Typical: Stifling debate on Islamic Terrorism

an article posted at FrontPage magazine this morning details the attempt of a student to invite Robert Spencer [of Jihadwatch.org, author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)" and other books clearly spelling out the dangers of islam] to East Tennesse State:

When East Tennessee State University (ETSU) grad student Sean Rife tried to bring author Robert Spencer to campus, he wasn’t looking to start a fight. As the president of ETSU’s Society for Intellectual Diversity (SID), a non-partisan student group that champions free debate and academic freedom, Rife was just looking to stir discussion about a subject, Islamic terrorism, which increasingly has come to dominate Americans’ concerns. But a fight – and a lesson in politically correct bullying – is exactly what he got.

It began when Rife presented his request to the school’s Student Government Association. Like any other student, Rifled filled out the required paperwork, and submitted a funding request to a student government committee. Then, on Monday, he went before the committee to discuss his request – and that’s when the trouble started.

“I immediately got the impression that they were never seriously going to consider approving our request,” Rife said. Confirming the impression was the loaded question put to him by one the student representatives, Chad Hall. “He asked whether inviting Robert Spencer to campus would make Muslim students feel ostracized,” Rife recalls. “I thought that was pretty telling.”

Seems the pc left is spread far, wide and deep on college campuses today. Troubling. But not surprising.

Read the complete article here.

Islamization: Stop Kidding Ourselves

In a symposium published yesterday on the pages of FrontPage Magazine, an assembled group of scholars discussed the challenges of confronting Islamization of western society, the daily jihad that's going on in our courts and MSM.

One participant, Abul Kasem, is an ex-Muslim who is the author of hundreds of articles and several books on Islam including, Women in Islam and a contributor to the books Leaving Islam – Apostates Speak Out and Beyond Jihad: Critical Views From Inside Islam. He outlines what some would view as dramatic measures to curtail the growth of Islam in the west:

Surprisingly, it will not be that difficult to defeat the agenda of Islamists to plant the root of Islamic Multiculturalism in a free and democratic society. All that is needed is a good (or working) knowledge of Islam, its history of propagation through violence and terror, and its adoption of taqiyya and kitman when the going is tough.

Once non-Islamic the policy makers comprehend what Islam is about, it is quite straight forward to defeat it in its own game. In our interview, as well as in many of my other interviews, I have indicated a few methods to contain the rapid ingress of Islamic Multiculturalism.

Here are a few specific steps that the un-Islamic world might adopt to stop this menace:

[1] Adopt tough policies on the entry of Islamists to non-Islamic countries. However, we must make a distinction between the large number of in-name-only Muslims and the diehard, jihad-infused, conniving, pan-Islamists.

[2] Enforce strict restrictions on the construction of mosques and Islamic seminaries. If this sounds unethical/ and or infringing on the religious rights, please note
the non-existence and disallowance of construction of non-Islamic worshipping centres in Islamic Paradises. We must call spade a spade.

[3] Stop paying jizya to the Islamists. Do not accede to any unreasonable demands solely by the Islamists. Keep other religious people in mind. Why must Islam be treated more favourably than other religions? Ask the Islamists this simple question.

[4] Halt the interfaith dialogue with Islam. Remember, Islam is uncompromising. There is no way Islam will accommodate un-Islam. Please read this sentence one more time and memorize. You will save a lot of time and money wasted to please Islam. We do not have to please Islam.

[5] Assert the un-Islamic (non-Islamic) cultures, traditions, customs and ethos. We must let the Islamic world learn a bit that the world is not prepared to accept its 7th century Arab Bedouin customs and laws.

[6] Reject any demand to impose Sharia in a non-Islamic society; even if it is in the pretence for Muslims only. Remember, Muslims are the first victims of Islam.

[7] Muslims migrating to non-Islamic countries must sign a declaration that they do not believe in pan-Islamism. If found contravening their signed declaration they should be stripped of their citizenship and promptly deported to the Islamic Paradise they had migrated from.

[8] Proselytizing by Islamic dawa must be strictly controlled, and if necessary, banned. If you think I am being unreasonable. Please look at the laws of Islamic Paradises (such as Malaysia, Pakistan, Sudan, Nigeria…) with regard to the propagation of other faith among the Muslims.

Once the civilized world adopts the above measures, we shall see how quickly Islamic Multiculturalism vanishes from the non-Islamic world.

I can't realistically see this happening in our PC society, especially with the likes of McCain or the Obamessiah running the country. Another participant, Rohan Gunaratna, demonstrates the current PC thinking by mainstream politicians, the military and the media: the problem is caused by a small group of people that are perverting Islam for their own use:

The challenge is the contemporary radical interpretation of Islam by a small groups of self appointed, taught or half baked clerics. Such a reinterpretation and misinterpretation seeks to create hatred against non-Muslims and Muslims who oppose the extremist views of al Qaeda and like minded groups.

Islamic scholar/terrorism expert (are the two mutually exclusive? Nope.) Steve Emerson chimed in with his take on the situation:

Emerson: Here we have the classic debate that surrounds the western conundrum in dealing with radical Islam. The solutions above range from an enforced abridgement of free speech (justified presumably by the comparable dangers of yelling fire in a crowded theatre) to the notion that the relatively small allure of Al Qaeda is the problem rather than the larger problem of militant Islam (justification of violence, belief in the imposition of the Sharia, support for radical Islamic groups such as Hamas and Hizbollah or plain old cultural jihadists) to the idea (fanciful in my opinion) that somehow the US model of how Muslims have assimilated should serve as the paradigm for how Muslims in Europe should also be treated and finally to the rather absurd notion (offered by Islamists in the West themselves) that radical Muslims in the West are merely acting out their “frustrations” out of “grievances.”

Let’s step back for a second and analyze the fundamental issues at hand without getting mired in the quicksand of sentimentality or the rhetorical bromides that make us feel good but are about as effective in fighting the Islamists as kumbaya sessions were in fighting the Ku Klux Klan.

Firstly, there are three types of jihadists or Islamists (a term that the Washington Post apparently feels might hurt the sensitivities of the jihadists): the military type (which we all recognize by the violence they inflict); the cultural jihadists—the ones that don’t pull the trigger but applaud those who do; and the political jihadists, who seek to change the balance of power by using Dawa, the ballot box and the tools of democracy. There is no one size fits all: Each one requires a nuanced response that ultimately seeks the same goal: defeating and delegitimizing the jihadists, first in the West, and then in the Middle East and Asia. Finally, there must be a recognition that virtually all Islamist movements in the world including the West originate in the Muslim Brotherhood, parent of Al Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and virtually every Sunni terrorist group in the world. The permutations of groups such as the Council on American Islamic Relations, the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, and the Islamic Society of North America all originate in the Muslim Brotherhood, a fact recently proven by the release of internal MB documents in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, a non profit shut down in December 2001 for serving as a front for Hamas.

Emerson goes on to say the problem of 'militant' Islam is much larger than al-quaeda and has much more influence on the muslim community than our policymakers believe.

Robert Spencer, author of several books about Islam who runs the website Jihad Watch, discussed the 'blind eye' our current government, military and society are taking to the real Islam:

Spencer: The difficulty we’re having in this Symposium stems from sharply differing assumptions about the nature of Islam and the sentiments of the great majority of Muslims. Abul Kasem wants “Muslims migrating to non-Islamic countries” to “sign a declaration that they do not believe in pan-Islamism,” and calls upon Western governments to “reject any demand to impose Sharia in a non-Islamic society.” Rohan Gunaratna, however, apparently disagrees, saying that “Islamization, a form of religiosity (being religious)” is not the problem, but merely “the contemporary radical interpretation of Islam by a small groups of self appointed, taught or half baked clerics.”

Spencer goes on to say:

Dr. Gunaratna seems to have missed entirely the traditionalist character of the jihadist appeal among Muslims: jihadists present themselves as the true and pure Muslims, reviving the authentic practice of Islam where it has fallen by the wayside. By means of this appeal, they have gained recruits among peaceful Muslims, nominal Muslims, new converts to Islam, and others. And no significant movement has arisen among peaceful Muslims opposing in any serious way this use of Islam.

Spencer's conclusions:

In light of all this, I’d say that the first thing we have to do is stop kidding ourselves. {emphasis mine - CTD} We have to stop soothing ourselves with comforting half-truths. Is the jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism a recent invention by heretical clerics? No. Are all Muslims jihadists, or even anything close to a majority? No. But is this fact any reason to assume that the peaceful majority opposes the contemporary global jihad? No. Undoubtedly many do, but the moderates on which Dr. Gunaratna and Dr. Kruglanski and Ayla Iqbal have placed such hopes have not organized themselves, have not acted decisively against the jihadists, and have not delineated an Islamic theological position that rejects jihadism.

Consequently, I believe that depending on them is to lean on a weak reed, and that we need to take strong and decisive steps, such as Abul Kasem outlines, to protect ourselves. Those who have criticized his plan have failed to note that he does not include all Muslims as jihadists within it, but leaves room, in point 7, for Muslims to practice their faith in the West shorn of the political and social elements that would have them attempting ultimately to impose it upon non-Muslims and subjugate them.

Stop kidding ourselves. Riiigghhtt... Let's just leave Iraq, abandon Israel, and gather in a circle with our 'moderate' muslim friends and sing 'Kumbaya' and it'll all go away.

Read the details of the symposium here.

Must-Read Book: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam by Robert Spencer

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)

Another excellent reference, the NY Times bestseller from the religious scholar and creator of Jihad Watch. I originally read it because I wanted to understand why they hate us, and why they want to kill us.

Turns out, it's not because we invaded Iraq. It's not because we took advantage of them and took their oil. It's not because of US Foreign policy. It's not because they're poor and jealous of the US economy. It's not because of the crusades 800 years ago.

They want to kill us because we are infidels. We practice the wrong religion. Period.

This is at the very core of their religion. There are no 'moderate' muslims. One way or another, they all want a caliphate, a world government ruled by islamic law, or sharia. They don't want to assimilate into other cultures, they want to consume other cultures.

The Crusades were actually a military response to islamic agression into Europe, to stem the tide of islamic expansion.

According to Spencer, we have three choices: we can convert to islam; we can retain our religion but pay a jizya, or penalty tax, and live as second-class citizens; or we can DIE.

It's no wonder islam is the world's fastest growing religion.

Sorry, Breck Girl. It's not a bumper sticker. This is the battle for our very judeo-christian civilization.

Read it.

AP: Report says al-Qaeda renewing efforts to sneak terror plotters into U.S.

From USA Today:

AP: Report says al-Qaeda renewing efforts to sneak terror plotters into U.S.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Al-Qaeda is stepping up its efforts to sneak terror operatives into the United States and has acquired most of the capabilities it needs to strike here, according to a new U.S. intelligence assessment, The Associated Press has learned.

The draft National Intelligence Estimate is expected to paint an ever-more-worrisome portrait of al-Qaeda's ability to use its base along the Pakistan-Afghan border to launch and inspire attacks, even as Bush administration officials say the U.S. is safer nearly six years into the war on terror.

Among the key findings of the classified estimate, which is still in draft form and must be approved by all 16 U.S. spy agencies:

• al-Qaeda is probably still pursuing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons and would use them if its operatives developed sufficient capability.
• The terror group has been able to restore three of the four key tools it would need to launch an attack on U.S. soil: a safe haven in Pakistan's tribal areas, operational lieutenants and senior leaders. It could not immediately be learned what the missing fourth element is.
• The group will bolster its efforts to position operatives inside U.S. borders. In public statements, U.S. officials have expressed concern about the ease with which people can enter the United States through Europe because of a program that allows most Europeans to enter without visas.

The document also discusses increasing concern about individuals already inside the United States who are adopting an extremist brand of Islam.

Is there any other kind of islam? Convert or die.

See my previous post about Hometown Jihad. The fourth element is probably government and social infiltration.

Why 'nice guy' muslims do what they do...

Apparently, this is a phenomenom that was a problem long before the jihad doctors of Great Britain had their little bomb-fest last week (and, incidentially, long before we invaded Iraq). From JihadWatch's Robert Spencer, at Frontpage magazine:

Why’s a Nice Guy Like You Doing a Terrorist Act Like This?
By Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com
April 18, 2007

According to former Detroit Public Schools Superintendent Eddie Green, Kifah Jayyousi is “a great guy, one of the nicest people I’ve ever met.” While Green was superintendent, Jayyousi oversaw the Detroit school district’s capital improvement program, which had a $1.5 billion budget.
Jayyousi is now charged, according to the Detroit Free Press, with “conspiring to kidnap, maim and murder by providing money, recruits and equipment for Islamic struggles in Bosnia, Kosovo and Chechnya from 1993 to 2001.” He could get life in prison.

Christopher Paul, a martial arts instructor at a mosque in Columbus, Ohio, is also a terrific guy. Ahmad Al-Akhras, vice chairman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations chapter in Columbus, said: “From the things I know, he is a loving husband and he has a wife and parents in town. They are a good family together.”

Yet now Paul, a Muslim, has been charged, according to Associated Press, with “providing material support to terrorists, conspiracy to provide support to terrorists and conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction.” He is accused of training with Al-Qaeda in the early 1990s, training people for violent jihad attacks on targets in Europe and the United States, and more.

But another one of Paul’s friends, Hisham Jenhawi, was skeptical: “I don’t think it’s even close to his personality to act upon something like that. He’s a very kind person. You would meet him on the street and he would want to hug you with the heart that he has.” One of his neighbors, Mike James, added: “He seemed like a nice guy, always waving…”

This kind of thing is nothing new. A friend remembered Gokhan Elaltuntas, a Muslim who carried out a suicide bombing on a synagogue in Istanbul in 2003: “We went partridge hunting together. I still cannot believe how such a quiet person could have been involved in an incident like this.” A friend of Naveed Haq, the jihadist killer who murdered one and wounded five at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle in July 2006, described him as “pretty much just a normal guy….He was the kind of guy when you talked to him he was always laughing.”

According to a Southern California friend of Raed Albanna, who killed 132 people in a suicide attack outside a medical clinic in Iraq in 2005, “He was into partying. We hit some pretty wild clubs in Hollywood.” Frank Lindh, the father of John Walker Lindh, a.k.a. Suleyman Al-Faris, the convert to Islam from Marin County who joined the Taliban and was captured in Afghanistan fighting against American troops, has said: “In simple terms, this is the story of a decent and honorable young man embarked on a spiritual quest.”

Great guys all. Some partied and some embarked on a spiritual search, but they all ended up in the same place, committing acts dedicated to furthering the cause of jihad, or facing charges of having done so.

One clue to this phenomenon may come from jazz musician Tarek Shah, who recently pled guilty to providing martial arts and hand-to-hand combat with weapons training to Al-Qaeda operatives. In 2004 Shah told a man he thought was a fellow jihadist but who turned out to be an undercover agent, “I could be joking and smiling and then cutting their throats in the next second.”

Or they may be genuinely decent fellows. It was the Nazi genocide mastermind Heinrich Himmler who told a group of SS leaders: “Most of you know what it means to see a hundred corpses lying together, five hundred, or a thousand. To have gone through this and yet -- apart from a few exceptions, examples of human weakness -- to have remained decent fellows, this is what has made us hard. This is a glorious page in our history that has never been written and shall never be written…”

Were these SS mass murderers really decent fellows? To their friends and family, they probably were. After all, they weren’t interested in undifferentiated mayhem. They were adherents of a totalitarian, genocidal ideology that convinced them that the murders they were committing were for a good purpose. As far as they were concerned, their goals were rational and good, and the murders were a means to that goal. It was not just a noteworthy achievement, but a necessity, for them to remain “decent fellows,” for they were busy trying to build what they saw as a decent society. That their vision of a decent society included genocide and torture did not trouble them, for it was all for – in their view – a goal that remained good.

Today’s jihad terrorists are likewise the adherents of a totalitarian, genocidal ideology that teaches them that murders committed under certain circumstances are a good thing. And those murders, here again, are not committed for their own sake, but for the sake of a societal vision hardly less draconian and evil than that of Hitler, but one also that portrays itself as the exponent of all that is good – as the Taliban showed us. But the continued reference to such people as “terrorists” pure and simple, and the refusal of the media and most law enforcement officials to examine their ideology at all, only reinforces the idea that these people are raving maniacs, interested solely in chaos for its own sake. The society they want to build, and the means besides guns and bombs that they are using to build it, so far remain below the radar screen of most analysts. These people are just “terrorists,” interested only in “terror.” And so we’re continually surprised when they turn out to be nice guys after all. Decent fellows. Like the SS.

I'm just saying...

London bombs probably a greeting to new prime minister from Al Quaeda

H/T to Jihad Watch. From Sky News:

Shane Brighton, a counter-terrorism expert, told Sky the device may be linked to Al Qaeda in the wake of Gordon Brown becoming Prime Minister. He said: "This is highly unlikely to be an Irish device, given the current state of politics there. Al Qaeda tend to go for symbolic timing."

There's a shock, eh?

JIHAD Watch: Muslim women at Love Field "acting suspiciously"

From Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch:

Camouflage pants under traditional Muslim garb.

"Women at Love Field 'acting suspiciously': Dallas: Police have no evidence

Muslims have ties to terrorists," by Jason Trahan for the Dallas Morning News, with thanks to Doc Washburn:

Dallas police and federal terrorism officials are investigating two women, both dressed in camouflage pants under their traditional Muslim robes and scarves, who were seen conducting what appeared to be surveillance and acting suspiciously at Dallas Love Field.

One of the women, Kimberly "Asma" Al-Homsi, 42, of Arlington, who is on probation for a 2005 Garland road rage incident involving a fake grenade, is said to have long-range assault rifle and explosives training, according to a Dallas police intelligence bulletin issued March 5.

"I'm a trained sniper and proud of it," Ms. Al-Homsi said in an interview Thursday after first refusing to comment on whether she has any terrorism ties. She then said no.

"We were watching the airplanes," Ms. Al-Homsi said. "That's not a crime, unless you're Muslim."

Sure. It's all about discrimination, racism, and Islamophobia. Just like 9/11.

Read the whole story.

UPDATE: From Debbie Schlussel:

**** UPDATE, 04/08/07: One of these women, Al-Homsi, confirms to Dallas/Fort Worth's WFAA-TV News, that she was friends with Wadih El-Hage, Osama Bin Laden's personal secretary (who lived in Texas), who is in prison, convicted of the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in East Africa. But law enforcement--federal and local--say she has "not ties to terrorism." Uh-huh. ****

Great. Nothing to see here folks. Just move along.

BTW, I didn't think we allowed dual citizenship? I thought, to become a US citizen, you had to give up any other citizenships?

Jihad update, at home and away...

In Pakistan (from Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch):

Release of up to 80 jihadists puts Pakistan counterterror efforts 'back to square one'
"As many as 80 hard-core militants are on the loose after being cleared by the courts or released on bail." Friend and Ally Update. "Freed jihadis put Pakistan's war on terror 'back to square one', say senior officers," by Massoud Ansari and Gethin Chamberlain for the Telegraph:

Anti-terrorism forces in Pakistan have been told to brace themselves for a wave of atrocities.

Intelligence officials warned that the security situation is now more precarious than it was before the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington.

Senior officers say they are "back to square one" in their fight against international terrorist groups after the release of dozens of militants by Pakistani courts. High-ranking police officials say that as many as 80 hard-core militants are on the loose after being cleared by the courts or released on bail.

They are believed to have been involved in crimes including the attempted assassination of President Pervez Musharraf and a suicide attack on the American consulate in Karachi.

In India (from Jihad Watch):

India: jihadists hide bombs in toys

Will the Islamophobia never end? "Bombs found hidden in toys - police," from Agence France-Presse, with thanks to Mao:

TWO suspected Islamic militants had been arrested with explosives hidden inside toys which they planned to blow up at a busy market in New Delhi, Indian police said today.

Samimullah and Ali Mohammad, both from Indian Kashmir, were arrested at a New Delhi railway station on suspicion of belonging to pro-Pakistan militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba, senior police official Karnal Singh said.

The arrests came amid tight security in the Indian capital ahead of New Year festivities.

"We received a tip-off that the two men would be coming by train from Jammu (the winter capital of Indian Kashmir)," Mr Singh said.

In Minneapolis:

1,500 in Minneapolis protest ouster of Sharia government in Somalia

What are 1,500 supporters of Islamic jihad and Sharia law doing in Minneapolis? What are the implications of this for our own national security? Why is no one with any power or influence even asking these questions?

"Area Somalis want peace for homeland: Many of the 1,500 protesters in Minneapolis were angered that the U.S. gave tacit support for ousting of Islamists," by Liz Fedor in the Star Tribune, with thanks to CGW."

Read all these stories and more at Jihad Watch.

FrontPageMag: America must overcome political correctness

From Robert Spencer's article on FrontPage Magazine:

If America is to survive, it is eventually going to have to choose national security over political correctness. Shahin has complained that he was “humiliated” and that the way the imams were treated was “terrible.” Indeed. It is terrible. It is terrible that he and the other imams who were taken off the plane, as well as other Islamic leaders in America, have allowed those who commit violence in the name of their religion to do so unimpeded and unchallenged. It is terrible that these and other Islamic scholars have responded only with vilification when asked about the teachings of their faith that promote violence, instead of with honest dialogue and attempts to reform those teachings. It is terrible that, if they were indeed removed from the plane for praying, they are among those who have allowed their religion to become so associated with violence that American citizens on an airplane become alarmed at the sight of Islamic prayer.

Amen, brother, amen.

Spencer: Some Clarification on his views

At his website Jihad Watch, islamic expert and author Robert Spencer attempts to set the record straight with the mud-slinging CAIR lovin' muzzys:

A general reply, for the record
A pre-Thanksgiving miscellany:

1. Islam is not a race. One does not become a racist by opposing the jihad ideology.
2. I do not wish to drive all Muslims into the sea.
3. I have never said that the only good Muslim is an ex-Muslim.
4. I have never said that Muslims want to kill all Jews and Christians.
5. I do not single out the jihadist interpretation of Islam and anoint it as the only legitimate interpretation. As I have pointed out many times, all the orthodox sects and schools of jurisprudence teach violent jihad. I would love to highlight mainstream peaceful Islamic sects that are regarded as orthodox by other Muslims. Unfortunately, such sects do not exist. Courageous sincere individual reformers are deeply appreciated and to be applauded, but they are just that -- individuals.
6. It is false that by pointing out how jihadists use the Qur'an and Islamic teaching, I am encouraging and legitimizing those jihadists or pushing moderate Muslims to become jihadists. In fact, they do not listen to me. More importantly, it is incumbent upon moderates to refute the jihad ideology if they can. But if I can find holes in the moderates' presentations, jihadists will find ten more. And so those moderate constructions will prove useless to do what must be done: convincing Muslims to be peaceful.
7. Tabari says Aisha was nine when Muhammad consummated his marriage with her. That he says more about Aisha doesn't mean that somewhere he contradicts this assertion.
8. "Apologist" is not a pejorative term. It means a defender of a faith. And when apologists say something, this doesn't mean that no one else says it.
9. Word has gone out that I support unrestricted immigration from Muslim countries, with adjustment only to screen for active jihadists. This is false.
10. Comments here are unmoderated. If you think I support the sentiments expressed in one, please establish that with quotations from my own writings.
11. I did not add the section of my FAQ about the need to "remain true to our principles of freedom and equality of rights and dignity for all" in response to critics who claimed that I wanted to subvert those principles. In fact, that has been part of the FAQ since the site began in October 2003.

Nice to see someone who consistently stands up to the islamic apologists set the record straight. Those of us without a pro-islamic bent (definitely does not include CAIR) have been able to see these truths clearly since we first started reading Mr. Spencer's work.