must give “aid and asylum” to those who do fight the unbelievers in the cause of Allah.  Such facilitators are promised the same reward of Paradise, although not the same status as jihadists who give their pound of flesh to Allah.  And those who die in his cause, the “shaheeds”, or martyrs, are reserved the highest place in the Paradise hierarchy.  

Increasingly, however, Muslim women are taking on the role of martyr, though no one is rethinking the profile just yet.  To be sure, Muslim women are a long way from fitting the profile of the suicide bomber, which is still predominately young, Muslim and male.

But the Department of Homeland Security issued warnings to law enforcement to be on the lookout for suspicious Muslim women after Chechen terrorists used young Muslim women as suicide bombers to attack Russian targets a couple of years ago.  And, they are on alert again after al-Qaeda, in an effort to lower its male profile and bypass security, apparently enlisted an older Muslim woman to help carry out the recent bloody attacks on American hotels in Jordan. 

According to Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir, who has interviewed 'bin Laden, there is a ready supply of female jihadists in his country alone who would be thrilled to help al-Qaeda. 

“Our women are more extremist than the men,” he ('Bin Laden) said in a recent magazine interview.  “There are hundreds here."

 
Endnote:  Paul Sperry, formerly Washington bureau chief of Investor’s Business Daily, is a Hoover Institution media fellow and author of “Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington”.  (Nelson Current, 2005). 



027
UNHOLY ALLIANCE
E.T. Nelosni

World Communism, until recently, enjoyed the support of an Unholy Alliance.  Islam now counts on the same members of this previous alliance to further its goal of world conquest.  The main players, with their interlocking interests, in an approximate order of importance, are:

THE GLOBALISTS: Their goal is one world government, with themselves in control of "The New World Order".  As they propped up Communist Russia, innumerable times for personal gain, from the early days of Lenin's power grab, they are now trying to use Islam for their own purposes.  They did exceedingly well in their under-the-table deals with Communism but will inevitably fail in their dealings with Islam.  Unfortunately, their strategies and policies, often implemented by the U.S. State Department, as well as the government foreign services in other Western democracies, have cost thousands of lives throughout the world!   The 9/11 attacks on the U.S were the most spectacular, but hundreds of Muslim terrorist attacks have occurred within Europe from the late 60’s.  If we include Muslim terrorist attacks against Israel, they would number in the thousands. And, the daily murder of Christians and Christian missionaries throughout the world at least deserve mention since they are often not even reported in the Liberal controlled press.  For the Globalists, these casualties are simply written off as the price of doing business, but a price they themselves do not have to pay!

The Globalists’ enormous greed blinds them to essential differences of dealing with World Communism and Islam.  Though Communism in some ways has the trappings of a religion, it had been superimposed, in several societies, on Christianity.  Once freed of Communism, a large proportion of the captive millions of atheism immediately reverted to their Christian roots and values.  In fact, today, Russia, and some of the originally Christian countries of the previous Soviet Union, have become the most fertile fields for evangelical conversions to Christianity.  But with Muslims, it is a different story.

Islam from its inception has had zero tolerance for any other system of government.  Through the basic principals of their religion, Muslims are sworn to a goal of world domination; to establish their own one world government, but under the banner of Islam, and ruled by the Shari’a.  Every dollar directed to Muslim countries, be it for the purchase of petroleum, or in the form of foreign aid, is giving our enemies, the Muslims, the funds to continue their attacks, on any form of democratic government, but specifically against the United States, the “Great Satan”.   

THE U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT:  The U.S. State Department has been a captive arm of the New World Order for many years.  In the 50’s, when Communists and their sympathizers were uncovered within the State Department, and other parts of our government, few were prosecuted.  Several persons were involved in giving Russia our atomic secrets but none were executed for treason!  Most were quietly retired with full benefits.  In practically any other foreign service, they would have been branded as traitors, and imprisoned.  In less politically correct societies they would have had a speedy trial, and been executed!  Today a considerable number of persons in the State Department are, either by ignorance or on purpose, furthering the cause of Islam.  It would be interesting to know how many employees of the State Department are Muslims.    

THE EXTREMIST LEFT:  There are scores of organizations dedicated to the destruction of our democratic values and constitutional government.  Individually, they would be unable to do so, but collectively they are succeeding exceedingly well!  They are the groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (A.C.L.U.) of the United States and similar organizations throughout the civilized world.  In the United States, this is manifested by such acts as suing a municipality to remove a cross from its logo or a manger scene from a church property, those committing violent acts to protect our environment or the rights of animals, judges re-writing our Constitution from the bench, and some women’s groups defining marriage as rape!   And, of special mention should be the Religious Left.  They feel obligated to respect another religion as powerful as Islam, regardless of its shortcomings.  Though Islam needs little help in funding its subversive activities throughout the world, many of the same sources previously funding World Communism are now rushing forward to promote Islam.  In the U.S., and several other Western democracies, this includes our Governments, funding the teaching of Islam, by  Muslim academics, with our own tax dollars. 

THE MEDIA:  At last count, only fourteen powerful companies control the major part of what the American public sees on television, watches in movie theaters, and reads in local newspapers and magazines.  Except for a few, independent, and mostly small town   newspapers, some programs of “talk radio”, Christian television and the Internet, the American public receives only the politically- correct party-line, well orchestrated by higher powers, aided and abetted by two generations of journalists, produced by universities dominated by professors of the Far Left.


                                                                  
028          
SUDANESE CHRISTIAN BOY CRUCIFIED BY MUSLIM MASTER
A Report of:  Persecution Project Foundation

After being nailed to a board by his master and left for dead…the last in a series of torturous acts…a Sudanese Dinka boy escaped from his bondage and lived to tell his horrific story. 

The story of “Joseph”, a Christian, is told in a recent newsletter of the Persecution Project Foundation, an organization that monitors Christian persecution in Africa. 

PPF’s Brad Phillips recently returned from visiting Joseph, who was originally sold into slavery at age 7 in 1987. 

“I had the privilege of spending a day with this amazing boy who is now called Joseph,” Phillips wrote.  I spoke with him, I interviewed him, I saw his scars, and I saw his eyes.  What I saw moved me and still haunts me.”

Phillips explains that since the 1980’s, the Muslim Islamic Front government has sanctioned the taking of Christians and animists from the south part of the nation to be sold to Muslims as slaves in the north.  The two sides have been engaged in a civil war for several years.

As a 7-year-old, Joseph, then called Santino Garang, was sold to his master, Ibrahim.  Though Joseph was given an Arab name, Ibrahim referred to him only by the pejorative “Abid”, which means black slave, writes Phillips.  For ten years, Joseph remained in bondage to his master.  “During his enslavement…” Phillips wrote, “he was often beaten, tortured and abused by his Arab master.  African slaves, especially Christians, are viewed as lower than animals. 

Joseph was raised Christian.  His desire to worship was mocked by his master, who told him every day for ten years that he had no business worshipping since he was of no more value than a donkey.” 

One Sunday morning, Joseph heard the hymn singing of a Christian service.  He joined into the worship, remembering church services from when he was a young boy.  While Joseph was at church, some of the camels he was in charge of escaped, and his master flew into a rage.  Ibrahim, Phillip writes, “swore he would kill Joseph and do to him what had been done to Jesus…he would crucify him.” 

After brutally beating Joseph on the head and all over his body, the master laid him out on a wooden plank.  He then nailed Joseph to the plank by driving nine inch nails through his hands, knees and feet.  He then poured acid on Joseph’s legs to inflict even greater pain, and finally left him for dead.”  Miraculously, Joseph did not die, even though he lay on the plank for seven days.  He survived through the kindness of his master’s son, who brought him food and water, and eventually took him to a medical facility. 

“In case you are wondering,” wrote Phillips, “no criminal charges were brought against Joseph’s master, because he acted within his ‘rights’ under currently practiced ‘Sharia law.’  To say that Christians are second-class citizens in much of the Islamic world (not just the Sudan) is a cruel understatement.”

After Joseph returned from the hospital, his master saw little value in him since he was crippled from the nails being driven through his knees.  Joseph was “redeemed” by Christian slave redeemers who arranged his return home to his village in Bahr el Gazal. 

When he arrived back in his home village, the elders thought he should have a new name, so they named him after Joseph of the Bible, who was sold in to slavery but later was used mightily by God. 

Wrote Phillips: “Joseph still desperately heeds your prayers.  By God’s grace Joseph survived kidnapping, the loss of his parents, ten years of enslavement, and near death by crucifixion.  But while Joseph is free in body, he is still in great pain physically and emotionally.  He bears the marks of his crucifixion in his body and the scars of his torment in his soul.  He is wounded and broken in his spirit.  And, he is haunted by the memories of hundreds of other children from his community who perished or remained enslaved in the north.” 

“Joseph is one of a small number of people in the 21st century who knows what it means to be crucified because of his Christian faith.  But the reality is that hundreds of thousands of our fellow Christians in the Sudan have been enslaved, driven from their homes, hunted and murdered by devoted followers of Islam.  This war of Islamic cruelty has raged for centuries in the Sudan.  Please remember our Sudanese brethren in your prayers, and do all you can to aid us in the relief of their suffering.”


End Notes: (1) The above information was originally contained in a newsletter of the Persecution Project Foundation based on the reporting by Mr. Brad Phillips who traveled to the Sudan to interview the subject of this article.  Then, the website of jihadwatch.org placed it on the Internet.  (2)  According to hearings held by the first session of the 107th Congress, the hearing designated (H.CON.RES113), “Regarding human rights violations and oil development in the Sudan”, over 2,000,000 black Sudanese have been killed since the country became subject to Islamic Law."  Most were animists, but many were Christians.
 
                                                                

029                                              
TERROR IN THE FAMILY
Daniel Pipes                                                                   

We are an Al-Qaeda family.”   So spoke one of the Khadrs, a Muslim Canadian  household whose near-single-minded devotion to Osama bin Laden contains important lessons for the West. 

Their saga began in 1975, when Ahmad Said al-Khadr left his native Egypt for Canada and soon after married a local Palestinian woman.  He studied computer engineering at the University of Ottawa and engaged in research for a major telecommunications firm.  After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Khadr went to work for Human Concern International, an Ottawa-based charity founded in 1980 with the purported aim to “alleviate human suffering,” but with a record of promoting militant Islam.  In 1985, in the course of working in Afghanistan, Khadr met bin Laden and became his close associate.  Sometimes Khadr was described as the highest ranking of Al-Qaeda’s seventy-five Canadian operatives. 

The federal Canadian government, living up to its naïve reputation, contributed C$325,000 to HCI.  During 1988-1997 in particular, HCI was simultaneously receiving  Canadian taxpayer funding and working with Al-Qaeda.  

The bureaucratic ingénues in Ottawa continued to find nothing wrong with Khadr even after his arrest by Pakistani authorities in 1995 for siphoning off HCI funds for an Al-Qaeda terrorist operation that year…an attack on the Egyptian embassy in Pakistan, killing eighteen.  Quite the contrary, Canada’s Prime Minister Jean Chretien took advantage of a state visit to Pakistan to intercede with his Pakistani counterpart on Khadr’s behalf. 

This highly unusual step succeeded; Khadr was soon released, and returned to Canada.  In 1996, he and his wife set up an Islamic charity they named “Health and Education Project International.”  When the Taliban took control in Afghanistan a few months later, the parents and their six children de-camped to there.  As he worked closely with bin Laden, Khadr became known for his militant Islamic vitriol, leading one Frenchman in Afghanistan to observe about him, “I never met such hostility, someone so against the West.”   

Like other Al-Qaeda leaders, Khadr disappeared from view soon after 9/11.  He spent two years on the lam, reappearing only in October 2003, when Pakistani forces unexpectedly found that the DNA of one unrecognizable corpse from a bloody shoot-out matched Khadr’s. 

The terrorism-related activities of other Khadr family members…wife, one of two daughters, three of four sons…complement their patriarch’s record. Wife Maha Elsamnah took her then-14-year-old son Omar from Canada to Pakistan in 2001 and enrolled him for Al-Qaeda training.  Daughter Zaynab,23, was engaged to one terrorist and married, with Osama bin  Laden present at the nuptials, a Qaeda member in 1999, Zaynab endorses the 9/11 atrocities and hopes her infant daughter will die fighting Americans.  Son Abdullah, 22, is a Qaeda fugitive constantly on the move to escape capture.  Canadian intelligence states he ran an Al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan during the Taliban period, something Abdullah denies.  Son Omar, 17 stands accused of hurling a grenade in July 2002, killing a U.S. medic in Afghanistan.  Omar lost sight in one eye in the fighting and is now a U.S. detainee in Guantanamo.  Son Abdul Karim, 14, half-paralyzed by wounds sustained in the October 2003 shoot-out that left his father dead, is presently in a Pakistani hospital.

Fortunately, there is also one positive story:

Son Abdurahman, 21, reluctantly trained with Al-Qaeda, was captured by coalition forces in November 2001 and agreed to work with the Central Intelligence Agency in Kabul, Guantanamo and Bosnia.  He returned to Canada in October, 2003, where he denounced both extremism (“I want to be a good strong, civilized, peaceful Muslim”) and his family’s terroristic ways. 

While an unusual case, the Khadr’s horrifying history serves as a warning, pointing to the danger of Muslim parents in North America and Europe who stray so deeply into militant Islamic currents that, Palestinian-style, they seek to turn their children into militant Islamic weapons to be turned against their own countries. 

This pattern is yet rare, but it might well become more widespread as the second  generation of Islamist children in the West comes of age.  The key in the Khadr case, as it will likely be with others, is isolation within a militant Islamic environment…schools, media, social life.  Preventing such self-segregation must be an urgent policy goal throughout the West.   
                                                                 
                                                       
End Notes:  (1) The above article appeared in FrontPageMagazine.com on March 16, 2004.  (2) Daniel Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org) is director of Middle East Forum and author of “Miniatures” (Transaction Publishers).



030                                      
OLD SAYINGS STILL GOOD TODAY
Ralph S. Kates    

Ignorance only indicates a lack of knowledge of a particular subject.  Stupidity, however, is another matter; it can mean that either a person lacks the mental capacity to analyze determinable facts which have been presented or, that the person has such a mindset regarding a particular subject that their mind is closed towards the receipt of any new information which might lead to a change in their position.  The following old, but tried and true sayings may be of benefit for an understanding of the present confrontation with Islam.     


DON’T GET BETWEEN TWO FIGHTING DOGS; YOU MIGHT GET BIT! & THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY IS MY FRIEND!  The “fighting dogs” in this case are the Sunnis and the Shi’ites, the two most powerful sects of Islam.  They have hated each other for well over a thousand years, and their considerable hatred for each other is exceeded only by that towards “infidels”.  Their committed goal, as specifically ordained by the Koran, is to kill or enslave all non-Muslims!  And, at practically any opportunity, acting individually or in alliance, they will kill infidels, because, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”       

YOU CAN’T MAKE A SILK PURSE OUT OF A SOW’S EAR.  The “silk purse” in this case is freedom, democracy and the inherent capitalism accompanying the first two.  The “sow’s ear” is Islam! 

Democracy is non-existent in all countries of the Muslim world, and freedom is an abstract concept.  Almost all these countries have come to Islam by bloody conquest and there are few exceptions!   All major capitalistic enterprises are reserved for the dictators in power and their cronies.  Any attempt to change the ingrained customs of any societal structure, except by ruthless measures, in one or two generations is doomed from the start.  And Islam has had over 1,350 years to solidify its societal structure.  

A good example of the idiocy of attempting to modify a society, in a brief period of time, along supposedly altruistic measures, is what transpired after the collapse of the Soviet Union.  The U.S. was determined to bring Russia into the camp of democracy and capitalism after only slightly over 70 years of Communism, and several billion dollars were given, not loaned, to the Russian Government to prop up their economy. 

But the Russians, after only a relatively short while under Communism, had no conception of free enterprise or democracy.  They were accustomed to being told where to work, where to live and what to think.  The injection of several billion dollars into the Russian economy undoubtedly helped some of the general population but mostly helped their previous Communist overlords and the Russian Mafia, the only segment of Russian society that had always operated within a capitalistic system.  Then, thanks to the incompetence of the I.N.S., thousands of Russians were allowed into the U.S. including many members of the Russian Mafia.  They are now operating in our major cities, better organized and far more ruthless than the Sicilian based Mafia of old.  And, the Russian Government, under President Putin, an ex-KGB officer, is again becoming a police state.  But, Islam has, and still uses, an effective manner of altering a society within a single generation!  After a society had been conquered, and the initial orgy of rape, murder, enslavement and pillage subsides, the following measures are implemented: Adults, with a knife at their throats, have a choice of conversion to Islam or their throats cut!  Most became instant Muslims, and these new converts to Islam know that they will face certain death if any back-sliding occurs.  Then, all churches, synagogues and temples of other religions are destroyed or converted to mosques.  The children are then educated in Muslim schools. These means are effective in converting a society in only one generation, as done in the Balkans in the 14th Century, and as is presently ongoing in the Sudan today.        

TELL ME WHO YOUR FRIENDS ARE, AND I’LL TELL YOU WHAT YOU ARE! 
(This is an old Spanish saying, but applicable in any society), and, a saying of the Southern U.S. is:  IF YOU SLEEP WITH DOGS, YOU’RE LIABLE TO WAKE UP WITH FLEAS!  Islam, because of its long existence, with well over a billion loyal followers, and its expenditures of over 50 billion dollars towards the subversion of Western civilization in the last 30 years, considerably more than World Communism spent in over 75 years, demands and receives considerable respect as a major religion from ignorant Westerners.  Islam certainly deserves respect as a mortal and evil enemy, and certainly should be feared, but Islam, Allah, Muhammad, and the Koran, which in effect are all one and the same, deserve only ridicule, and firm opposition! 

Muhammad, if having invented Islam recently, and still alive, would be in a padded cell of an asylum for the criminally insane, or on Death Row, for the numerous capital crimes he personally committed.  These include: murder, by various means, mutilations, rape, kidnaping, extortion, theft, slavery, spousal abuse, pedophilia, false witness and adultery.  All these crimes are well documented in the Koran, the Hadith and by Christian, Jewish and even Muslim biographers and historians.  The Koran explicitly condones all of the above crimes, and Islam holds the world’s record of genocide, in the hundreds of millions, many times more victims than that of Nazi Germany and World Communism combined!  Over two million have been killed in the Sudan alone, since 1980!  Any person associating him self, or her self, with Islam stands convicted of their own base nature or their abject ignorance! 


CUT YOUR LOSSES!  Any well run business, once realizing drastic mistakes of its past operations, will cut its losses and change its tactics.  The United States is the biggest business in the world, but any hot-dog stand at Coney Island is better managed.  The U.S. interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan were, in charitable words, ill-advised. 

Bush had multiple reasons for the invasion of Iraq, including the fact that Saddam Hussein had ordered a hit on his father, George Bush, Senior.  And, though considerable evidence was discovered that Saddam had previously possessed WMD’s, none were actually found.  Once no WMD’s were found, and Saddam Hussein captured, we should have withdrawn immediately. 

With the collapse of Saddam’s forces, thousands of powerful, mostly U.S. companies now have a vested interest in the reconstruction of that country.  And, every U.S. taxpayer continues to support this foolishness.  If you have an enemy whose religious duty is to kill you, it is abject stupidity to reconstruct his country! 

And, without Saddam Hussein’s firm hold on the country, al-Qaeda, a Shi’ite sect, rushed in to continue their jihad against the Sunnis and the occupation forces.  The Shi’ites will prevail and eventually the U.S. will probably withdraw, leaving a worse situation in Iraq than before our occupation.  Iraq will then probably unite with Iran, whose population is 90% Shi’ites.  The U.S. will then look for an opportunity to withdraw whenever possible, “with honor”!

As regarding Afghanistan, the primary reasons or excuses for its invasion was to get Osama ‘bin Laden, and supposedly to liberate the Afghans from the terrible oppression of the Taliban.  A third objective was to destroy the source of heroin, since at that time, Afghanistan supplied about 75% of the word’s raw opium needed to produce heroin.  However, today, U.S. forces control only a small perimeter around Kabul, the capitol, with Muslim warlords controlling the rest of the country.  Bin Laden is supposedly still alive and the Taliban is becoming stronger each day, using arms and equipment, including tanks left behind by the Russians and SAM missiles supplied to the Afghans by the U.S.  Several U.S. aircraft knocked down by the Taliban are by SAM missiles previously provided them by the U.S.  And the opium fields are flourishing again!  


KNOW YOUR ENEMY!  All societies of the world have been engaged in a global war with Islam for well over a thousand years.  Our politically correct media insists upon labeling terrorists as “insurgents”, “dissidents”, “militiamen” and even occasionally “terrorists”, but seldom call them by their true name, “Islamic Terrorists”!  They are not Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu or Shinto terrorists; they are Islamic terrorists, just following the exhortations of Allah (Muhammad) through the Koran!  Unfortunately, President Bush, his advisors, and most members of Congress are either completely ignorant regarding Islam, or prefer to turn a blind eye for their personal agendas.  And, of course, most of the general public hasn’t a clue!          


YOU’RE DAMNED IF YOU DO, AND DAMNED IF YOU DON’T!  Any, and all, attempts to placate Islam by the U.S. or other democratic governments are doomed to failure.  Regardless of any concessions made, Islam will accept only unconditional surrender!  This inflexibility is built into the religion by the Koran.  And, regardless of what political party controls our government, either is doomed to failure regarding our survival unless a realistic evaluation of Islam is accomplished.     

DON’T MESS ON YOUR OWN DOOR STEP; YOU MIGHT TRACK IT INTO THE HOUSE!, & THE CHICKENS ARE COMING HOME TO ROOST!  There are countless organizations and individuals, presently contributing to the destruction of our democracy.  They are “messing on their own door step”.  Some do so wittingly and some through ignorance of the Islamic threat, but the result is the same.  At the forefront of the Muslim penetration are public schools and universities teaching that Islam is a “peaceful and benevolent” religion!  Most universities with Islamic or Middle Eastern Studies are initially funded by Saudi Arabia, and thereafter by U.S. taxpayers.  The professors are almost always Muslims or persons sympathetic to Islam.  These schools are cranking out thousands of potential home grown terrorists each year.  Several have already emerged.  

Saudi Arabia is the seat of Islam, the birthplace of Muhammad ‘bin Abdallah, where he invented the religion, and the site of Medina and Mecca, the two holiest cities of the Muslim world.  It is also the country that provided 15 of the 19 Islamic Terrorists of 9/11, and is the home of Osama ‘bin Laden.  But Saudi Arabia also provides the U.S. with about 20% of the oil needed to run our economy.  To that, add the numerous lobbyists in Washington, paid by Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries, the various charitable Islamic front organizations raising money from the gullible American public for terrorists and ignorant members of Congress attempting to convey Constitutional civil rights to Islamic Terrorists captured on the battlefields of Afghanistan.  And, let us not forget the A.C.L.U., whose principal founder was a Communist, and that is now allied with the foremost Islamic front organization of the U.S. 

But, the most frightening of all is the complacency of the American public!  It is quite evident that the Muslim attack of 9/11 was an insufficient wake up call.  As a nation, we grieved for awhile, and then it was “business as usual”.

The F.B.I, C.I.A., Homeland Security, the Justice Department and various other law enforcement agencies have foiled numerous small terrorist plots but Al-Qaeda, though certainly capable of doing so, has not made an all-out attack with atomic devices or biological weapons, which they supposedly have. It could well be, as their success in Europe has demonstrated, that they prefer to take over the U.S. by gradual subversion, with just a few minor attacks. 

“The chickens are coming home to roost.”  But, hopefully, sooner or later, the American public will awaken, and quit “Messing on its own door step!” 
                                                          


031
UNDERSTANDING THE ISLAMIC THREAT
E.T. Nelosni

Unfortunately for Muslims, and considerably more so for the rest of the world, Islam is  extremely strict and uncompromising, as to the loyalty and dedication of its members.  Any revelation of Allah (Muhammad) must be taken as a holy mandate, and can only be amended, or superceded, by another revelation.  This has seldom occurred.  All verses of the Koran and the Haddith urging death or subjugation of infidels remain in place.  Since secular jurisprudence is practically nonexistent in the Muslim world, the inflexible code of the Shari'a rules. 

From the 7th century, and to the present, the openly stated goal of Islam is to bring the entire world into Dar Al-Islam, or the "peace" of Islam.  This is a clearly defined condition under which no other system is tolerated.  For Islam, any society not willing to subjugate itself, to complete Islamic authority has automatically placed itself in a state of war, or Dar Al-Harb, with Islam.  Absolutely no other provocation is necessary!

This is a unique concept, but for Muslims appears to be entirely logical.  Their reasoning appears to be that since Allah (Muhammad) has given mankind the perfect recipe for living on earth, any society opposing His (Muhammad’s) holy mandates is undeserving of any consideration whatsoever.  Therefore, those unenlightened souls have only their selves to blame for the consequences of not accepting Allah and Muhammad as His last and most perfect Prophet.  That the consequences for these “unenlightened” entail genocide, rape and slavery, as well as a host of other denigrating conditions is, in the eyes of Muslims, only their just desserts. 

As used by Islam, an intermediate condition, between Peace and War, is Dar Al-Sulh.  Dar Al-Sulh exists when Islam is attempting to gain sufficient power before fully launching into Dar Al-Harb.  Europe, though mostly in the state of Dar Al-Sulh, is entering more into Dar Al-Harb as Muslims gain more political and demographic power. The train bombings of Spain in the Spring of 2004 and those of the London transit system in July of 2005 are good examples.  And, as the Muslims grow in power, such terrorist acts will become more common.

In the United States, since we have only an estimated 1.5 to 2.0 million Muslims, Dar Al-Sulh still predominates but the seeds of our society’s destruction are already well sown.  Any Muslim, if called upon to commit a treasonous act by his imam, against his host country, is faced with the choice of being an apostate in the eyes of his religion, or a traitor to his adopted country.  Faced with this choice, most will become traitors!  Regardless of any affection a Muslim might feel towards the society of his adopted country, accepting the consequences of a charge of sedition or treason, in our world-wide politically correct society, would, for most Muslims, be considerably less consequential than betrayal of Islam.     

When a Muslim betrays his host country, and is discovered, he or she can count on an excellent defense team, funded by any one of several Muslim-front organizations   operating within a host country.  And, more than likely, unless a considerable number of people die as a direct result of the Muslim’s traitorous act, he or she, if even convicted, would not receive a death sentence. 

On the other hand, a Muslim refusing to betray a host country, would more than likely be branded an apostate, the unforgivable sin, and punishable by death!  Any other Muslim would be applauded for carrying out the sentence, and would then probably be defended in the United States by the A.C.L.U. (American Civil Liberties Union), since a Director of C.A.I.R (Council of American Islamic Relations), the most powerful Islamic front in the United States, was named as an officer of the A.C.L.U. in 2005.  And, a Muslim cannot be expected to renounce his entire heritage, and therein, lies the danger that Muslims present to any host country.  If a Muslim decides to cooperate with law enforcement, when asked to betray his host country, he or she faces certain loss of his religion, the possible loss of family and friends, and perhaps even the loss of his or her own life.  But regardless of whether a Muslim takes a pro-active role in terrorist activities, it is naive to believe that Muslims terrorists would not be helped by their fellow believers. 

Islam is what it is, and Muslims are what they are; no amount of wishful thinking will make it otherwise!     

                                                                

032
THE FACES OF EVE
Ralph S. Kates

A half century ago, in 1957, an interesting and entertaining movie called the “Three Faces of Eve” dealt with a woman with three distinct personalities existing within her brain.  These personalities would appear and disappear without warning.  Joanne Woodward, who played Eve, won an “Oscar” as Best Actress.  At that time, the concept of multiple personalities existing within a person was not as well accepted within the psychiatric community, as is the case today.  However, the author of the book, from which the movie took its form, and the scriptwriter who fashioned this superb film, could never have imagined just how many personalities could be contained within the brain of just one human being.  And, remember, those persons with a multiple personalities disorder, often do not themselves realize their own psychiatric condition.  In this particular case, I refer to our President and Commander in Chief, George Walker Bush.  In no particular order, here are his several faces.

THE FAMILY MAN:  I doubt that anyone would dare suggest that Mr. Bush is a not a good husband and father.  His wife and daughters seemingly admire and respect him.  Kudos, Mr. President, that’s admirable, and a gold star on the refrigerator for you!  

THE POLITICIAN:  Growing up at his father’s knee, it would be surprising if he did not develop into at least a passable politician.  George Sr., as the ex-President and ex-C.I.A. Director, well knew where all, or at least most of the bodies were buried.  G.W. attended Yale, where he became a member of the semi-secret “Skull and Bones” association, as had been his father.  These contacts, and those made later through his obtaining an MBA Degree from Harvard were of considerable value to him.  Then, his rise through the tough training school of Texas politics, which eventually gave him the governorship of that state, well prepared him for the national arena. 

THE “BORN AGAIN” CHRISTIAN:  In fairness to Mr. Bush, his character is so convoluted that it could well be that he himself believes that he is a Christian.  However, actions speak louder than words, and his continuous bias in favor of Islam, his attempts to destroy our sovereignty, and involving our country in a bloody war for political gain gives the lie that he is a “born again” Christian, or for that matter, any type of Christian believer!  His bias in favor of Islam should prove that he has not read the Koran, or prefers to disregard its message, and his lack of knowledge of the Bible, or its disregard, is indicated by not heeding the passage of Revelations warning lukewarm Christians, “I will spew you out of my mouth”!   

THE ACTOR:  Mr. Bush possesses, as do many Hollywood actors, the facility to cry on cue.  When visiting wounded soldiers at Walter-Reed Hospital, tears would often well into his eyes.  Once, when visiting a soldier with an amputated hand, he leaned over and kissed the stump, an op-ed well worthy of Bill Clinton.  In fairness to Mr. Bush, this gesture might have been entirely sincere, perhaps a twinge of guilt, since he has been  directly responsible for the death and maiming of thousands of other soldiers.  
 
THE GLOBALIST:  Every president, since Jimmy Carter, has been controlled by the Globalists.  Even Ronald Reagan sat down with a tete-a-tete with David Rockefeller the day before he garnered the Republican nomination.  Sad, but true!  G.W., the son of the first President to openly speak of “the New World Order” has well advanced their agenda.  Briefly stated, their goals are one world government, with themselves, the super-elitists, controlling all aspects of our lives.  Bush’s main assigned task, while still in office, is to make one political entity out of Canada, the United States and Mexico. His insistence in granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants is a key factor in this effort.
   
THE “COWBOY”:  Foreign countries call our president a “cowboy” as a derogatory term, which in his particular case, should be.  However, at least in many areas of the U.S., being called a cowboy is still a compliment.  The word “cowboy” brings forth the mental picture of an honest, strong and self-reliant individual.  But, a small ranch in Texas, cowboy boots, a Stetson hat, a pickup truck, with a bale of hay in the bed, along with a bit of tack (harness), does not a cowboy make! 

THE ULTIMATE HYPOCRITE:  In the first days of planning his initial campaign for the Presidency, Mr. Bush, in a meeting with Paul Rove and in the presence of the author Craig Winn, discussed the political desirability of invading Iraq.  Mr. Winn’s website Prophet of Doom.net mentions this meeting.  Later, three White House insiders, who published books after leaving the Bush Administration, also mentioned this strategy.  Bush offered two justifications to the American public, and the world, for the Iraq invasion.  One was the probability of Saddam Hussein’s possession of weapons of mass destruction and the other was to depose Saddam Hussein, a cruel dictator, and end the oppression towards his own people. 

But, there were other Muslim countries, such as the Sudan, Mauritania and Syria, to name just three, with cruel dictators if this were to be a valid criterion for the invasion.  Surely by coincidence, none of these three nations has any well proven petroleum reserves.  And, though Iraq certainly had WMD’s, at least chemical weapons and delivery missiles previous to the First Gulf War, there was no hard evidence that Hussein had dedicated much time or effort to their further development after that war.  Perhaps an insolent question, but does anyone in their right mind believe that we would have invaded Iraq if Saddam Hussein had possessed the capability of delivering an atomic attack against large concentrations of our troops?  Not even Bush would have risked losing 50,000 or more troops in a single atomic blast. An political advantage gained from deposing Sadam Hussein would have been wiped out in a nano-second.

Think about it!  



033
DEMOCRACY IN ISLAM

THERE IS NONE! 



Of the 53 Islamic states, none is a democracy.  Practically the entire Muslim world is ruled by dictators, in collusion with Muslim clergy and Islamic schools!   Turkey, the country with the most amount of self-determination for its citizens, does not dare hold free elections, in fear that fundamentalists will gain control, as was the case of Iran in 1979.  Dictators, clergy, and schools work together to insure that the general population is kept abysmally ignorant, but closely following the Koran.

This quote of Yohanan Ramati, from his book, “The Islamic Danger to Western Civilization” is pertinent.  “Not a single Muslim state is a democracy.  When there is serious internal opposition to a Muslim ruler, his rivals sometimes demand “democracy” during their bid to topple him, but never maintain it if they gain power.  So there is an obvious contradiction between promoting democracy and supporting Muslim states.  The contradiction between supporting Globalism, with ostensibly equal rights, for all races, religions, or nations, and across-the-board support for Muslim territorial and cultural expansion should be no less obvious.  These contradictions are a grave American weakness, as ideological confusion hamstrings the ability to act logically and firmly.” 

Muslims scorn Democracy because they are convinced that Islam, a total theocracy, is Allah’s divine plan, as handed down through the “revelations” of Muhammad.  This being the case, in their reasoning, any society outside of Islam, with any other form of government instituted by mankind, is an affront to Allah, and must be brought into submission by any means possible!

Democracy is quite willing to co-exist with Islam, but unfortunately, Islam is not at all willing to co-exist with Democracy or any other form of government!