On April 3, at the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s West Coast Retreat in Palos Verdes, California, Robert Spencer debated Muslim reformer Zuhdi Jasser on the prospects for reform in Islam. Andrew McCarthy, author of Willful Blindness, was moderating.

If the embedded video doesn’t show up on your screen, you can find it here.

In this special edition of Frontpage Symposium, we have invited two distinguished guests to discuss the question: When does a religion become an ideology? Our guests today are:

Tawfik Hamid, an Islamic thinker and reformer who is the author of Inside Jihad: Understanding and Confronting Radical Islam. A one-time Islamic extremist from Egypt, he was a member of Jemaah Islamiya, a terrorist Islamic organization, with Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri, who later became the second in command of al-Qaeda. He is currently a senior fellow and chairman of the study of Islamic radicalism at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies.

and

David Satter, a senior fellow of the Hudson Institute and a visiting scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). He was Moscow correspondent of the Financial Times of London from 1976 to 1982, during the height of the Soviet totalitarian period and he is the author of Age of Delirium: the Decline and Fall of the Soviet Union, which is being made into a documentary film. His most recent work is Darkness at Dawn: The Rise of the Russian Criminal State.

FP: Tawfik Hamid and David Satter, welcome to Frontpage Symposium.

Mr. Hamid, let us begin with you. Make an introductory statement for us to get our discussion started: When does a religion become an ideology?

Hamid: A religion becomes an ideology when the followers of this religion cannot tolerate the existence of those who have different views or beliefs, and when they understand their religious text literally and refuse to accept any way of understanding the religion other than their own way of understanding.

FP: Thank you.

Dr. Satter how would you now build on Mr. Hamid’s statement?

Satter: I think another way of putting it is that a religion becomes an ideology when man-made dogma is treated as infallible truth.

Although there are adherents of all three major monotheistic faiths who believe that every word of the sacred texts is to be taken literally, for the post-Enlightenment rationalist mind, there is a distinction between transcendent moral truths, exemplified in the case of Judaism and Christianity in the Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments and the dogmatic contents of the religions expressed in their historical accounts and ritual requirements.

This distinction is important to bear in mind because transcendent moral truths are never the content of an ideology. An ideology contains an assertion about society that is treated as ultimate truth and applied indiscriminately to explain all aspects of political reality. Since transcendent moral truths owe their character to the fact that they are “over and above” society, they cannot contribute to the content of an ideology. In fact, the effect of an ideology is always to destroy true moral transcendence.

The ritual requirements or dogmatic assertions about history of a religion, however, are perfectly suitable for the construction of an ideology. The obligation in Islam to wage jihad, properly interpreted, can be made the basis of an ideology which treats waging war on unbelievers as the highest obligation of a Moslem and evaluates all actions in terms of the extent to which they support this sacred obligation. Other religions too have aspects that could become the material of an ideology. One example is the doctrine of the Jews as the “Chosen People.” Although this doctrine has never been used to justify the oppression of others, it could be.

A religion becomes an ideology when its man-made elements become an idée fixe and are seized upon as an idea that can be imposed on all political and social institutions in the interests of power. The temptation was explained best in Dostoevsky’s tale of the Grand Inquisitor where the inquisitor explains to Jesus the essence of an ideology’s appeal:

Instead of the strict ancient law, man had in future to decide for himself with a free heart what is good and what is evil, having only your image before him for guidance. But did it never occur to you that he would at last reject and call in question even your image and your truth, if he were weighed down by as fearful a burden as freedom of choice.

Laying down that burden may be easiest of all if the mental prison thereby created is constructed with the materials of supposedly sacred religious teachings.

Hamid: In general, I agree with many of the above views. I would like to add that, based on David’s analysis, I see that having an ideology is not by itself the problem. For example, the ideology of the chosen people — as he mentioned — was not used to oppress others.  It is the part of ideology that is used to oppress others, such as ‘violent Jihad’ in Islam that is actually causing the problem.

A good distinction that David made was the distinction between true moral transcendence and ideology. It is important to mention that one of the main problems in traditional Islam is that the pillars of the religion [to say Non G-d other than Allah and Mohamed is the prophet of Allah, the 5 prayers, the obligatory tax (Zakkat), the fasting of Ramadan and the pilgrimage (Haj)] are rituals rather than moral values. In other words, based on the traditional views within Islam, Bin Laden can be a good Muslim because he follows the 5 pillars of Islam. On the contrary, if the pillars of Islam include ‘you shall not commit murder’ or other moral values, Muslims would not have seen people like Bin Laden and the terrorists as real Muslims. The ideology and the religious dogma of the 5 pillars made many Muslims unable to use the transcendent moral truth to judge people like Bin Laden.

Regarding the view that ‘man had in future to decide for himself with a free heart what is good and what is evil,’ I agree with this but I will add that the inspired moral values from religion such as ‘you shall not commit murder and ‘you shall not steal’ should remain as the back bone for future moral values. We may change some practical applications for these values but the pillars for such values will remain — at least in the view of many — as inspired values via the creator (i.e. not man-made).

Regarding the statement that “Laying down that burden may be easiest of all if the mental prison thereby created is constructed with the materials of supposedly sacred religious teachings.” I have seen the practical application for this in our Islamic society when many in the Muslim world adopt Islam as an ideology as a reaction to the moral relativism concepts that flourished in the Muslim world in the 1950s and 60s partially due to the work of liberal movements. The Islamic societies could not tolerate the lack of clear borders or ‘prison’ for their mind and it was much easier for many in these societies to follow an ‘ideology’ with clear borders rather than having the burden of freedom of choice.

Satter: Muslims, of course, are not the only ones who seek “clear borders.” Very few people have the confidence to identify their fundamental moral values and apply them to the myriad of complicated situations with which life confronts us. Even the most educated people fall back on mental borders that are the product of past habit and unchallenged assumptions. The problem becomes much greater when the mental borders are ubiquitous and the product of a false universal theory – as in Nazism or communism – or the dogmatic contents of a religion as in the case of radical Islam.

We are also confronted with the problem of group dynamics. Ethical judgment is the property of an individual. Dogmatic rules guide the behavior of a group. They eliminate differences and mobilize people for common action. So to the difficulty of thinking for oneself is added in an ideological situation the emotional trauma of confronting the group. Under the circumstances, it is small wonder that fanaticism in power has such terrible force. It operates on the difficulty that people have, when challenged, of defending what is truly human in each of them, their ultimate moral sense.

So what can reinforce the moral sense of the individual in the face of religious or secular fanaticism? If I understand him correctly, Tawfik provides the answer with his reference to the five pillars of Islam, none of which deal with ethical values. I think we need to be very clear in distinguishing between dogma and genuinely transcendent values. In the case of Nazism and communism, the task was easier because there were no transcendent values. Communism prided itself on its rejection of metaphysics. But in the case of radical Islam, the fanatics can draw on an authoritative religious tradition. Every word of the Koran is treated as divine truth and the authoritative interpretation of the Koran is or, at least, can be seen as being implicitly terroristic.

It seems to me that, under these circumstances, we must insist on our ability to define terms. To be truly religious, values must be transcendent. They cannot be derived from a political objective, for example, creating a classless society or a restored Caliphate. They can’t be based on the hatred of outsiders whether capitalists or infidels because the tensions that these hatreds reflect owe their origin to society which higher values necessarily transcend. Where the measure of right or wrong is the interests of a group, whether the proletariat, Aryans or the ummah, we are dealing with man made dogma regardless of any pretended religious justification. Its absolutization creates an ideology not a religion and it should be treated as an ideology and not granted the legitimacy of a religion with which it actually shares nothing. In the case of Islam, this does not mean an attack on Islamic practices as such but only their use in the service of terror under which circumstances, the issue of transcendence becomes relevant. To search for meaning is only human but it can lead to barbaric conclusions if it proceeds without ethical guidance. In a nuclear world, we need to defend the distinction between higher values and dogma as a matter of fundamental self defense.

Hamid: I agree with the points that David mentioned and would like to add more applied points that relate to Radical Islam.

David raised the point of “Difficulty to think for oneself”. This is exactly what happened to me and to many members in the Radical organizations. We felt that we are like sheep that just need to follow the leader. Individual thinking was lost especially when the radical leaders discouraged us from ‘thinking’.

David considered the ummah concept as “a man made dogma regardless of any pretended religious justification”. This could be true however; Muslims see the ummah concept as a religious based one. It is vital to understand how Muslims see such a concept in order to be able to approach the problem and deal with it correctly. In this regard, it is also important to emphasize that Communism and Nazism were seen by most of their followers as manmade ideology. In Islam, the situation is completely different as most Muslims see the ideological component as a religious revelation from Allah. In the former situation (i.e. manmade ideology) it is much easier to change the ideology as you can prove it wrong. When the ideology, as in case of Islam, is processed at the subconscious and emotional levels of the brain (as a religion) rather than the high cortical levels (as the case of communism and Nazism) it is much more difficult to change it.

I completely agree with David about the need to have a clear distinction between religion

and Ideology. Islam that only works inside a mosque as a form of individual worship can be considered a religion. However, Islam that is used as a political power and a controlling system for the society must be treated as an Ideology. The West need to be clear about this issue, as giving the Ideological part of Islam (that promotes violence and control of others) the protection and privileges that are given to a religion can be catastrophic. This ideological part of Islam has to be fought as the case with fighting communism and Nazism. If we failed to make such a separation between Islam as personal type of worship and Islam (or its interpretations) as a political and driving force to dominate others we will not be able to control radical Islamic ideology in the future. In fact we may be actually giving support to the radical ideology if we gave it the advantages of a religion. Allowing the ideological part of Islam to flourish under the banner of religious freedom weakens the spiritual part of the religion itself and makes things more complicated.

Satter: Politics dominates our lives and there is always a temptation to make a religion out of politics. If a political objective has divine significance, it is worth dying for and, of course, worth killing for. Those obsessed with a political mission are fearless and resourceful. Relieved of the need to exercise individual moral judgment, they become ruthless spies, talented strategists and remorseless killers. This is why it is so important to show a political ideology in all its man made artificiality. Only in this way can an ideological movement be discredited.  One hopes that it will be harder to organize mass crimes on behalf of a system that has been shown to be not divinely inspired but man made. In any case, the effort offers some hope for the future.

FP: Tawfik Hamid and David Satter, thank you for joining Frontpage Symposium.

Israel celebrated “Jerusalem Day” last week, which commemorates the 1967 reunification of the city following the Six Day War.  The celebrations and speeches were especially poignant in view of the Obama Administration’s decree that Israel must cease building in Jerusalem.

For Jews, Jerusalem is, has been, and always will be the symbol and the heart and soul of their national identity.  Jerusalem is mentioned almost 900 times in the Bible (767 in the King James Version and not a single mention of the city in the Koran) including Psalms (“If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning” – Psalm 137:5) and in the Passover Haggadah with the words “Next Year in Jerusalem” concluding the Passover service.  Through pilgrimages and prayers, Jews have demonstrated their love and yearning for Jerusalem for more than two millennia.  Zionism, the Jewish national liberation movement, is derived from Zion, another name for Jerusalem.

King David made Jerusalem his capital in 1000 BCE and unified the nation around it.  The city became the political and spiritual center of Jewish life, with the Temple at its heart.  But it took one of King David descendants, King Josiah, crowned 2650 years ago, to fortify the Jewish nation with a memory of Jerusalem that has kept the Jewish people united together during the Babylonian exile and beyond.

At the age of twenty, King Josiah understood that the assimilation of Jews into the idol-worshipping cultures that surrounded them might doom his kingdom and his people. He, therefore, enacted religious and political reforms aimed at establishing a unified national and religious worship.

The struggle between Jewish particularism and universalism is as long as Jewish history itself.  On one side, there were those who sought to assimilate into the neighboring (or prevailing) culture and on the other side, there were those who were dedicated to preserving the Jewish particularistic nature. We all know the story of Hanukkah and the Maccabean revolt against Greek rule and their agents from within. It was King Josiah, whose father King Amon was an idol-worshipper, who helped to create a Zion-oriented, national and religious Jewish particularism.

Following King Solomon’s death, the unified kingdom of Israel split up.  The Kingdom of Israel turned its back on Jerusalem and adopted the idol-worshipping universalist culture of the surrounding lands.  It did not survive.  Conversely, the Kingdom of Judea, with Jerusalem as its capital, survived for almost a century-and-a-half thereafter.  Josiah’s particularistic Jewish kingdom prepared the Judeans and future generations against ultimate defeat and exile by rededicating the lost Book of Deuteronomy to the people.

Josiah’s revolutionary actions were based on shifting the focus of religious worship from the physical domain (sacrifices) to the spiritual domain with the reading of the Torah.  Josiah did in his time what Martin Luther did in 16^th century Europe.  By removing the exclusivity of the priests (in sacrifices) and the scribes, who read for the entire community, the common people were now compelled to learn how to read, altering their role as passive participants.

The Book – The Torah, which maintained a unitary focus on Zion, had a centralizing impact on Judaism.  Whereas sacrifices could be made at any place and for all “gods” or sovereigns, Josiah provided the Jews with a particularistic culture that is eternal and accessible to all the people.   Josiah was in a sense fulfilling Moses’ command in the Book of Deuteronomy 31:19, “Now therefore write ye this song for you, and teach it to the Children of Israel: put it in their mouths, that this song may be a witness for me against the Children of Israel.”

Josiah’s great achievement is in facilitating the rise of the synagogue as a replacement for the destroyed Jerusalem Temple.  The practice of reading from the Torah began with Josiah and continues to this day among all Jews. King Josiah was greatly aided and strengthened by the Prophet Jeremiah who preached during his reign.  Jeremiah tied together the notion that worshipping God in the City of David (Jerusalem) and the freedom from foreign oppressors the city afforded them, are connected by an unbreakable chain.  It was an essential Zionist message.

The full extent and meaning of Josiah’s revolution is seen with the returnees from the Babylonian exile, Ezra and Nehemiah.  While they were dedicated to the rebuilding of the Second Temple, they understood that the essence of public worship was concentrated in public prayer.  Ezra stood on top of a wooden platform and opened the book while the masses of Jews rose to their feet; he read from the Torah and translated it to the masses (many of whom had lapsed in their practice of Judaism in the absence of strong Jewish leadership following the general expulsion to Babylon.)

The sacrificial alters (used by Jews and idol-worshippers alike) were replaced by a new institution, namely the synagogue, where Jews assembled for worship without the sole orchestration of priests who came from Aaron’s lineage (Moses’ brother). Instead, they were led by scribes from all walks of life and from any tribe.

Josiah’s contribution to Judaism and Zionism is in having forged an intellectual revolution based on three elements: Concentrating the kingdom (nation) around Jerusalem or Zion, from which all spirituality emanates; abolishing the foreign idol-worshipping and foreign cultural influences that erode the national and religious strength; and transferring the centrality of religious worship from the physical (sacrifices of animals) to a spiritual and intellectual worship.

Modern celebrations of Jerusalem serve a two-fold purpose: to remember that 2000 CE Jerusalem marked its 3000 birthday and 2010 marked the 43^rd anniversary of the reunification of city.

The Obama administration’s attempted imposition of a building halt in Jerusalem and his anticipated division of the city is once again pitting universalist Jews (those who seek to be accepted and liked by the world) against particularistic Jews, (who see Jerusalem as the heart and soul of Jewish sovereignty and faith).  The Netanyahu government is currently in the midst of a debate on the building freeze.  In Prime Minister Netanyahu’s “Jerusalem Day” speech he vowed never to allow the division of Jerusalem. It remains to be seen, however, whether Netanyahu will follow the particularistic actions of King Josiah or succumb to the universalist culture and accept Obama’s foreign idols.

The morning of September 11, 2001 dawned clear and crisp over New York City, as tens of thousands of commuters made their way to work. Around mid-morning, this mundane scene was marred by the unbelievable sight of a huge airliner flying into one of the World Trade Center towers, followed shortly thereafter by another airliner flying into the second tower. The wrenching scenes that followed — of people jumping out of the burning buildings to their deaths a thousand feet below, of a huge smoke cloud obscuring the World Trade Center, of the twin towers burning and collapsing in pancake fashion to the ground — will never leave us.

Many terrorist attacks on the U.S. have been attempted since 9/11; nearly all have been thwarted. Yet less than 9 years later, less than 600 feet from where 19 radical Islamists flew two airliners into the World Trade Center, killing 3,000 innocent Americans, the Islamic assault on America is being ratcheted up. The American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA), and its sister organization, The Cordoba Initiative, purchased the old Burlington Coat Factory building at Park Place and Broadway last December for $4.85 million. ASMA was founded, and is led by, New York City Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. The Cordoba Initiave was founded by Rauf and former Aspen, Colorado Mayor and Aspen Institute CEO, John S. Bennet. Their goal is to raze the building, replace it with a 15 story mosque to look down on the site of Ground Zero and to hold the grand opening on September 11, 2011, 9/11′s 10th anniversary.

ASMA and the Cordoba Initiative presented the strangely named Cordoba House Project (after the supposed Golden Age in medieval Cordoba, Spain where Jews and Christians allegedly lived harmoniously with their oppressive Muslim rulers) on May 5th at a public meeting to the Community Board of Lower Manhattan (CB1) whose 12 members unanimously approved it. Committee Chairman Ro Sheffe summed up the bizarre thinking of CB1′s members stating, “I think [the Cordoba House] will be a wonderful asset to the community.” Even more troubling, it was reported that “not one person from the community [who] came to the meeting was in opposition….”  Daisy Khan, Cordoba Initiative board member and Rauf’s wife, has stated that the project has received little opposition. The project is expected to cost about $100 million. [1]

However, support for the Cordoba House goes well beyond CB1, right to the office of New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. Strangely, the Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs supports the project. What’s the connection between “Immigrant Affairs” and the project? It’s also been reported that there have already been numerous illegal construction complaints at the site which have been ignored. Nevertheless, the site already serves as a mosque; every Friday afternoon, an Imam leads prayers in the building. Should the project be completed, between 1,000 and 2,000 Muslims are expected for prayer every Friday. [2]

The funding for the project is the key element in the mystery. Where is the money to construct a $100 million mosque going to come from? On the ASMA web site, under “Financial statements–Year Ending 06/30/09,” under the category “Temporarily Restricted Net Assets,” various organizational donors are listed. They are: the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) — $53,664, Millennium Development Goals (MDG3) –$481,942, Hunt Alternatives Fund — $15,000, Carnegie Corp. of New York — $122,000, Rockefeller Brothers Fund — $50,000 and Qatar Government Fund — $576,312 for total donations of $1,298,918. On the MGD3 Fund website, it states, “The MGD3 Fund invests in equality and in improving rights and opportunities for women and girls” and “on property and inheritance rights for women; gender equality in employment and equal opportunities on the labour market; participation and representation of women in national parliaments and political bodies; and combating violence against women.” Given these goals, why is the MGD3 Fund supporting a project designed to strengthen a religion that offers very few rights to women?

In addition, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund is listed as supporting the project to the tune of $50,000. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund was begun in 1940, by David, Winthrop, Nelson, Laurance, and John D. Rockefeller III, and it has a long history of supporting the leftist agenda. At the beginning of WWII, Nelson Rockefeller leased naval fueling stations in Venezuela to the Nazis; in 1942 his actions were described as treasonous by Senator Harry Truman.

However, the funding listed above is only about 1.3% of the project’s total cost. Where is the remaining $98-$99 million going to come from? Neither ASMA nor the Cordoba Initiative has divulged this information. Nevertheless, “…a significant percentage of the mosques built in the USA in the past two decades are receiving a disproportionate amount of their funds not only from the Saudis, but from the UAE, Qatar, and Iran.” The Qatar Government Fund is listed above as a contributor, and its likely that Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Malaysia (with a large Muslim population where a Cordoba Initiative office is located) are contributing substantial amounts. [3]

The driving force behind the project is Feisal Abdul Rauf. In a calm and reassuring voice, Rauf has stated that all religions are welcome at Cordoba House, and that interfaith understanding and tolerance are, and will be fostered. Don’t believe it.

Rauf’s father, Dr. Muhammad Adbul Rauf, was a contemporary of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna and was a radical Islamist. He became the head of the Islamic Cultural Center in Washington DC and founded three Malaysian Islamic Studies programs, including the International Islamic University of Malaysia. Feisal has followed his father’s plan for Islamic expansion in the United States. He is currently the Imam at Masjid Al-Farah Mosque at 245 W. Broadway, New York City, a scant 12 blocks from Ground Zero. Masjid Al-Farah is located between two bars. Why? Recently, the New York State Liquor Authority has notified three businesses on W. Broadway that it will revoke their liquor licenses based on the state’s alcohol beverage control law. After local residents told the State Liquor Authority of the existence of Masjid Al-Farah last May, the SLA began investigating local bars. One bar owner’s bid for a liquor license has been denied and he has claimed a loss of $13,000 per month as a result. Rauf is also the Imam of the Islamic Center of Long Island in Westbury, New York which includes the Crescent School at 835 Brush Hollow Road. Anti-Christian and anti-Semitic textbooks were used at the school. When pressured about their hateful content, Rauf stated that the use of the books would be discontinued. As of 2007, the books were still in use.  [4]

Presently, Rauf has written a slick, disingenuous book, What’s Right with Islam: A New Vision of Muslims and the West, in which he blames the West for the Islamic assault on America and has also stated that the West must act to end jihad. He tries to equate the freedom that Americans have in the United States with life under Sharia law. For example, he calls America ”a Sharia compliant state,” and says that “the American Constitution and system of governance uphold the core principles of Islamic law” and that “for America to score even higher on the ‘Shariah Compliance” scale, America would need to…allow religious communities more leeway to judge among themselves according to their own laws.” [5]

However, America is in no way ”a Shariah compliant state.” Sharia law has always denied the rights of women and non-Muslim minorities, while non-believers are given a choice of death or conversion and Jews and Christians are treated as dhimmis — second classs citizens. In the so-called ”Golden Age” of Muslim-ruled Spain, Jews and Christians were required to pay jizya – a poll tax — often collected in a humiliating manner for the right to live and worship behind closed doors. In stark contrast, in 1790, George Washington told the congregation of the Touro Synagogue in Newport, RI that every man and woman in America has the right to worship under their own “vine and fig tree” free from the fear of persecution. America ended slavery in 1865; Islam still allows it. In addition, Rauf conveniently fails to mention that in 1805, President Thomas Jefferson sent an American Naval squadron to the Mediterranean to protect American merchant ships from Muslim pirates sailing from North Africa.

Under Sharia law, individuals are not at liberty to think for themselves. Women are inferior to men to the point of being counted as half a man in matters of evidence and inheritance. As dhimmis, non-Muslims “must wear distinctive clothing, and must mark their houses, which must not be built higher than those of the Muslims…they must yield the way to Muslims; they must not scandalize the Muslims by openly performing their worship or their distinctive customs, such as drinking wine; they must not build new churches, synagogues, and hermitages, they must pay the poll tax under humiliating conditions….” [6]

In What’s Right with Islam, Rauf doesn’t acknowledge the cruel conditions Islam imposes on dhimmis and further states, “Core Islamic values overlap with core American values.” No, they don’t. He also criticizes America for not always living up to its ideals. Okay, America isn’t perfect — but when has Islam ever changed?

Rauf further betrays his hostile intentions towards America when he states, as quoted above, “America would need…to allow religious communities more leeway to judge among themselves according to their own laws.” Is Rauf implying that American Muslims be allowed to change U.S. law to suit themselves or be allowed to ignore it entirely? Thoughtful readers will conclude that he is.

Building a mosque close to Ground Zero is entirely in keeping with the Islamic ideals of conquest, domination, and humiliation. It is also entirely unacceptable and unnecessary. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg needs to withdraw his support for the project, and respect those who were murdered, those who lost loved ones, and all those who suffered and sacrificed at Ground Zero on 9/11. Not surprisingly, some 9/11 families are offended by the proposed mosque. As Rosemary Cain of Massapequa, Long Island, whose son, firefighter George Cain, was killed on 9/11, stated, “I think its despicable. That’s sacred ground. How could anyone give them permission to build a mosque there? It tarnishes the area.” [7]

Footnotes

1. Jackson, Joe & Hutchinson, Bill. “Plan for mosque near World Trade Center site moves ahead.” New York Daily News. May 6, 2010.

2. Ibid.

3. “Pittsburgh’s Key Role in Israel’s Birth,” article by author, Jewish Chronicle, April 30, 1998; “Exclusive: Spitting in the Face of Everyone Murdered on 9/11,” by Gadi Adelman

4. Rauf, Feisal Abdul. “What’s Right with Islam: A New Vision of Muslims and the West.” Harper Collins, 2004.

5. Schacht, Joseph. “An Introduction to Islamic Law.” Oxford University Press, 1983.

6. Wariq, Ibn. “Why I am Not a Muslim.” Prometheus Books, 2003.

7. Jackson, Joe & Hutchinson, Bill. “Plan for mosque near World Trade Center site moves ahead.” New York Daily News. May 6, 2010.

Albahri's nose will just keep getting longer and longer the more she talks

Robert Spencer had a post this morning highlighting a statement made from someone claiming to be Jumanah Imad Albahri, the UCSD student whose words supporting the extermination of the Jews have been heard by over 300,000 people on YouTube and even more on cable television and talk radio. Albahri herself showed up in the comments to deny authorship and direct readers to her own statement.

It’s been almost a week since David Horowitz’s talk at UCSD and Albahri is all of a sudden finally trying to explain herself at a new blog she has recently created.

I emailed Albahri just now:

Ms. Albahri,
I’ve read your blog post in which you try and explain the remarks you made Monday night at David Horowitz’s talk.

“Towards the end of the exchange, I became emotional. I could no longer hear Mr. Horowitz speaking and so did not even hear his injection of Hezbollah’s credo of “rounding up” Jews in his last tangent.  I could no longer contain my anger at being implicitly and improperly labeled a terrorist, an anti-Semite, and a proponent of genocide. The answer I was coerced into giving grossly misrepresented my beliefs and ideologies.”

I have a hard time believing your explanation that all of a sudden you could not hear what he was saying. You seemed to be able to communicate with him perfectly fine and hear what he was saying up until he asked his question. The video speaks for itself.

I have a question: if you oppose anti-Semitism and you oppose Islamists’ quest to instigate a second Holocaust what have you ever done to challenge these tendencies within the MSA itself and Islam as a whole? If you do not hold such views yourself, why are you a part of an organization who regularly hosts speakers who call for the destruction of Israel and the extermination of the Jews?

-David

This just in from Jihad Watch reader Inexion: the Muslim student at the University of California at San Diego who affirmed her support for the genocide of the Jews has now commented on the controversy on an Internet bulletin board, saying, "Death to Israel":

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Laissez's Faire > On Monday I confronted David Horowitz Pages (15): 12 3 4 5 Next › Last »

Lurker God
Jan 28, 2009
ASK ME ABOUT GETTING OWNED BY DAVID HOROWITZ (AND BEING FOR THE EXTERMINATION OF THE JEWISH RACE LOL)sieg heil ronald mcdonald;;

So earlier on Monday this week David Horowitz came out to speak at University of California San Diego for Israel Apartheid Week. The event was hosted by Young Americans for Freedom, which are your basic, Reagan fellating college republicans. Anyways, it was the usual imperialist, apologetic bullshit that Horowitz spits out in defense of the state of Israel. Later on though he took questions, and just today I found out that someone recorded mine and put it up on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fSvyv0urTE

I asked him about some statements he had made about how the MSA had financial connections to "jihadist terrorists". Of course he couldn't back his bullshit up, so he just squirmed around and accused me of being a terrorist, lol.

So I figure we could use this thread to discuss how pathetic David and others of his Ilk are for trying to defend one of most oppressive states in modern history. Also, good strategies on how to confront these cowards and show them for the worms they are. Death to Israel.

[Editor's note: This is the first installment of a four-part series. To view later segments of "Pro-Palestinianism: A Movement of Hate," please click: Part II, Part III and Part IV .]

It should be patently obvious to anyone with a passing interest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that the Western pro-Palestinian movement has long since gone beyond the bounds of justifiable criticism and moral acceptability.

Israel is of course facing ever-increasing hostility at every level internationally. This immense hostility has largely been brought into effect by the populist successes of the Western anti-Israeli/pro-Palestinian movement so it is time to expose this collective entity to greater scrutiny – to ask difficult questions due to the significant power it now wields. This article seeks to establish that hatred is the driving force behind many elements of this movement, and since Israel is the sole existing Jewish nation, serious questions need to be asked about anti-Semitic sentiment.

A particular, rather unique haughtiness is one of the most notable features of Western attitudes towards Israel. Fellow Irishman Donnchadh O’Liathain wrote an article in the Jerusalem Post in 2004 describing the European attitude towards Israel: a dichotomy of “good Israelis” and “bad Israelis” – those who are pro-peace and those who are less so. The theme of his article was the invasiveness of attitudes towards Israel, an intense meddlesome desire to impose a solution on the conflict without proper recognition of Israel’s needs. It is indeed galling when the citizens and leaders of larger secure states that have luxuriated in peace for many decades, bar the occasional fracas in distant lands, pass judgement so readily on a tiny state surrounded by continuous extreme hostility, which is clearly not as a consequence of its actions but of its very existence. If we consider the fear experienced in the US after the tragedy of 9/11, and also consider the trauma and political changes experienced in other nations after very serious terrorist attacks, it is not difficult to see how such countries would respond if faced with similar conditions.

There are several forms of pro-Palestinianism which can be categorised in terms of extremism. Moderates think the Palestinians are largely the victims in this conflict and do not advocate terrorism at all and may even support a fairly just two-state solution. The second group support the Palestinian cause without endorsing the more extreme acts of Palestinian terrorism but nonetheless tend to find them “understandable” and may demand solutions that nullify Israel’s Jewish identity, e.g. the “right to return.” The most extreme group supports all acts of Palestinian terrorism no matter how debased or destructive to Israeli civilians. By implication they support a one-state solution – namely, a Palestinian state or a greater Jordan/Syria. This article focuses principally on the latter two groups of Palestinian supporters, which have grown greatly in popularity in the last decade. Such people are often highly vocal and may campaign vociferously for the Palestinian cause. The opinions of these people may require some interpretation as they might not be completely forthcoming with their views on the conflict. Those who have extreme opinions often appear to present their views as being milder than they truly are, hence the usual contention that they support peace. This would be especially important if they hold positions of power in influential political institutions or the media.

A pertinent question needs to be asked: what is the primary motivation of the Western anti-Israeli/pro-Palestinian movement? Is it a genuine concern for human rights, which is always admirable if not necessarily justified, or is it a rank anti-Semitism masquerading undercover of darkness as a concern for the Palestinians? Obviously, I subscribe to the latter opinion but whichever view the reader may endorse, one question should be addressed in order to clarify the matter at hand: where does legitimate sensible (i.e. reasonably fair and moderately justifiable) criticism of Israel end and become abusive condemnation that overtly goes beyond what is evidential? The answer indicates the sincerity and intent of the pro-Palestinian movement, for their words and actions ought to be their measure.

It is indeed important to recognise that no state should be above criticism, just as no individual or group should be above criticism for the simple reason that all agents have the capacity to commit acts that are harmful to others. Thus, the question here is not should Israel be criticised generally speaking but rather how is Israel being criticised?

A detailed understanding of the contrast between reasonable criticism and abusive condemnation would be useful – of course other word use with similar meaning is also applicable. Something is considered abusive where coercion or bullying occurs, where there is a desire to cause distress or harm. Abuse is described as the “Improper treatment or usage; application to a wrong or bad purpose; misuse; perversion; … verbal maltreatment; An unjust, corrupt or wrongful practice…; … insulting speech; abusive language.”/ [Wiktionary]. Condemnation is of course censure by attributing blame, strong disapproval or even demonization. An abusive condemnation would be highly damaging, distressing and motivated by ill intent, in which case it could well deliberately exceed what is clearly indicated in evidence. This would not simply be applicable to Israel as a state. It would apply to its citizens, its interests, and by its very nature the malicious intent could apply to Jewish people generally, of which Israel is principally composed.

While many conflicts are compared with World War II and aggressors are compared with the Nazis, this motif has never been more widely used than when judging Israel. No pro-Palestinian demonstration is complete without the symbol of the swastika within the Star of David on badges and placards. Indeed, this symbol more so than any other has come to represent the pro-Palestinian movement. Since the Star of David is also the prime symbol of Judaism it can also be clearly interpreted as a symbol highly abusive to the Jewish religion and those that constitute the Jewish people, especially due to the tragedy of the Holocaust. Comparing Israeli figures with leading Nazi figures is also not uncommon. In Ireland, during Operation Cast Lead, Sein Fein (IRA) member Aengus O’Snodaigh repeatedly compared the Israeli ambassador to Ireland with Josef Goebbels, the master propagandist, for merely trying to explain that the invasion was due to continued attacks. Divisive figures such as disgraced Scottish politician George Galloway declared during a UK protest last year: “Today, the Palestinian people in Gaza are the new Warsaw ghetto, and those who are murdering them are the equivalent of those who murdered the Jews in Warsaw in 1943.”

Palestinian sympathisers make it abundantly clear that Israel does not have a right to defend itself. Clearly some will say this is a misrepresentation: that in fact they criticise Israel’s response as being heavy handed. This may be true for some but the dominant theme in the pro-Palestinian monologue is that Palestinians have a right to “resist” as they put it, while Israel has no essential right to respond. This is clear time and time again in their argumentation.

Judging by the views held by more extreme pro-Palestinians it would appear that Palestinian terrorists have a right to do whatsoever they wish to Israeli citizens. We see very extreme language used in the media and even more so on internet websites throughout the West. It does become essentially irrelevant or morally justifiable if Hamas rains missiles on Israeli citizens because according to so many pro-Palestinians, Israel is (to borrow their commonly used terminology) a “pariah”, “colonial”, “apartheid”, “fascist”, “criminal”, “nazi”, “jihadist”, “terrorist” state. Israel is a state that butchers women and children, harvests Palestinians for body parts, and of course has “ethnically cleansed” the Palestinians. Israel has committed many “holocausts” against the Palestinians, so accordingly some even think it more reprehensible than the Third Reich. With such extraordinarily twisted extreme black and white understandings of the conflict that contravene the most obvious truths, it is little wonder that no justification of Israel’s right to defend itself will satisfy such individuals. No reasoned argument based on facts will be sufficient.

Considering such information, it is fair to say that very many (probably a majority) of pro-Palestinians have a very real hatred of Israel. Some may protest that this is not so but, for example, would any reasonably impartial observer with a modicum of fairness deny one state the right to respond to continued extreme aggression when it is a genuine affliction to its citizens? Would such a fair, impartial observer not accept that Jihadist Palestinian terrorism is part of the problem and its moral legitimization not a solution? To take a recent issue, many pro-Palestinians defended the Goldstone report because it is now yet another weapon in their arsenal to bash Israel. Would any impartial observer accept such a report when a Mrs. Mary Robinson, primary architect of the Durban I anti-Semitic hate-fest, declined to accept the biased brief? Any impartial observer would obviously accept justice must be fair, so why support it? Other than ill-intent, there can be no justification for continually propagating severe exaggerations and outright lies.

The issue of proportionality was frequently raised by Palestinian supporters during Cast Lead. It was often said that the rockets fired into Israel were actually home made or little more than flares. However, the principal rockets were Grad rockets supplied by Iran and simple yet quite potent Kassam. While such rockets have basic guidance systems they are nonetheless of a military grade. Grads have the capacity to destroy a house, for example. Hundreds raining down on towns leading up to the Israeli response was clearly not sustainable. Condemnation and talk of a holocaust swiftly followed even before the ground invasion. The association of Gaza with the Warsaw ghetto was a common motif. Pro-Palestinians characterise the dead in Gaza as primarily innocent civilians but it is worth noting various sources indicate 70 to 74% of those killed were males between the ages of 15 and 40 – the most relevant for combat.  Clearly the only acceptable Israeli response for Palestinian sympathisers was to put up with it, other than the ideal of surrender to Hamas. The inference that Israel had no right to defend its citizens can be asserted because no other rational conclusion to such arguments can be arrived upon. The issue of proportionality cannot be answered by simply discussing casualty figures. If the citizens of any state are exposed to intolerable conditions where they cannot go about their daily lives with a basic level of safety for an extended period of time, that state has a moral obligation to stop the forces causing that situation. Therefore, a proportional response is to take the necessary action to stop the attacks and prevent them from reoccurring within a reasonable timeframe; nothing more and nothing less.

“They fought like tigers,” writes the CIA officer who helped train the Cubans who splashed ashore at the Bay of Pigs 49 years ago this week. “But their fight was doomed before the first man hit the beach.”

That CIA man, Grayston Lynch, knows something about fighting – and about long odds. He carries scars from Omaha Beach, The Battle of the Bulge and Korea’s Heartbreak Ridge. But in those battles, Lynch and his band of brothers could count on the support of their own chief executive. At the Bay of Pigs, Grayston Lynch (an American) and his band of brothers (Cubans) learned — first in speechless shock and finally in burning rage — that their most powerful enemies were not Castro’s Soviet-armed soldiers massing in Santa Clara, Cuba, but the Ivy League’s best and brightest dithering in Washington.

Grayston Lynch put it on the line for the U.S. Constitution unlike many living today. I’d say he’s earned the right to indulge in a little “freedom of speech.”

So when he wrote, “Never have I been so ashamed of my country” about the bloody and shameful events 49 years ago this month at the Bay of Pigs, I’d say we owe him a respectful audience.

In his own words, Lynch helped train, “brave boys, most of whom had never before fired a shot in anger” — college students, farmers, doctors, common laborers, whites, blacks, mulattoes. The Brigada included men from every social strata and race in Cuba — from sugar cane planters to sugar cane cutters, from aristocrats to their chauffeurs. But mostly, this included the folks in between as befits a nation with a larger middle class than most of Europe.

They were known as La Brigada 2506. An almost precise cross-section of Cuban society of the time. Short on battle experience, yes, but bursting with what Bonaparte and George Patton valued most in a soldier — morale. No navel-gazing about “why they hate us.” They’d seen the face of Castro/communism point-blank. And that’s all it takes.

They set their jaws and resolved to smash the murderous barbarism that was ravaging their homeland.  They went at it with a vengeance. These “brave boys” fought till the last round, without food or water, and inflicted losses of almost 30-to-1 against their Soviet-led and arm-lavished enemy.

Castro defectors, some the very doctors who attended the casualties, say the invading freedom-fighters inflicted over 3,500 casualties on their Stalinist enemy. Castro and Che were jittery for a while, urging caution in the counterattack. From the lethal fury of the attack and the horrendous casualties their troops and militia were taking, the Stalinist leaders assumed they faced at least “20,000 invading mercenaries,” as they called them.

Yet, it was a band of mostly civilian volunteers they outnumbered 20-to-1, led by the heroic Erneido Oliva. (A black Cuban, by the way, Congressional Black Caucus.) A high percentage of these men had wives and children. But to hear Castro’s echo chamber (the mainstream and academia) Fidel was the plucky David and the invaders the bumbling Goliath!

The invaders themselves suffered 100 dead. Four were American pilot “advisers” who defied direct orders to abandon the men they’d trained and befriended. “Nuts!” they barked — but at their own commander in chief. These U.S. volunteers — Pete Ray, Riley Shamburger, Leo Barker, and Wade Grey — suited up, gunned the engines, and joined the fight. These were Southern boys, not pampered Ivy Leaguers, so there was no navel-gazing. They had archaic notions of right and wrong, of honor and loyalty, of whom America’s enemies really are. Their Cuban brothers were being slaughtered on that heroic beachhead. Knowing their lumbering B-26s were sitting ducks for Castro’s unmolested jets and Sea Furies, all four Alabama air guard volunteers flew over the doomed beachhead to lend support to their betrayed brothers in arms.

All four Americans were shot down. All four have their names in a place of honor next to their Cuban comrades on The Bay of Pigs Memorial, plus streets named after them in Miami’s Little Havana and their crosses at Miami’s Cuban Memorial cemetery.

When Doug MacArthur waded ashore on Leyte, he grabbed a radio: “People of the Philippines: I have returned. By the grace of Almighty God our forces stand again on Philippine soil — soil consecrated in the blood of our two peoples.”

Cuban soil was similarly consecrated.

To quote author Haynes Johnson, “The Bay of Pigs was a battle where heroes were made.” And how! We call them “men,” but Brigadista Felipe Rondon was 16 years old when he grabbed his 57 mm cannon and ran to face one of Castro’s Stalin tanks point blank. At 10 yards he fired at the clanking, lumbering beast and it exploded, but the momentum kept it going and it rolled over little Felipe. Gilberto Hernandez was 17 when a round from a Czech burp gun put out his eye. Castro’s troops were swarming in but he held his ground, firing furiously with his recoilless rifle for another hour, until the Reds finally surrounded him and killed him with a shower of grenades.

By then the invaders sensed they’d been abandoned. Ammo was almost gone. Two days shooting and reloading without sleep, food, or water was taking its toll. Many were hallucinating. That’s when Castro opened up four batteries’ worth 122 mm Soviet howitzers. They pounded 2,000 rounds into the invaders’ ranks over a four-hour period. “It sounded like the end of the world,” one said later.

“Rommel’s crack Afrika Corps broke and ran under a similar bombardment,” wrote Haynes Johnson. By now the invaders were dazed and delirious with fatigue, thirst and hunger; too deafened by the bombardment to even hear orders. So their commander had to scream.

“No retreat, Carajo!” Oliva stood and bellowed to his dazed and horribly outnumbered men. “We stand and fight!” And so they did, and wrote as glorious a chapter in military history and the annals of freedom as any you’d care to read.

Right after the deadly shower of Soviet shells, more Stalin tanks rumbled up. Another boy named Barberito rushed up to the first one and blasted it repeatedly with his recoil-less rifle. It barely dented it, but so rattled the occupants that they opened the hatch and surrendered. In fact, they insisted on shaking hands with their pubescent captor who, an hour later, was felled by a machine-gun burst to his valiant little heart.

On another front, Lynch, from his command post offshore, was talking with Cmdr. Pepe San Roman. Lynch had just learned how the Knights of Camelot (for dread of name-calling by the Latin-American “Street” as “yankee-bullies!”) had canceled the vital air strikes to knock out Castro’s Air-force, and figured the men were doomed. “If things are really rough,” he told Pepe, “we can come in and evacuate you.”

“We will not be evacuated!” Pepe barked back. “We came here to fight! This ends here!” The communists had almost 50,000 men around the beachhead now. But Oliva had one tank manned by Jorge Alvarez, and two rounds. Jorge aimed — Blam! Reloaded — Blam! — and quickly knocked out two of Castro’s Stalins. But more Stalins and T-34′s kept coming. So Alvarez — outgunned, outnumbered and out of ammo — finally had no choice: He gunned his tank to a horrendous clattering whine and charged! He rammed into another Stalin tank. Its driver was stunned, frantic. He couldn’t get a half-second to aim his gun. So Alvarez rammed him again. And again. And again, finally splitting the Stalin’s barrel and forcing its surrender.

The Brigada’s spent ammo inevitably forced a retreat. Castro’s jets were roaming overhead at will. They long ago had sunk the ammo ships; now they concentrated on strafing the helpless men.

“Can’t continue …” Lynch’s radio crackled – it was San Roman again. “Have nothing left to fight with … destroying my equipment …” The radio went dead.

“Tears flooded my eyes,” wrote Grayston Lynch. “For the first time in my 37 years I was ashamed of my country.”

The battle was over in three days, but the heroism was not.

Now came almost two years in Castro’s dungeons for the captured Brigada, complete with the physical and psychological torture that always comes with communist incarceration. On a visit to Miami during his presidential campaign, John McCain learned that he had shared torturers with his Cuban-American freedom-fighter hosts (Castro had sent several of his regime’s most promising sadists to North Vietnamese prison camps to instruct the Vietnamese reds in finer points of their profession.)

During almost two years in Castro’s dungeons, Oliva and his men lived under a daily death sentence.  Escaping that sentence would have been easy: simply sign the little paper confessing they were “mercenaries of the Yankee imperialists” or go on camera and on record denouncing the U.S. Given these freedom-fighters betrayal, you might think the Castroites had a cakewalk here.

Hah! Neither Oliva nor any of his men signed the document. The freedom-fighters stood tall, proud, defiant, and solidly with their commander, even sparring with Castro himself during their televised Stalinist show trials. “We will die with dignity!” snapped Oliva at the furious Castroites again, and again, and again. To a Castroite, such an attitude not only enrages but also baffles.

“Wimps,” sneers Michael Moore in his book “Downsize This,” referring to Bay of Pigs veterans  “really just a bunch of wimps. That’s right, wimps– and crybabies too….ex-Cubans with a yellow stripe down their backs.” Knowing that anti-yankee confessions would save them from Che Guevara’s firing squads and torture chambers, these freedom-fighters refused any association with the type of slogans Michael Moore shouts weekly for free publicity.

MARDIN, TURKEY - A conference of notable Islamic scholars to discuss the contemporary relevance of Ibn Taymiyah's famous 14th century "Mardin Fatwa" ended with a declaration saying that "anyone who seeks support from this fatwa for killing Muslims or non-Muslims has erred in his interpretation and has misapplied the revealed texts."

That sounds great. It is unequivocal. But what it is unequivocal about is the use of Ibn Taymiyah's fatwa to justify killing Muslims or non-Muslims. It unequivocally declares that illegitimate. It does not declare illegitimate the killing of Muslims or non-Muslims itself.

Now, I am not saying that these scholars did not mean to condemn the killing of Muslims and non-Muslims in the name of Islam. Maybe they did. But they did not do so by condemning the use of Ibn Taymiyya's fatwa, for, as I showed here, there are plenty of other Islamic sources that justify the killing of unbelievers.

"There are those who have used the fatwa to justify acts of violence committed in the name of Islam," said Abdullah Bin Bayyah, head of the London-based International Centre for Renewal and Guidance which organized the event in collaboration with Canopus Consulting from Bristol in the UK and the University of Artuklu in Mardin.

Entitled "Mardin: Abode of Peace", and broadcast live on the Al-Jazeera network, the conference sought a review of the classical classification of abodes due to "a real need for a sound Islamic and legal vision that does not violate Islamic religious texts, is in harmony with the higher objectives of the Shari'ah, and is suited to our contemporary context."

The conference studied five main aspects surrounding the fatwa: Understanding the Mardin fatwa in context: The era and its ambiguities; The historical significance of the fatwa; The categorization of an abode from an historical viewpoint and in light of globalization and modern communication; Understanding Jihad: The conditions of armed combat and its rules of engagement - as defined by Ibn Taymiyya and the UN Charter, and concepts of peace and coexistence in Islamic thought.

The "New Mardin Declaration" resulting from the two-day gathering described the issue of fatwas in Islam as "a serious one", and ruled that "Ibn Taymiyya's fatwa concerning Mardin can under no circumstances be appropriated and used as evidence for leveling the charge of kufr (unbelief) against fellow Muslims, waging revolt against rulers, deeming their lives and property freely accessible to Muslims, terrorizing those who enjoy safety and security, acting treacherously towards those who live (in harmony) with fellow Muslims or with whom fellow Muslims live (in harmony) via the bond of citizenship and peace".

Here again, the focus is very narrow: the New Mardin Declaration seems to discuss only Ibn Taymiyya's fatwa, not the larger question of the Islamic justification for these things outside of that fatwa. But in any case, the part of the Declaration quoted above offers no comfort to unbelievers concerned about being targeted by jihadists. It is only concerned that Muslims do not declare other Muslims to be unbelievers -- which is indeed a favorite practice of Salafis in general -- and that they do not revolt against rulers (which is probably a slap to Al-Qaeda for waging jihad against the House of Saud, etc.).

It does also rule out "acting treacherously towards those who live (in harmony) with fellow Muslims or with whom fellow Muslims live (in harmony) via the bond of citizenship and peace," but leaves unclear what exactly might constitute this treachery. This may forbid Muslims in West to commit violent jihad attacks against non-Muslims in their adoptive countries, but it remains unclear whether Muslims in Western countries would be "acting treacherously" by working in non-violent ways to impose elements of Sharia. Would CAIR's efforts to smear and defame anti-jihadists, and intimidate Americans into being afraid to report suspicious activity by Muslims, constitute "acting treacherously"? Would efforts to secure special privileges for Muslims in workplaces, schools, and public places like airports constitute "acting treacherously"?

It described the classification of abodes (nation, states) as "based on ijtihad (juristic reasoning) that was necessitated by the circumstances of the Muslim world, then and the nature of the international relations prevalent at that time", adding that circumstances "had changed with international treaties and nation states."

That's reasonable, but it raises another question: if circumstances change again, might all this "reform" be out the window? Is the New Mardin Declaration a matter of an evolved understanding of core principles -- i.e., a genuine reform -- or is it simply a temporary expedient?

"Amongst the priorities of Muslim scholars and Islamic academic institutions should be the analysis and assessment of ideas that breed extremism, takfir (labeling fellow Muslims as unbelievers) and violence in the name of Islam.

Security measures, no matter how fair and just they may happen to be, cannot take the place of an enlightened elucidation supported by proof and evidence.

Therefore, it is the responsibility of the Ummah's religious scholars to condemn all forms of violent attempts-to-change or violent protest, within, or outside, Muslim societies. Such condemnation must be clear, explicit, and be a true manifestation of real courage in speaking the truth, so as to eliminate any confusion or ambiguity," the New Declaration said.

Great. But again, what about non-violent attempts to bring Sharia Westward?

On jihad, the New Declaration stated: "Muslim scholars, throughout the ages, have always stressed and emphasized that the jihad that is considered the pinnacle of the religion of Islam, is not of one type, but of many, and actually fighting in the Path of God is only one type. The validation, authorization, and implementation of this particular type of Jihad is sanctioned by the Shariah to only those who lead the community (actual heads of states).

Great. There are many types of jihad. But there is no rejection of the supremacist character of jihad -- i.e., its goal to impose Sharia upon non-Muslims polities. All this is saying is that there are many ways to do that. And that "this particular type of Jihad" -- i.e., not all types -- is the province of the state to sanction. Thus Osama bin Laden, who couches his jihad as defensive, which he must do since he recognizes that the office of caliph, the only person authorized in Sunni Islam to declare offensive jihad, is vacant, would find nothing in the New Mardin Declaration that would stop him. Defensive jihad in traditional Islamic theology does not need the sanction of the state, but becomes the obligation of every individual Muslim as soon as an Islamic land is attacked.

And the New Mardin Declaration goes on to say just that:

This is because such a decision of war is a political decision with major repercussions and consequences. Hence, it is not for a Muslim individual or Muslim group to announce and declare war, or engage in combative jihad, whimsically and on their own. This restriction is vital for preventing much evil from occurring, and for truly upholding Islamic religious texts relevant to this matter."

"The basis of the legitimacy of jihad is that it is either to repel/resist aggression: "Fight in the Way of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah likes not the transgressors." (Qur'an, 2:190), or to aid those who are weak and oppressed: "And why should you not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?" (Qur'an, 4:75), or in defense of the freedom of worshiping: "To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged; - and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid." (Qur'an, 22:39). It is not legitimate to declare war because of differences in religion, or in search of spoils of war."

Osama has quoted Qur'an 22:39 in his communiques. He is waging defensive jihad, not "war because of differences in religion, or in search of spoils of war." The problem is that with unbelief itself constituting aggression for some Islamic authorities, and given the Qur'anic command to fight unbelievers until "religion is all for Allah" (8:39), it is cold comfort to unbelievers, and no restraint for jihadists, to remind them that they should only be fighting aggression. There is here no simple and straightforward declaration that Muslims should not fight non-Muslims and attempt to subjugate them under Sharia.

The rest has to do again with takfir, the practice of declaring a fellow Muslim outside the fold of Islam. Whatever degree of genuine reform this may constitute, it does nothing about the jihad against unbelievers:

"The concept of loyalty and enmity (Al-Wala wa Al-Bara) must never be used to declare anyone out of the fold of Islam, unless an actual article of unbelief is held by the person.

In all other cases, it actually involves several types of judgment ranging according to the juridical five-fold scale: (permissible, recommended, not recommended, non-permissible, and required). Therefore, it is not permissible to narrow the application of this concept and use it for declaring a Muslim outside the fold of Islam," the New Declaration said....

Oh darn. Well, it’s not as important as Sarah Palin’s Facebook page anyway. 

Shortly before the controversial Tea Party rally in Harry Reid’s hometown of Searchlight, Nevada there was a nationally organized anti-war rally on March 20th to mark the 7 year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. It took place in cities across the country with group participants such as “ANSWER” and “United for Peace and Justice” and many, many others. You probably didn’t hear much about it because Bush is out of office now. Anti-war protests just don’t command the media attention they used to. This particular confluence of conviviality featured such lovely messages as: 

To stop all war’s [sic] you must do one thing: Be kind to animal’s [sic]; spay and neuter all filthy Jews. 

Israel — not Muslims — did 9/11 (with Jewish & Gentile U.S. zionist helpers)

These signs came out of the rally in Los Angles, CA which was loaded with 9/11 truthers who are notoriously anti-semitic. By the way, I had to insert the nonexistent punctuation for the first sign to make it legible. Such a cerebral crowd these protests draw! 

This person caught some really great shots. Lots and lots of Swastikas and Stars of David. Here’s just one example:

[Solidier’s Name & Photo] Global Hatred and Deceit of “Chosen People” Cannibalized by [Swastika]=[Star of David] 9/11 Is Indeed Zionist Conspiracy 

But really, that’s not the half of it. These “peace” rallies generate some of the most disgusting rhetoric on the political landscape. One man scrawled on an American flag,

American imperialism by theft and murder

Another sign:

Free abortion on demand! Women’s liberation through Socialist Revolution! 

One picture from the same event shows a t-shirt with the words, 

F*** Capitalism (® Revolution Books)

which you could purchase for a mere $15.00. There is no better repudiation of capitalism than purchasing — for the low price of $15.00 — a mass-produced, registered trademarked garment which say so. Be the first socialist on the block to have one!   

Here are some more photos from San Francisco. I especially enjoy the first protester’s apt use of the word “BullS***” to fully capture the range of his frustration. What a jubilant fellow. 

But remember! It’s the Tea Partyers you really have to be afraid of. 

**Note: Lead image not taken from a March 20th, 2010 protest. 

__

Nichole Hungerford is Social Media Director and Contributor to Smart Girl Nation. You can follow her work at Obama Porn or via Twitter @ObamaPorn. 

Yesterday, in Part 1 of this article, I explained the difference between hard and soft indoctrination and expressed a hope that the latter could be combated if students had the knowledge and the courage to bring non-Marxist texts into their classroom discussions.

My own journey follows a similar dual path of experiences and books though is not as dramatic as Horowitz’s.

It was also as a collector that I began to seriously understand the single most important difference between leftists and conservatives: the reality of human nature. Through my interactions with both those on the other side of the phone and my colleagues and bosses within the call center I realized the reality of how people actually are: we are evil, lazy, cruel, self-interested, and stupid. In other words we are broken. And we — people with our human nature — are the root cause of all social problems. It doesn’t matter if you pass laws, elect new politicians, or change to a new system of government. Our problems will still remain because we will still be here.

I was disturbed yesterday when seeing the news that David Frum had resigned or potentially been “forced out” of his position at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI.) Frum and NewsReal Blog have had their disagreements in the past but I genuinely like and respect the guy.

Frum’s not an enemy who should be slammed like a Ward Churchill. Nor are his deviations from conservative “orthodoxy” beyond the pale — as John Guardiano pointed out last night here at NRB in a post whose general sentiments I support. A broad range of views is necessary for a healthy political movement. One ideological tendency must check another less the whole train fly off the rails.  (And that’s why at NRB we have plenty of people who do not agree on every issue.)

But is this question of challenging the conservative status quo really why Frum left AEI? Today at the Corner Charles Murray disputes this narrative:

I have known and liked David and Danielle Frum for many years, and what I am about to write will end that friendship. I regret that. But his statement goes beyond self-serving. It is a calumny against an organization that has treated him not just fairly but generously.

Regarding donor pressure: The idea that AEI donors sit down to talk with AEI’s president about who should and shouldn’t be on the staff, or what the staff should write, is fantasy. David has never seen the slightest sign of anything like that at AEI. He can’t have. He made it up. AEI has a culture, the scholars are fiercely proud of that culture, and at its heart is total intellectual freedom. As for the reality of that intellectual freedom, I think it’s fair to say I know what I’m talking about. I’ve pushed it to the limit. Arthur Brooks is just as adamant about preserving that culture as Chris DeMuth was, and Chris’s devotion to it was seamless.

I do not have any certain information to convey about David’s departure, except what Arthur Brooks has already said publicly: David resigned. He could have stayed. But I will tell what is common knowledge around AEI: David got a handsome salary but, for the last few years, has been invisible as a member of the institute.

Whether Frum was forced out of AEI by angry donors or if he simply was not pulling his weight at the institution is not something on which I’m about to speculate.

But what I will say is that Huffington Post’s framing of this issue should not be accepted. Frum’s resignation from AEI does not demonstrate the Right is intolerant of those whose positions on every issue fail to match “the Party line.”

And this is not something that conservatives need to take sides on. It’s not AEI vs Frum. That’s fruitless infighting — and plays into what the Left wants. The real concern that we should be having is how the Left is spinning this event in an attempt to slander the Right as intolerant.

Last night, I started seeing stuff in my Twitter feed about “#AnnCoulter,” “2000 protesters,” people throwing tables, and even people being whisked to the U.S. Embassy for protection. Ann Coulter was in our nation’s capital, to speak at the University of Ottawa.

I’d seen her speak the night before, in London, Ontario, and like many people across Canada, was wondering what kind of reception she’d get at this next venue. After all, it was a U of O provost, known Frenchman Francois Houle (his real name), who’d sent Coulter that now-famous passive aggressive letter before her arrival, ever so politely advising her not to, you know, advocate genocide or incite violence on Canadian soil.

I expected a problem. I didn’t expect a riot.

Two veteran Parliament Hill reporters, Brian Lilley (mainstream media) and Deborah Gyapong (Christian media) were on the scene and filed reports. (Full disclosure: I consider both of them friends).

Here’s part of Lilley’s report:

One of the loudest protestors outside was Sameena Topan, the young woman holding the “safe place” sign. Sameena told me she brought that sign because, “This is a space for all students from all backgrounds to come and feel welcome.” Sameena went on to say that no student should feel threatened or marginalized.

Asked if she had protested, complained or tried to shut down Israeli Apartheid week, Sameena first seemed shocked at the question, then answered no.

Here’s part of Gyapong’s account:

When I got outside one of my blog readers came up to me and told me he had been inside the hall before 7 p.m. He said a group of people rushed the hall, jostling the three people who were at a table checking student ids and those who had registered. The table got pushed aside. When the volunteers said they needed order and for people to come to the table, some of the rowdies folded the table up and threw it aside. Then the volunteers decided it was too dangerous for them and they shut the doors to the auditorium.

(…)

One gal was waving one of Ann Coulter’s books around asking whether they should burn it. “Let’s debate this,” she says.

I’ll have more at my blog as the day goes on, but I should warn you that, because it is my blog and not David Horowitz’s, my language and views may be more salty than some NewsReal readers may be accustomed to.

Understand: Establishment Canada hates America, but paradoxically, cares desperately about what America says about our country, and seeks secondhand validation from any meager attention we might get from you; consider the thirty-years-worth of boilerplate Canadian puff pieces, bragging about how many now-famous comedians we’ve “given” to Hollywood, and how we built the arm (the arm!) on the Space Shuttle like, 500 years ago, to take two of the more pathetic examples. The “look at us! Pleeeeeze!!” b.s. surrounding the supposed wonderfulness of the recent Vancouver Winter Olympics (yawn) is another.

So for us, the Ann Coulter Riot is A. Very. Big. Deal. I expect lawsuits galore, questions about the pathetic security apparatus that “protects” our nation’s capital, criminal charges and countercharges, commemorative tee shirts (the “Coulter in Canada” one pictured above is now selling fast), magazine cover stories story — I forgot: we only have one magazine — and much more.

(Note: on the topic of security — “the university handed Coulter a bill to pay for her own security, something it doesn’t do for other speakers.”)

PS: if you hear something about a Muslim girl who asked Coulter a question in London, and was “stabbed in the heart” when Coulter told her to go ride a camel, do note that my husband outed the girl as a (now former) member of an anti-Israel Facebook group.

And as Michael Coren pointed out acidly, it’s other Muslims who are more likely to literally stab a Muslim girl in the heart, or other places, rather than an outspoken American pundit.

Here’s part of his Tuesday pre-riot interview with Coulter, complete with now-ironic opening segment:

A few days ago I took issue with the idea that Obama’s Health Care Reform bill would be his “Waterloo” and suggested instead it would be a long, slow, grinding defeat more along the lines of Napoleon’s retreat from Russia. Nothing in the last twenty-four hours has dissuaded me from this view.

I appreciate this puts me at odds with the “abandon your posts, all is lost” theme so eloquently expounded by David Frum for one, but I believe I can bear this with equanimity. I also know I risk being characterized as some bizarre gene-splice of Baghdad Bob and Pollyanna for my cockeyed optimism. Just call me madcap and read on.

With all due respect to Mr. Frum — who sensibly concludes the whole thing would have gone much better if we had just held hands with Obama — I get it that we lost last night and I get that it’s serious. Unlike Frum, who took this occasion to blame it all on Talk Radio and generally stamp his feet like a petulant child, I do not think the sky has fallen and all is lost.

I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. [...]

For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.

By the way, if there’s a bright spot in any of this, it’s that Frum has made himself even more irrelevant, but I digress.

There is no question Obama took a lot of ground last night. It is not at all clear how much he will be able to hold. As discussed previously, the states are gearing up for a fight that will doubtless end up in the Supreme Court. There are clear obstacles to the passage of reconciliation in the Senate, including a rules issue that the Democrats effectively suppressed before House passage.

These factors, quite by themselves, guarantee HCR will be a war of attrition extending far beyond November.  Now David Frum has pronounced repeal impossible, so I guess that’s that, but just in case he is mistaken I would prefer to see for myself after November. Ditto the Supreme Court, States rights issue and/or the possibility of starving this thing of funding.

A key to why any or all of the above is possible is found in a remarkable article in The Huffington Post — nestled deep in a forest of high-five’s — entitled Healthcare Reform & The Radicalization of Betsy & Robby.

Tonight the House of Representatives passed historic legislation with President Obama’s health care package and some pundits are saying the battle for health care is over. But far from being over, I’m afraid a deeply partisan battle-dare I say it-a war is only just beginning because of the manner in which this victory was won.

I say this because of two friends of mine: Betsy and Robby, my formerly apolitical friends who have been radicalized by the experience of the last 15 months and if they are any indication of the mood of the country, and I believe they are, the Democratic party is in for a political wake-up call of historic proportions in November.

It is illuminating that the Left (or at least its smarter segment) is coming to an appreciation of the dragon’s teeth Obama and the Democrats have sown with HCR. When the LA Times is running headlines the day after “history making” legislation entitled After healthcare vote, Democrats turn to damage control you know the party hats might be the first victim of rationing.

The party now must live or die with its landmark legislation in hundreds of congressional districts across the country, in the most hostile midterm election climate Democrats have faced since the Republican landslide year of 1994.

“Given that Democrats have basically lost the healthcare messaging fight for the last year, I’m not sure why we should think they will begin to win over the next seven months,” said Charlie Cook, one of Washington’s leading election handicappers. […]

Democrats who cast an aye vote Sunday and, as a result, may have to await history’s verdict in forced retirement.

Translation Dems: You’ve been lied to again. This is not going to go away. Your leader did in fact fire up the base, but unfortunately it was the wrong base, and like the Cossacks before them who harried the French all the way back to the Champs Elysees, they are really, really p*ssed.  Ignore that little nebbish Frum, the conservatives aren’t dead, in fact they’re feeling pretty good.  It doesn’t matter to them how long this takes, or the exact manner in which it happens. You are now their full-time project.

So while you struggle with that champagne cork reflect on one last thing. On the long march home Napoleon’s soldiers literally dropped in the snow from starvation and the cold while their leader rode home in a carriage with three meals a day. One of the more astute of you might need to explain this to Bart Stupak.

No sooner did the Obama administration denounce Israel for its building activities in Jerusalem than hordes of violent Palestinian thugs took to the city’s streets. As usual, the Palestinians decided to show the world how sacred Jerusalem is to them by filling it with violence.

That the Arab riots followed so closely after the Obama administration’s very public recriminations against Israel was no coincidence. Vice President Biden, a self-proclaimed Zionist, had trouble containing his anger at Israel. On an official state visit to Israel, his Kodak moments were interrupted when an Israeli official announced that Israel has plans to build a lot of new housing in East Jerusalem. Biden was aghast at the chutzpah. Secretary of State Clinton issued a series of shrill verbal attacks against Israel. Talk about a “disproportionate response!”

To put the Obama Administration’s temper tantrum over Jerusalem into perspective, one has to try to imagine the following reasoning. How dare the Jews construct housing in their own capital? Just because Washington builds housing in the District of Columbia without asking its allies for permission does not mean that the Israelis can build the same way in their capital! Don’t those Israelis realize that the United States has plans to transfer East Jerusalem to the terrorists of the Palestinian Authority or its Hamas overlords?

The official American anger has yet to die down. The State Department is in a huff over Israel allowing Jews to move into the Simon the Righteous neighborhood in East Jerusalem, also known as Sheikh Jarrah. You may recall that Sheikh Jarrah was where a horrific massacre of a convoy of Jewish medical personnel headed for the Hadassah Hospital on Mt. Scopus took place in 1948. Seventy nine Jews were murdered in cold blood and their bodies mutilated.

East Jerusalem was made Judenrein, with its Jews ethnically cleansed, in Israel’s 1948-49 war of independence. Before that Jews had lived in East Jerusalem almost without interruption since King David conquered it. Those attacking Israel are insisting that it leave that crime of ethnic cleansing in tact, un-redressed.

So why does the State Department object to Jews moving into homes in East Jerusalem, homes they legally and legitimately own? One answer may be that the State Department plans to force Israel to turn East Jerusalem over to some future Palestinian terror state, and that will be harder to do if East Jerusalem is filled up with Jews. But that is precisely the reason why Israel should build housing in East Jerusalem.

Israel’s position should be simply that if the Arab world refuses to come to terms and make peace with an Israel controlling all of Jerusalem, then we do not believe that they will come to terms or make peace with any Israel that has relinquished Jerusalem either. The Arabs can threaten Israel all they want about the dire consequences if Israel refuses to turn Jerusalem over to them. Israel’s response should be, “You can’t have it, period.”

And if there were any doubts as to who has the moral and legal right to control East Jerusalem, they were removed in the violent rioting by Palestinians over the opening of the rebuilt Hurva synagogue this week. Tradition has it that it stands on the site of synagogues going back to the second century AD. One synagogue standing there in the 1700s was destroyed, leading to the nickname of the site, the “Hurva” or “the Destruction.”  A later synagogue was constructed on the site in 1864. It remained there until Jordanian soldiers, who were illegally holding the Old City after 1948, demolished it.

The Hurva synagogue is nowhere near the Mosque of al-Aqsa or any other Islamic shrines in Jerusalem. It is located close to the Ramban or Nachmanides synagogue, which was converted by the pro-Nazi Grand Mufti into a mosque in 1948 and used as a factory under the Jordanian occupation. The Arabs have absolutely no legitimate claims to the site. Indeed, the reign of intentional destruction carried out by Jordan after 1948 should nullify altogether once and for all any claims the Arab world has to East Jerusalem.

Under Arab rule (by Jordan), the religious shrines of Jerusalem were systematically demolished, profaned and violated. Under Israeli rule, every religious group is free to practice its religion in Jerusalem and its shrines are protected. Thus, Arabs forfeited any moral claims they might have once had to govern the city when they trashed the Jewish shrines of the city. And if Arabs continue to take to violence when Jews open a synagogue, then there is only one conclusion that Israel can draw: there is nothing to negotiate.

The sacred institution of incestuous child rape is the very glue which binds civilized societies such as those found in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Cleveland.

Oh, this post is kinda dark and slightly sarcastic, so heads up, everyone.

David, our managing editor, had asked me a while ago to respond to David Forsmark’s post, Marriage is civilized society’s foundational contract, in which he makes the case for government enforcement and regulation of marriage contracts, because, as he claims, “marriage is civilized society’s foundational contract.” I never got around to responding because this set off a still ongoing debate with my mother regarding Constitutional law.

So I pose the question of what civilized societies are to do about Islamic “marriages,” which have little, if anything, in common with any legitimate definition of “marriage.”

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines marriage thusly:

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

Islamic “marriage” does meet definition (2), provided that one considers the signing of a contract specifying money for sex by one of the parties involved to be a “rite.” Aside from the contract (which is not consensual, since a male family member must sign the contract on behalf of the “bride”), Islamic “marriage” (nikah) refers to the act of sexual intercourse. (The word literally means “to penetrate.”) In no way does it refer to an institution of any sort, which is why calling off an Islamic marriage (which can only be done by the husband) consists of firing or repudiating a “wife,” not divorcing her. She has a job, not a role, and that job consists of being sexually available.

Because no minimum age for “marriage” is established anywhere in any authoritative Islamic text, and because the ideal “marriage” for all Muslims for all time is the sale of little Aisha at age six to her 51-year-old uncle, a one-day-old baby girl can be “married” under Islamic law.  As a consequence, child “marriage” is quite common in the Muslim world.

Also common in the Muslim world is the practice of honor killing, in which family members murder their daughters and sisters out of a belief that they have brought shame on the family. What the neighbors think is far more important than human life, especially female human life, in Islamic culture. These “marriages,” which are traditionally arranged, are typically if not explicitly carried out under threat of death.

As mentioned above, the ideal “marriage” for all Muslims for all time was a close incestuous one. The “Perfect Man” also “married” his daughter-in-law, considered a daughter in the Arabian culture of the time. Consequently, cousin marriage and niece-uncle marriages (mostly in South Asia) are the norm among Muslims.

Demonstrating the timelessness of the Sunna of Muhammad, Al-Arabiya recently ran a story about a little Aisha, a poor Yemeni girl whose father sold her (as is required by the Sharia unless she is to be doomed to hellfire) to an old man for $1000. Both her former owner (her father) and her current owner (her “husband”) drugged and ruthlessly beat her on a daily basis so that she would be more submissive when her “husband” “married” her.

What 10-year-old Aisha did not know was that after the wedding party she would have to leave school, move to a village far from her parents’ home, cook and clean all day, and have sex with her older husband.

“He took out a special sheet and laid me down on it,” Aisha told IRIN, wringing her small plump hands. “After it, I started bleeding. It was so painful that I was crying and shouting, and since then I have seen him as death.”

Like a horse and carriage. Now Aisha is 12 and stuck in her “marriage,” having no legal recourse under Sharia. She can never escape or become an autonomous human being. She is lucky that her family has not killed her for repeatedly fleeing her “husband.”

If Aisha’s “husband” were to bring her to the U.S. tomorrow the State Department would recognize this instance of child sex slavery as a valid marriage. The institution of selling one’s 10-year-old daughter into a lifetime of being a victim of horrific violence under threat of death is perfectly kosher under current U.S. law, provided that the sale contract was agreed upon in a jurisdiction in which this actually constitutes “marriage,” or probably over the phone with someone in Pedophiliastan.

Sharia makes no distinction between sex, rape, child molestation, and incest, provided that both buyer and seller (both of whom must be men, naturally) have agreed upon the contract and the fee has been paid. It’s all “marriage,” and it’s all perfectly valid because our government endows it with legal legitimacy. I asked an Arabic-speaking friend of mine to translate one of the article’s sub-headers, entitled “Rape Not Marriage,” then I asked him to translate it in fewer than ten 140-character tweets but he couldn’t because the Arabic language and Muslim culture more generally simply lack any concept of consent on the part of a female who has been purchased or captured by a Muslim male.

Is raping one’s six-year-old niece at knifepoint “civilized society’s foundational contract?” Because Islamic “marriages” carried out abroad are legally valid in the United States, despite the fact that they meet no objective definition of marriage and every objective definition of slavery.

So should we maintain this lovely status quo simply because gubbmint sanctions it? Should we declare all marriages and other contracts carried out abroad invalid in the U.S.? Should we discriminate against Muslims and just declare marriages carried out under Sharia invalid? Or should we just all take this as the ultimate example of how and why giving government authority to dictate our interpersonal relationships just because it seems like a smart social engineering measure in theory (but is merely a way to exploit us for socialistic tax purposes in practice) is a really bad idea, relieve government of this authority, and stop allowing people to bring children to our country for the express purpose of raping them simply because a marriage/rape/incest/child molestation/penetration contract from a nation in which women and Jews don’t enjoy the legal status of people validates it?

This is why government should not involve itself in personal matters of no legal consequence: because felonies become valid institutions when government involves itself in our personal lives. Only government could turn incestuous child sex slavery into a respectable institution just by ostensibly looking out for us. On the other hand, at least it was a good idea when government got into the marriage business, back when they were in it for the sake of maintaining racial purity rather than enforcing socialism through the oh-so valid concept of “dependents.”

Thank God Mother Government is there to validate slavery contracts between incestuous pedophiles and their slaves’ fathers while invalidating relationships based on mutual love and commitment between consenting adults of the same sex. Without government to guide us, we stupid individuals might get crazy ideas in our heads, like little girls being entitled to human rights, slavery being illegal, frowning upon the forced prostitution of children (also Islamic “marriage,” called muta, urfi, or misyar), or inbreeding being a bad idea.

Those crazy Canadians are trying to stop this from happening, but no such initiative has ever been undertaken in the United States, thank goodness. We’ve got to protect society’s foundational contract at any cost. Fortunately, pedophiles are welcome to bring their purchased underage nieces and cousins to our taxpayer-subsidized universities on F-1 visas. The State department can’t issue them fast enough. Sadly, Indiana University ran out of funds or something so they no longer pay people to rape their own children (something about lawsuits), but our universities still sanction the incestuous rape of underage nieces, cousins, and half-sisters by importing them expressly for that purpose, as detailed in their “marriage” contracts. We taxpayers even subsidize cheap housing for children to get raped in on campuses all across America.  Awesome.

And of course we’ve got to look out for “refugees” from Sharia states and validate their “marriages,” because if we don’t give incestuous child molestation legal sanction people’s human rights might get violated.  Then where would little girls like Aisha go?

Let me join David Swindle in saying that you owe it to yourself to read Jamie Glazov’s warm and gripping tribute to his father, Yuri Glazov, a scholar and dissident who stood up to the Soviet machine even as it moved to crush him.

David writes, “Jamie has finally written the kind of piece I’ve been bugging him to do for months…”

Here’s a sample of why:

On February 24, 1968, my father signed the Letter of Twelve, a letter written and signed by twelve Soviet dissidents to the Supreme Congress of Communist Parties in Budapest denouncing Soviet human rights abuses. He was immediately fired from his work for being “unprofessional” in his scholarly studies (even though he previously had received high praise for his academic studies).

…During this time, a friend of our family’s told my dad that, under vicious harassment by the KGB (they had discovered an affair she was having and threatened to tell her husband), she had agreed to be a witness for them in a trial against my father that would charge (and convict) him of selling foreign currency and drugs on the black market (which she would place in our apartment).

Consider this the official beginning of my lobbying effort to Jamie to turn this brave and compelling family saga into a book—a true and lasting memorial to his father.

In the meantime, you can help keep the legacy of this brave man alive.  Dr. Glazov taught for more than two decades at Canada’s Dalhousie University, and a memorial scholarship was established in his name.  However, as Jamie writes:

My father’s career at Dalhousie lasted twenty years – until his retirement in 1995. To honor his memory, a memorial award was established in his name. But funding for this award has been scarce and now the possibility has emerged that it will be shut down. This memorial fund is really the only marker in existence that publicly keeps alive who my dad was, what he did, and what he represented. It symbolizes the struggle of all dissidents for truth and for freedom. If some funds begin to materialize, the memorial award for my father can remain in existence. I would like to put a request to all of you who care and who can help, to kindly click on this site at Dalhousie to read about the Yuri Glazov Memorial Award and to contribute in any way you can – and even the smallest contribution will count a lot.

We all enjoy the freedom of the “new media” to get online and express our opinions, advocate for freedom, and rail against the prevailing academic culture which ignores the contributions of brave men like Yuri Glazov, while it celebrates those who would collaborate with evil like Ward Churchill and Howard Zinn.

So, here is your chance to actually do something about it.  How about it?  Let’s put our money where are keyboards are.

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Dave Gaubatz, the first U.S. civilian (1811) Federal Agent deployed to Iraq in 2003. He is the owner of DG Counter-terrorism Publishing. He is currently conducting a 50 State Counter-terrorism Research Tour (CTRT). He is the co-author (with Paul Sperry) of the new book, Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that’s Conspiring to Islamize America. He can be contacted at davegaubatz@gmail.com and his site is MuslimMafiaInternational.com.

FP: Dave Gaubatz, welcome back to Frontpage.

Before we begin I would like to describe the picture above that represents this interview. Undercover non-Muslims Stefanie and Charety are siting at the CAIR table. They are speaking to Khalid Iqbal, who was assigned as the CAIR/VA Director at the time. When CAIR/VA  closed due to the Morris Days fraud, Iqbal went to the ADAMS Center.

David, I would like to talk to you today about American heroes like Stefanie and Charety who have done dangerous undercover work inside Islamist organizations, risking their lives to protect this country.

Let’s begin this conversation by talking a bit about your son Chris, who was recently featured in a Frontpage article by Robert Spencer.

Chris was the lead researcher for your project in which you had several people go undercover inside CAIR National for over 6 months. Tell us a bit about what Chris and others like him have been doing for this nation.

Gaubatz: In 2010, Chris and numerous other Americans are doing what our government and law enforcement are not doing: They are exposing Islamic based terrorist groups working inside our country.

When the term “Islamic terrorism” first began being used in daily conversations after 9/11, we coined another phrase: “Our First Line Defenders.” This was assumed to be our law enforcement and other emergency essential personnel. These people are outstanding and help America, but in reality, in the current situation with Islamic terrorism, they are our “First Line Responders.”

FP: Please explain.

Gaubatz: Well, although many media organizations have tried to keep the truth from the American public, the reality is even the soccer moms and dads are realizing our law enforcement and other emergency crews simply respond to scenes after terrorist events have already been carried out.

The murders at Ft. Hood by a U.S. military officer are a prime example. Our law enforcement, emergency crews, and politicians could not get to the microphones fast enough to boast about how well they are handling the situation at Ft. Hood. Our FBI even came on board within 5 minutes and declared the murders were not a terrorist act. Hell, it takes longer for a State Trooper to give a speeding ticket than it did for our leading law enforcement agency to come to the conclusion that we had not suffered another Islamic-based terrorist attack.

I believe this was a focal point when the moms and dads of America finally woke up and realized the true nature of the Islamic Jihadist ideology. The jihadi groups are dangerous, they are capable, they have the desire, and they have the weapons and people who are fully prepared to kill innocent people at any given time they desire, and there is little our law enforcement can do, little our politicians (for the most part) will do, and they know our media is now influenced by ‘big money’ from various sources and they will report whatever the “big money” tells them to report.

FP: What impact has your best-selling book, Muslim Mafia, had on all this?

Gaubatz: Muslim Mafia has been put into the hands of very important people who now see the truth of how Islamic terrorists operate. These people I am referring to are everyday Americans who have always depended on our law enforcement and politicians to protect them. Our book has opened their eyes. They now see there has been ample evidence for many years that Islamic terrorist groups and their supporters are operating freely inside America, and often with the support of politicians and our Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The terrorist supporters hide under the blankets of non-profit organizations and are given a do-as-you-will-stamp of approval by the IRS.

FP: Who are America’s true heroes then?

Gaubatz: The heroes in our country remain the same as they have for over 200 years. They are your autoworkers, plumbers, secretaries, retailers, farmers, waiters/waitresses, moms, dads, grandparents.  They are the people who politicians, law enforcement work, military, and yes Mr. President, even you work for the people of our country.

To first overcome and defeat Islamic terrorist groups and their supporters such as the Muslim Brotherhood (CAIR and ISNA) we must go through a transformation and realize the American people are the heroes when they begin to do the job our politicians should have been insuring has been done (securing our country for our children).

The true heroes are indeed people like Chris and my other counter-terrorism researchers like Charety and Stefanie, the two women you mentioned earlier who are in the picture used to represent this interview. Also Daniel and Marylyn. They went inside the belly of the beast within the Muslim Brotherhood. They risked their lives to obtain evidence exposing the Muslim Brotherhood operation, which is alive and well in our country. They had numerous people behind the scenes (everyday Americans) providing intelligence on a daily basis that helped me as the Director of the Project to make the day to day decisions to insure they were conducting the undercover work in a professional and legal manner. Some of these people I can only mention by first name. They are our heroes: Mira, Steve, Wendy, Christine, Frank, David, and many more.

FP: Tell us some more about Charety and Stefanie. It must be a lot more trickier and dangerous for women to do undercover work among Islamists.

Gaubatz: Charety and Stefanie truly were outstanding. These two young ladies had no prior training in counter-terrorism and knew virtually nothing about Islam, yet they were able to accomplish more than seasoned law enforcement veterans.  I trained them to the level that they needed to be at so that they would fit in with CAIR and as Muslims. These ladies put their lives on the line to infiltrate a Muslim “civil rights” organization that actually shares the same violent ideology as al-Qaeda and Hamas. Charety and Stefanie were able to meet the Executive leaders within CAIR, both at the recently closed CAIR/VA office and CAIR National.

FP: What was the most important thing Charety and Stefanie did within CAIR?

Gaubatz: Charety and Stefanie began working inside CAIR National well before Chris did. They paved the way for Chris to begin working inside. Both of these ladies did what I needed accomplished the most. They provided me with the intelligence about the makeup of the CAIR National office in regards to personnel, daily operations, and their internal/external security measures.

During my many years with an elite investigative agency (AFOSI), we found that in order to penetrate any organization you must have the “target” come to you. This tactic alleviates the majority of the concerns our law enforcement agencies have today. If you try to infiltrate a criminal organization, the leaders are very cautious of new people — unless they were referred by someone they trust.

Nihad Awad, Hooper, Saylor and other leaders within CAIR knew and trusted both Stefanie and Charety. Stefanie determined CAIR National had several weak areas. Essentially, CAIR did not even follow their written procedures in regards to security. Some people would sign into CAIR, but on numerous occasions it just came down to who was working the front desk at CAIR.  Chris was able to transfer into CAIR National because of CAIR’s internal problems and because Stefanie did a fantastic job. Chris was allegedly Stefanie’s brother. Chris, Stefanie, and Charity worked various CAIR events and they were all praised by Nihad Awad and others for their outstanding performance. Little did CAIR know that everyday Stefanie and Charety were obtaining very valuable intelligence on their organization.

FP: Wow, this sounds like incredible and daring stuff. These truly are heroes. What a catastrophe and tragedy that our common citizens have to do this kind of thing, since the government and law-enforcement are failing to do so on so many realms.

Let’s touch on a few other issues. The charge has been made against you, as expected, that you have a grudge against Muslims. How would you respond?

Gaubatz: Anyone who says I do not like the Muslim people or do not care for them was not with me in Iraq (2003) and are either politicians trying to stay on the most popular side of the fence or media who support terrorists more than they do Americans who fought terrorists.

It is well documented by U.S. government records and a good friend (Mohammed Rehaeif, Iraqi lawyer who helped rescue Private Jessica Lynch in Nasiriyah, Iraq) and his family of how I risked my life for many Muslims to prevent them from being killed by Islamic terrorists in Iraq.

Often so-called investigative journalists who make ridiculous claims that I do not care for the Muslim people should ask themselves where they were at the start of the war in Iraq. Were they safe at home while many Americans like me were in Saudi and Iraq willing to give their lives for the Muslim people? The answer is 99.9% were safely at home while I was in Iraq. My wife, son, and daughter are the only ones I need to convince of my caring for all people, regardless of race, religion, or culture. If you are a terrorist or terrorist supporter I have openly said, “I do not want you in America and will legally do everything to expose your group and the treasonous actions you support.”

A good question for all politicians and media is: Do they agree or disagree with my statement?

FP: That is an important question that was touched on by Eric Stakelbeck of CBN during his recent interview with the radical Islamic leader, Anjem Choudhary, in the UK.

Your thoughts on Islam and the argument that it is a “Religion of Peace”?

Gaubatz: Eric Stakelbeck did an outstanding job during his interview and raised many important issues pertaining to Islamic based terrorism. CBN did not have to travel though to another country to find Islamic leaders with the same thought process and ideological beliefs as Choudhary.

During our undercover research with CAIR National and during our research at over 200 Islamic Centers in America, we found that there are numerous Choudharys residing amongst us. They are in most cities and organizations such as CAIR.  Many times these are the type Islamic leaders CAIR invites to their fundraising events, such as Ahmed Sakr, Siraj Wahaj, Zaid Shakir. These are examples of Islamic leaders/scholars who share the same ideology as Choudhary, but after 9/11, they are seldom as vocal as Choudhary is. They simply use the common deception tactic of using materials such as DVD’s and literature to say the exact things Choudhary does openly.

Now, the question of Islam being a Religion of Peace? It is really not as important what any individual person believes or doesn’t believe unless he/she has evidence to support their belief.  For most of my adult life I have worked intelligence and counter-terrorism issues.  I was trained by our government to analyze information and material evidence in order to come to an analytical conclusion about potential threats to our country.

Again, this is well documented by government records. Based on what I have seen and evidence I have obtained for many years on behalf of our government and during private counter-terrorism research, Islam is based more on a political, economic, and military ideology than on a religious ideology, and therefore the question of Islam being a “Religion of Peace” is secondary.

Islamic leaders worldwide have tried, and continue to try, to explain this point I am making to non-Muslims almost on a daily basis. Saddam tried to explain this, the Iranian leader is currently trying to explain this, Choudhary is trying, al-Qaeda is trying, and the Taliban are trying to explain this to the world. The sad fact is, we just do not want to listen.

There are many Muslims who do want peace, education for their children, medical care for their families, and employment to support and care for their families. But to the millions of Muslims who believe exactly as Choudhary, they are not acting in accordance with Sharia law if they do not seek to physically fight their enemies. And the enemies of Islam are currently the people of Israel and anyone or country that supports them and anyone/country that they consider to be oppressors of Islam. All non-Muslims are deemed as enemies and that belief is rooted in Islamic theology.

CAIR’s Nihad Awad and Ibrahim Hooper would be the first to say Islam is being oppressed throughout the world. And the oppressors are non-Muslims. One need only review the documents we obtained (ones they were preparing to shred) during our undercover research. A sampling is in our book, Muslim Mafia.

FP: CAIR has filed a lawsuit against you for conducting the undercover research in their organizational headquarters and CAIR/VA. Can you provide an update?

Gaubatz: There have been recent legal updates on the lawsuit and WND has covered them in their articles. We have expected the lawsuit because we understand how terrorist supporters operate more than they do themselves. We have the best attorneys (Martin Garbus, Daniel Horowitz, and others). CAIR (Muslim Brotherhood) have always used lawsuits against corporations and people who cave in to their terrorist tactics.

FP: Will you be putting together any other counter-terrorism research projects?

Gaubatz: I will devote my time and resources to uncover terrorism issues that are being ignored by many politicians and senior law enforcement executives. When the FBI and other organizations begin doing the job they are paid to do (protect our country) and there are no longer any terrorist threats in America, I will retire from counter-terrorism research. Until then I will have teams in the field, as long as resources are available.

I would like to conclude with statements made by Islamic leaders who CAIR and other Islamic organizations support:

[1] “Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it.  Islam requires the earth—not just a portion, but the whole planet. Towards this end, Islam wishes to press into service all forces which can bring about a revolution and a composite term for the use of all these forces is ‘Jihad.’”

· Pamphlet: “Jihad in Islam,” pp.9 -10.  Syed Abul A’al Maududi (founder of JI terrorist organization).

[II] “Slay the disbelievers whenever you find them. The disbelievers should be killed in whatever month or time they are found”.

· Book: Ma’ariful Qur’an, Vol 1, p.534.

[III} “Islam is a revolutionary ideology and program which seeks to alter the social order of the whole world and rebuild it in conformity with its own tenants and ideals.”

· Pamphlet: Jihad in Islam, by Syed Abul A’la Maududi, p.8.

FP: Dave Gaubatz, thank you for joining us.

March 9 (Bloomberg) -- A Pennsylvania woman who used the alias Jihad Jane plotted to recruit jihadist fighters and conspired to commit murders overseas, according to an indictment unsealed in Philadelphia.

Colleen LaRose, also known as Fatima LaRose, of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, was charged with one count of conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists, one count of conspiracy to kill in a foreign country, one count of making false statements and one count of attempted identity theft, U.S. Attorney Michael Levy in Philadelphia said today in an e-mailed statement.

The case "demonstrates that terrorists are looking for Americans to join them in their cause, and it shatters any lingering thought that we can spot a terrorist based on appearance," Levy said.

LaRose and five unindicted co-conspirators located in South Asia, eastern and western Europe and the U.S. allegedly recruited men and women on the Internet who had the ability to travel to and around Europe. LaRose and the co-conspirators allegedly discussed plans including martyring themselves, soliciting funds for terrorists and avoiding travel restrictions to wage a "violent Jihad," according to the statement from the U.S. Attorney's Office....