Archive for July, 2007

Major Concerens over proposed US aid to Arabs

July 29, 2007

Major concerns in US, over proposed US aid of $20 billion dollars to “friendly” Arabs US planning 20-billion-dollar arms package for Saudi Arabia: report
Today, Sunday, On CNN’s LateEdition, Both Rep. Charlie Rangel & D-New York
Rep. Charles Shays, R-Connecticut, where voicing concerns against proposed US aid in $20 bn. to Saudi Artabia.

Charlie Rangel: ‘They have not been our friends, it includes Arab nations such as: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, as well, and Israel should be nuts to agree to that “deal”‘.

If anyone would have asked my humble opinion, in case we would have to concede to such a deal… at least put the “Stop teaching little kids that non Muslims are Apes and Pigs”, as the first condition.

Technorati –

Arabs’ backed Chavez thinks he’s “god”

July 29, 2007

Honduran Congress demands Venezuela’s Chavez apologize International Herald Tribune, France – Jul 25, 2007
Chavezthinks he’s God and can trample upon other people”.

Anti Freedom anti Catholics anti human rights: Hugo Chavez paid for & backed by ARAB LOBBY

July 24, 2007

Anti Freedom anti Catholics anti human rights: Hugo Chavez paid for & backed by ARAB LOBBY

Chavez forging his own links / Venezuelan president makes arms …”The Arabs have appreciated Chavez’s declarations of support, and the Arab League has promised to lobby in behalf of Venezuela in the United Nations.”
President Chavez and Archbishop Porras spar punches in return bout
Critical foreigners will be expelled: Chavez
Defector: Chavez gave money to Al Qaeda
Chavez on Al Jazeera…

Al Arabyia Supports Chavez
The Chavez Regime: Fostering Anti-Semitism and Supporting Radical …”In that Zionist, criminal and terrorist state, the Arabs who are supposed … Report: Anti-Semitism on Rise in Venezuela; Chavez Government “Fosters Hate” …….
Chavez pledges unity with Syria – Americas – MSNBC.comChavez develops ties with Arabs Chavez said he and Syria shared a “decisive and firm” stance against “imperialism” and American attempts for “domination.” …
Antisemitism And Racism, Responses to the intifada in the media, in wall graffiti and by Arab organizations in Venezuela such as FEARAB (Arab Federation for Latin America) were were directed at de-legitimizing the State of Israel, which was accused of causing the Palestinian tragedy.
The radical language used against Israel was not infrequently antisemitic, for example, the comparison of Israeli soldiers with Nazis…
He’s also recalled Venezuela’s ambassador to Israel, scoring big points among Arabs. Using Israel and the United States as punching bags, Chavez has become …
“Palestinian Artists Find Venezuelan Ally –”The relationship between Venezuela and Israel has been strained ever since Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez began adopting an increasingly pro-Arab.
Chavez plans for terrorist regime: Venezuelan security officials …Intelligence sources familiar with the cover-up say Chavez is withholding information on the Arabs, some of whom were important financial contributors to terrorism
BBC NEWS | Middle East | On tour with Chavez and AhmadinejadPresidents Ahmadinejad of Iran and Chavez of Venezuela revel in each others’ … than is usual with Western or Arab leaders in this security-conscious age.
From Venezuela, a counterplot: as agents from rogue Arab states …Exhorting his countrymen to return to their “Arab roots,” Chavez has paid state visits to Libya, Iraq and Iran and signed a series of mutual-cooperation …
In 2001, Chavez paid state visits to and signed “cooperation agreements” with … has illegally given more than 270 Venezuelan passports to Arab extremists. …
Venezuela: Anatomy of a Dictator
BBC NEWS | Americas | Bishop attacks ‘Chavez control’Bishop attacks ‘Chavez control’. President Hugo Chavez The president of Venezuela’s Catholic Bishops Conference, Baltazar Porras, has accused the …
Catholic World News : Chavez renews conflict with Venezuelan bishops4, 2007 ( – Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez has renewed his attacks on the country’s Catholic hierarchy, saying that the Venezuelan bishops’ …
Chavez Threatens to Nationalize Private Hospitals in Venezuela…
(Totalitarian) Hugo Chavez versus (free voice) RCTV
Strategy Op. Ed.: -Hugo Chavez — “dictator-in-training”With the pieces in place, Chavez will get the legislature to “vote” for dictatorship. Chavez’s dictatorship will squash those foolish enough to express …
Venezuela’s Chavez Squeezes Oil Companies With Taxes
Chavez Threatens Venezuela Central Bank Takeover
the full Arab League has voiced its support  for UN Security Council Seat.

Descendants of Arabs thriving in S. America -DAWN – International …Venezuela has a flourishing Arab community of about 1.5 million… business and commerce. Shop names like Flower of Palestine are a common …
Japan Today – News – Chavez moves to nationalize power, telecoms firmsgo look at CNN, the americans are grooming Chavez to be Castro’s replacement. …. They were all for taking out one of Chavez’s Arab buddies. …
History’s Against Him, CARACAS, Venezuela Early on in Hugo Chávez’s political career, the Venezuelan … Chávez has developed what some observers call a postmodern dictatorship, ……
The constitutional changes draft has been leaked: the path to an eternal Chavez dictatorship…

Giuliani furious at democrats not mentioning THE THREAT OF ISLAMIC TERRORISM

July 24, 2007

Rudy Giuliani Radio Ads Hit Iowa, New Hampshire, FL
“At no time during their three debates have they used the words ‘Islamic terrorists,'” Giuliani said of the Democratic contenders

Giuliani proposes energy independence He also had harsh words for his Democratic rivals, noting that in previous debates they’ve never used the phrase “Islamic terrorists.”


July 22, 2007


Imam arrested in Italy
International Herald Tribune, France ROME: A Moroccan imam arrested in Italy and suspected of running a “terrorism school” in his mosque had a variety of toxic chemicals at his home that could
Italy: Mosque used as ‘terror school’ San Jose Mercury News
3 Moroccans Held In Italy On Terror Charges AHN
Terror suspects arrested in Italian mosque Malaysia Sun

Technorati – ]

Islamic Taliban (copy the terrible Palestinian tactics of kidnapping) says killed two Germans in Afghanistan

July 22, 2007

Taliban says killed two Germans in Afghanistan
Focus News, Bulgaria KABUL. The Bild am Sonntag newspaper quoted unnamed goverment sources as saying German authorities had seen the body of the engineer and it had gunshot

CEV fires back at (Arab lobby’s Hugo Chávez (re: his attack on the Church & on Catholics)

July 22, 2007

CEV fires back at (Arab lobby’s Hugo Chávez (re: his attack on the Church & on Catholics)
El Univeresal ^ July 2007
CEV fires back Chávez

These attacks do not offend bishops, but people of the Catholic Church, the Catholic people.

There is no secret who PAID for Hugo Chavez campaign, mainly by Arab merchants in Venezuela.

(The same Chavez that met with that Islamic Hitler Ahmadinejad and agreed to “criticize” Israel’s defense against terroristic Iranian backed Hezbullah tactics of human shields in 2006).

UK terror threat [Islamic leader: Don’t befriend Christians/Jews!]

July 11, 2007

UK terror threat [Islamic leader: Don’t befriend Christians/Jews!] ABC ^

July 9 2007

UK terror threat never greater: Security Minister
ABU FARUK: We’re not from a group, we’re just Muslims come together because my Lord tells me to (inaudible) the good from the evil. Because my Lord tells me that even if you help them, even you’re allied with them, the Jews and the Christians, they’ll never ever be happy with you.
(Excerpt)

Technorati – ]

UK Muslims: Not in their name?

July 9, 2007

UK Muslims: Not in their name?;jsessionid=FMZLGUBGOWWNBQFIQMFSFFOAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/07/08/nrmuslim108.xml&page=1

UK Telegraph  | July 08 2007 | Alasdair Palmer
Muslims were as much outraged by last weekend’s failed car bomb attacks as the rest of the country. Does that mean they will now help the authorities to root out Islamist terrorists? Alasdair Palmer investigates

The statement from Muhammed Abdul Bari, the general secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) was as surprising as it was unequivocal: “The police and the security services deserve the fullest support and co-operation from each and every sector of our society, including all Muslims.”

It was a surprise because, in the past, the MCB has seemed to be somewhat lukewarm about encouraging British Muslims to go to the police or security services with any suspicions they might have about friends or acquaintances who they think might be involved in terrorism. It is, after all, only nine months since Mr Bari issued a scarcely veiled threat to the authorities: he said that if the Government and “some police officers and sections of the media” continued to “demonise Muslims… Britain will have to deal with two million Muslim terrorists, 700,000 of them in London”.

Last week, the MCB was considerably more conciliatory. Inayat Bunglawala, Mr Bari’s deputy, accepted that the MCB was taking a new stance in insisting that it was an “Islamic duty” to help the police prevent terrorism, but he said he was confident that the organisation’s 400 affiliates would back it. “The overwhelming majority of Muslims,” he said, “will understand the predicament our nation is in.”

Will they? The Government and most of Britain hope that the failed attempts to blow up a nightclub in central London and the passenger terminal at Glasgow airport may mark the beginning of a sea-change in attitudes to terrorism within Britain’s Islamic communities. Yesterday’s march in Glasgow was an attempt to demonstrate solidarity between Muslims and other religions in their opposition to violence. A group named “Islam is Peace” placed full-page advertisements in several national newspapers emphasising that “Muslim communities across Britain are united in condemning the attempted bombings”.

The police say that a change of attitude is badly needed. Peter Clarke, Scotland Yard’s anti-terrorist chief, has publicly lamented the reluctance of too many Muslims to come forward with information about possible terrorism that they have, and that could help the police to prevent bombings. MI5 officers have a similar complaint. One, speaking on condition of anonymity, told The Sunday Telegraph: “Perhaps our biggest problem is that when we start trying to get sources, very quickly we hit a wall… people who live with actual or potential terrorists, who know what they are doing, who know who is vulnerable to extremist propaganda, who know who is being dragged in or acting suspiciously; the people who have this information just won’t share it. It makes the job of finding out what is going on, and stopping it, much harder.”

Muslim police officers are in very short supply. There are about a million Muslims in London, but only 268 of them have joined the Metropolitan Police. They represent less than 1 per cent of the total force. It is the same story across the country. Attempts to encourage more Muslims to sign up can backfire: there are allegations, for instance, that several al-Qaeda sympathisers have entered the organisation with the intention of undermining it.

Still, a number of leading British Muslims have already stated that the change of tone that has marked Gordon Brown’s premiership is “helpful” in gaining the support of Muslim communities in Britain. Ahmed Versi, the editor of Muslim News, for instance, remarked last week that “Tony Blair used to use the phrase ‘Islamic terrorism’ …it made the whole [Islamic] community feel they were being targeted.”

Mr Versi is pleased that Gordon Brown seems to have decided to drop “Islamic terrorism”, the “war on terror” and the other belligerent phrases that came to characterise Tony Blair’s time in office. Jacqui Smith, the new Home Secretary, insisted last week that it was “unacceptable to hold any one community responsible” for the attempted outrages, something Mr Versi very much agrees with, because, in his view, what motivates the terrorists is not Islam: it is British foreign policy.

Not everyone, however, believes either that attitudes in Britain’s Islamic communities are changing, or that Gordon Brown’s change of the language he uses to describe bomb attacks will make much difference. Ed Husain was drawn to what he calls “Islamism”: the anti-secular, anti-liberal position that asserts that Western democracies such as Britain are irredeemably corrupt and must be replaced by a theocracy based on Islamic law. He spent several years working for Hizb ut-Tahrir, an extremist organisation dedicated to that goal, before eventually turning away from it and discovering what he now thinks of as orthodox, traditional Islam.

“The MCB’s insistence that there is a duty to help the police is very welcome,” he says. “The trouble is, they are still wedded to a version of Islam that is, at the very least, hospitable to the extremists. None of the leading members of the MCB have condemned the hard-line anti-Western ideology of figures such as Syed Qutb, the Egyptian radical fundamentalist who developed, in the early Sixties, the theological justification for violence in the name of establishing an Islamic state (Qutb was executed by the Egyptian government in 1965). It would be a very powerful signal if the MCB said that Qutb’s hatred of the West and of democracy, and his endorsement of violence as the means to replace secular government with theocracy, had no Koranic justification. But no one from the MCB seems willing to make that move.”

The MCB has also failed to condemn suicide bombing by Hamas against Israel. “It is a very short step from accepting that there is a theological justification for ‘martyrdom’ operations in Israel,” states Mr Husain, “to accepting that there is a justification for perpetrating the murder of civilians here. I know. I have been down that road.”

Hassan Butt is another who spent several years as an extreme Islamist before coming to understand that the people with whom he was working were “evil”. Mr Butt used to act as a fund raiser – he says he raised more than £150,000 – for fundamentalist terrorist groups. He doesn’t see any change in attitude among their members. His family have rejected him for what they see as his “treachery”. His friends have all deserted him. Some of his former colleagues have openly told him that they want him dead. Earlier this year he was stabbed in the street for his “betrayal”. Last week, the windows of his house were broken, and his front door smashed, as a further attempt to intimidate him.

He believes that the moderate Muslim community is “in denial” about the extremists in its midst. According to Mr Butt, many imams who preach at mosques in Britain “refuse to broach the difficult and often complex truth that Islam can be interpreted as condoning violence against the unbeliever, and instead repeat the mantra that ‘Islam is peace’, and hope that all of this debate will go away. This has left the territory open for radicals… I know, because [when] I was a recruiter, I repeatedly came across those who had tried to raise these issues with mosque authorities, only to be banned from their grounds. Every time this happened… it served as a recruiting sergeant for extremism.”

It is certainly true that many imams in Britain are very conservative. Almost all are Sunni Muslims, rather than the Shia variety, and have little or no appeal to the younger generation of Muslims – the generation from whom the terrorists are recruited. A study by Prof Ron Geaves of the University of Chester, published last week, found that the majority of imams preaching here were born and trained outside Britain, and many don’t even speak English. Their sermons are frequently in Urdu, which most British Muslims born here do not fully understand. It means that debates fundamental to demonstrating the message that “Islam is peace” and does not condone violence cannot be had inside mosques.

“And that is a huge problem,” says Ed Husain. “One of the main reasons I was recruited to Islamism was because I was ignorant. Like most Muslims born in Britain, I knew nothing of Islamic traditions and I couldn’t read Arabic. The extremists had the field to themselves. There was nothing to counteract their very narrow, perverted interpretation of Islam.

“I believe that one of the most important things that could be done to diminish the attraction of Islamism would be to expose young Muslims to the full variety of Islamic scholarship and debate. At the moment, a lot of them are turned off by the local mosque: they think it’s boring. The extremists are ‘cool’. But that’s because no one actually confronts them properly. I had to go to the Middle East to get a proper Islamic education. It’s not available in most of Britain’s mosques – and that leads to extremist voices being very tempting to young Muslims who are looking for a form of Islam that they think is authentic.”

It is not only in mosques that misguided policies allow radical Islamists to flourish. Some British universities have also failed to combat their presence and influence effectively. Two of the July 7 suicide bombers studied at Leeds Metropolitan University, for example. Waheed Zaman, awaiting trial on charges arising from last year’s alleged plot to blow up passenger jets over the Atlantic, was a bio-medical student and president of the Islamic Society at London Metropolitan University.

Dhiren Barot, jailed last year for 40 years for plotting terrorist attacks, studied at Brunel University in London, as did Jawad Akbar, who was sentenced to life for trying to blow up the Bluewater shopping centre in Kent and the Ministry of Sound nightclub in London.

And yet, when the Government issued guidelines for tackling campus extremism, which included ways of identifying and tackling extremist behaviour, those guidelines were unanimously rejected by Universities UK, and the Universities and College Union, the umbrella organisations for Britain’s universities. Teaching and administrative staff insisted they would not apply them.

“A monumental act of irresponsibility,” is how Prof Anthony Glees, the director of Brunel University’s Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, describes it. “The problem [of extremism on British campuses] is widespread and underestimated,” Prof Glees says. He believes that universities will “come to regret” their “mindless rejection” of the Government’s guidelines. “It sends out a signal to people who want to do us harm that universities will continue to be a safe bet from which to recruit: that they are safe areas for extremists to ply their trade. Academics are in a state of complete denial and confusion over what they should be doing; this a huge hindrance to tackling the problem.”

While the problem of extremism in universities badly needs to be confronted, many believe that the seeds of fundamentalist terrorism lie at much earlier points in a Muslim boy or girl’s education. “The result of 25 years of multiculturalism has not been multicultural communities. It has been mono-cultural communities,” says Ed Husain. “Islamic communities are segregated. Many Muslims want to live apart from mainstream British society; official government policy has helped them do so. I grew up without any white friends. My school was almost entirely Muslim. I had almost no direct experience of ‘British life’ or ‘British institutions’. So it was easy for the extremists to say to me: ‘You see? You’re not part of British society. You never will be. You can only be part of an Islamic society.’ The first part of what they said was true. I wasn’t part of British society: nothing in my life overlapped with it.”

Patrick Sookdeo, the director of the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity, converted to Christianity from Islam. He is convinced that Islamic “separatism” is at the heart of the problem. “The Islamic community,” he says, “is evolving as a separate entity within the UK. We are facing a form of apartheid.”

It is certainly true that there are plenty of Muslims who say they would like to be able to live under a separate legal system, obeying sharia law rather than the secular laws passed by Parliament. Ibrahim Mogra, the chairman of the MCB’s inter-faith relations committee, says: “I am in the business of helping everyone live according to sharia… Most Muslims try to live according to sharia. The Government should consider whether it is necessary to make changes to the law to recognise sharia”.

The fanatics, of course, go one further step: they say they are entitled, indeed required by divine law, to use violence to ensure that Britain becomes an Islamic republic under sharia law. The problem is preventing seepage from the moderate Islamic position, where sharia is only an aspiration, not a requirement. “But that can require Muslims to recognise that religion has to be separated from politics,” says Shiv Malik, who investigated the life of Mohammad Siddique Khan, the July 7 bomber, and his background in Leeds for nearly a year. “It requires recognising that we live in a secular state, where religion is not what decides fundamental questions of law. But if you see the Koran as the word of God, as most Muslims do, that can be very difficult, because the Koran specifies all kinds of laws for family, social and political life. One example is the Koranic punishment for theft: cutting off the hand of the thief. No modern state would think that anything other than barbaric and inhumane. But theologically, Muslim fundamentalists are committed to trying to achieve a state that implements it.”

Still, Hassan Butt sees grounds for optimism, as does Ed Husain. They both believe that the fanatics can be defeated. “But for that to happen, Muslims in Britain have to wake up to the fact that they have a problem with extremism,” says Ed Husain. “Too many Muslims leaders look for explanations outside their own communities. They blame British foreign policy, or social deprivation, or unemployment, or poverty. They don’t blame the perverted versions of Islam that their inactivity has allowed to flourish.”

Mohammed Naseem, chairman of the Birmingham Central Mosque (it is affiliated to the MCB), exemplifies Mr Husain’s point. He insists that there is “no proof” that Islamic extremists were behind any of the terrorist attacks. “The official explanation of 7/7 does not make sense,” Mr Naseem says. “The majority of Muslims don’t accept the version that we’ve been presented with [by the Government]. Videos can be made and the pictures of people on train platforms don’t prove anything. Why should we condemn Muslim extremists when we don’t know who did it?”

Polls reveal that 6 per cent of Muslims believe that on balance, the attacks of July 7, 2005 were justified, and 5 per cent think there is a Koranic justification for them. As Ed Husain and Hassan Butt note: solidarity marches and press advertisements assuring us that “Islam is Peace” will make no difference at all to the threat we face until those numbers reduce significantly.

Radical Islam’s Goal is Global Conquest

July 9, 2007
Radical Islam’s Goal is Global Conquest

By Andrew G. Bostom | July 2, 2007 The largely failed (and/or thwarted) acts of jihad terrorism at the end of this past week in London and Glasgow show once again that the aim of the current Islamic crusade against the West is global in scope, is not about Iraq and is not a fringe development in Islam itself.

What Samuel Huntington aptly termed “Islam’s bloody borders” around the globe—flow from the timeless logic of jihad. Franz Rosenthal, the late (d. 2002) Yale University scholar of Islam, who, 50 years ago, translated Ibn Khaldun’s classic Introduction To History, also wrote a seminal essay entitled “On Suicide in Islam” in 1946. Rosenthal’s research confirmed how Islam extolled “suicidal” martyrdom attacks:

While the Qur’anic attitude toward suicide remains uncertain, the great authorities of the hadith leave no doubt as to the official attitude of Islam. In their opinion suicide is an unlawful act….On the other hand, death as the result of “suicidal” missions and of the desire of martyrdom occurs not infrequently, since death is considered highly commendable according to Muslim religious concepts. (Emphasis added.) However, such cases are no[t] suicides in the proper sense of the term.

These orthodox Islamic views have been reiterated by Yusuf Al Qaradawi—“spiritual”  leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, head of the European Fatwa Council, and immensely popular Al-Jazeera television personality, as well as Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University, the most prestigious center of Muslim learning in Sunni Islam. Sheikh Qaradawi openly endorsed murderous Palestinian homicide bomber “martyrdom” operations against innocent Israeli citizens (all of whom are considered “combatants” who obstruct the “call to Islam”) during a fatwa council convened in the heart of Europe (in Stockholm, July, 2003). For the past decade, Sheikh Tantawi, who is the nearest equivalent to a Muslim Pope, has also confirmed the legitimacy of homicide bombing of Jews, characterizing these grisly attacks as

…the highest form of Jihad operations…the young people executing them have sold Allah the most precious thing of all…every martyrdom operation against any Israeli, including children, women, and teenagers, is a legitimate act according to [Islamic] religious law, and an Islamic commandment, until the people of Palestine regain their land

On July 25, 2005, historian David Littman attempted to deliver a prepared text in the joint names of three international NGOs, but was prevented from doing so by the intervention of Islamic members of the United Nations Sub-Commission on Human Rights. Following repeated interruptions he was unable to complete his speech. Littman was simply trying to support the argument that those who issue fatwas to kill innocent people in the name of Islam are not real Muslims and should be treated as apostates. But as he noted, just before the 7/7/05 London bombings a major conference of 170 Muslim scholars from 40 countries meeting in Amman, Jordan gave an opinion in a Final Communiqué, dated July 6, 2005:

It is not possible to declare as apostates any group of Muslims who believes in Allah the Mighty and Sublime and His Messenger (may Peace and Blessings be upon him) and the pillars of faith, and respects the pillars of Islam and does not deny any necessary article of religion.

This unfortunate communiqué clearly provides immutable protection to authentic Islamic advocates of homicide bombing—like the “esteemed” clerics Yusuf Qaradawi and Al-Azhar Grand Imam Tantawi.

The most recent attempted atrocities in London and Glasgow are contemporary manifestations of foundational Islamic imperatives, rooted in jihad. Denial of this intimate relationship is untenable and dangerous, given the weight of confirmatory evidence, past and present.

Umar Ibn al-Khattab (d. 644), was the second “rightly guided caliph” of Islam, the word caliph deriving from Koran 2:30, and the Muslim notion of the successor to Islam’s prophet Muhammad, a vicegerent of Allah, on earth. During his reign, which lasted for a decade (634-644), Syria, Iraq and Egypt were conquered. Umar was responsible for organizing the early Islamic Empire into a supranational Muslim Caliphate. Alfred von Kremer, the seminal 19th century German scholar of Islam, described the “central idea” of Umar’s regime, as being the furtherance of “…the religious-military development of Islam at the expense of the conquered nations.” The predictable and historically verifiable consequence of this guiding principle was a legacy of harsh inequality, intolerance, and injustice towards non-Muslims observed by von Kremer in 1868 (and still evident in Islamic societies at present):

It was the basis of its severe directives regarding Christians and those of other faiths, that they be reduced to the status of pariahs, forbidden from having anything in common with the ruling nation; it was even the basis for his decision to purify the Arabian Peninsula of the unbelievers, when he presented all the inhabitants of the peninsula who had not yet accepted Islam with the choice: to emigrate or deny the religion of their ancestors. The industrious and wealthy Christians of Najran, who maintained their Christian faith, emigrated as a result of this decision from the peninsula, to the land of the Euphrates, and ‘Umar also deported the Jews of Khaybar. In this way ‘Umar based that fanatical and intolerant approach that was an essential characteristic of Islam, now extant for over a thousand years, until this day [i.e., written in 1868]. It was this spirit, a severe and steely one, that incorporated scorn and contempt for the non-Muslims, that was characteristic of ‘Umar, and instilled by ‘Umar into Islam; this spirit continued for many centuries, to be Islam’s driving force and vital principle.

Umar waged devastating jihad campaigns, and imposed severe limitations upon the vanquished non-Muslims aimed at their ultimate destruction by attrition. He also introduced fanatical elements into Islamic culture that became characteristic of the Caliphates which succeeded his. Indeed, the complete absence of basic freedoms of conscience and expression in these early Islamic Caliphates—while entirely consistent with mid-7th century mores—has remained a constant, ignominious legacy throughout Islamic history, to this day.

C. Snouck Hurgronje, the great Dutch Orientalist observed in 1916 (p.99) that even at the nadir of Islam’s power following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the jihad imperative to complete the unfulfilled task of world Islamization, via the re-creation of a supranational Islamic Caliphate, remained a potent force among the Muslim masses:

…it would be a gross mistake to imagine that the idea of universal conquest may be considered as obliterated…the canonists and the vulgar still live in the illusion of the days of Islam’s greatness. The legists continue to ground their appreciation of every actual political condition on the law of the holy war, which war ought never be allowed to cease entirely until all mankind is reduced to the authority of Islam—the heathen by conversion, the adherents of acknowledged Scripture [i.e., Jews and Christians] by submission.

…the common people are willingly taught by the canonists and feed their hope of better days upon the innumerable legends of the olden time and the equally innumerable apocalyptic prophecies about the future. The political blows that fall upon Islam make less impression…than the senseless stories about the power of the Sultan of Stambul [Istanbul], that would instantly be revealed if he were not surrounded by treacherous servants, and the fantastic tidings of the miracles that Allah works in the Holy Cities of Arabia which are inaccessible to the unfaithful. The conception of the Khalifate [Caliphate] still exercises a fascinating influence, regarded in the light of a central point of union against the unfaithful (i.e., non-Muslims).

Nearly a century later, the preponderance of contemporary mainstream Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia, apparently share with their murderous, jihad terror waging co-religionists from al-Qaeda the goal (if not necessarily supporting the gruesome means) of re-establishing an Islamic Caliphate. Polling data released April 24, 2007 from a rigorous face-to-face University of Maryland/ interview survey of 4384 Muslims conducted between December 9, 2006 and February 15, 2007-1000 Moroccans, 1000 Egyptians, 1243 Pakistanis, and 1141 Indonesians-reveal that 65.2% of those interviewed-almost 2/3, hardly a “fringe minority”-desired this outcome (i.e., “To unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or Caliphate”), including 49% of “moderate” Indonesian Muslims. The internal validity of these data about the present longing for a Caliphate is strongly suggested by a concordant result: 65.5% of this Muslim sample approved the proposition “To require a strict [emphasis added] application of Shari’a law in every Islamic country.” Moreover, an earlier survey of British Muslims indicated that up to 40% of them wished to replace Britain’s current liberal democratic system with the Shari’a.

Notwithstanding ahistorical drivel from Western Muslim “advocacy” groups such as the Muslim Association of Britain, which lionizes both the Caliphate and the concomitant institution of Shari’a—despite their legacy of brutal, often genocidal aggression, and imposition of a blatantly discriminatory, totalitarian system of rule devoid of the most basic human rights—as promulgators of “a peaceful and just society”, the findings from these polls of Muslims across the Islamic world, and within the United Kingdom, are ominous.  

Ibn Warraq has observed aptly that the most fundamental conception of a Caliphate, “…the constant injunction to obey the Caliph-who is God’s Shadow on Earth”, is completely incompatible with the creation of a “rights-based individualist philosophy.” Warraq illustrates the supreme hostility to individual rights in the Islamic Caliphate, and Islam itself, through the writings of the iconic Muslim philosopher, jurist, and historian, Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406), and a contemporary Muslim thinker, A.K. Brohi, former Pakistani Minister of Law and Religious Affairs:

[Ibn Khaldun] All religious laws and practices and everything that the masses are expected to do requires group feeling. Only with the help of group feeling can a claim be successfully pressed,…Group feeling is necessary to the Muslim community. Its existence enables (the community) to fulfill what God expects of it.

[A.K. Brohi] Human duties and rights have been vigorously defined and their orderly enforcement is the duty of the whole of organized communities and the task is specifically entrusted to the law enforcement organs of the state. The individual if necessary has to be sacrificed in order that that the life of the organism be saved. Collectivity has a special sanctity attached to it in Islam.

In contrast, Warraq notes, “Liberal democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom and attaches all possible value to each man or woman.” And he concludes,

Individualism is not a recognizable feature of Islam; instead the collective will of the Muslim people is constantly emphasized. There is certainly no notion of individual rights, which developed in the West, especially during the eighteenth century.

Almost six decades ago (in 1950), G.H. Bousquet (pp. 104-5), a pre-eminent modern scholar of Islamic Law, put forth this unapologetic, pellucid formulation of the twofold totalitarian impulse in Islam:

Islam first came before the world as a doubly totalitarian system. It claimed to impose itself on the whole world and it claimed also, by the divinely appointed Muhammadan law, by the principles of the fiqh, to regulate down to the smallest details the whole life of the Islamic community and of every individual believer….the study of Muhammadan law (dry and forbidding though it may appear to those who confine themselves to the indispensable study of the fiqh) is of great importance to the world today.

And sowing terror in order to promote the Islamization of infidel territories, is consistent with jihad tactics that date back well over a millennium.

Ibn Hudayl, a 14th  century Granadan author of an important treatise on jihad, explained the original methods which facilitated the violent, chaotic jihad conquest of the Iberian peninsula, and other parts of Europe, during the prior six centuries (p. 40):

It is permissible to set fire to the lands of the enemy, his stores of grain, his beasts of burden — if it is not possible for the Muslims to take possession of them — as well as to cut down his trees, to raze his cities, in a word, to do everything that might ruin and discourage him, provided that the imam (i.e. the religious ‘guide’ of the community of believers) deems these measures appropriate, suited to hastening the Islamization of that enemy or to weakening him.  Indeed, all this contributes to a military triumph over him or to forcing him to capitulate.

The 20th century historian Charles Emmanuel Dufourcq—who studied the Islamization of Spain, Portugal, and North Africa in the Middle Ages—characterized (p. 40) the impact of these repeated attacks, indistinguishable in motivation from modern acts of jihad terrorism, such as the Madrid bombings on 3/11/04, the London bombings of 7/7/05, or the (mostly) foiled attacks in London and Glasgow of 6/29 and 6/30/07:

It is not difficult to understand that such expeditions sowed terror.  The historian al—Maqqari, who wrote in seventeenth—century Tlemcen in Algeria, explains that the panic created by the Arab horsemen and sailors, at the time of the Muslim expansion in the zones that saw those raids and landings, facilitated the later conquest, if that was decided on:  ‘Allah,’ he says, ‘thus instilled such fear among the infidels that they did not dare to go and fight the conquerors; they only approached them as suppliants, to beg for peace.’

Writing in 1978, Dufourcq (d. 1982), worried (even then) that historical and cultural revisionism of this established legacy of jihad (in particular, the Muslim conquest and colonization of the Iberian peninsula) might precipitate a recurrence of,

…the upheaval carried out on our continent (i.e., Europe) by Islamic penetration more than a thousand years ago

Less than a decade after Dufourcq’s death in 1982, the historian Bat Ye’or (from a 1991 French interview, published in English translation in 1994) echoed his intuitive concerns about Europe’s re-Islamization, and warned more broadly,

I do not see serious signs of a Europeanization of Islam anywhere, a move that would be expressed in a relativization of religion, a self—critical view of the history of Islamic imperialism…we are light years away from such a development…On the contrary, I think that we are participating in the Islamization of Europe, reflected both in daily occurrences and in our way of thinking…All the racist fanaticism that permeates the Arab countries and Iran has been manifested in Europe in recent years…

Myriad intellectuals in denial might now, at last, wish to study with care the continuing legacy of jihad war, and pay serious attention to its modern Muslim proponents—including the jihadist cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who has been lionized—with tragic irony—by London’s own current mayor as a “progressive.”   Here are some more of Qaradawi’s apposite views on jihad and jihad terrorism:

It has been determined by Islamic law that the blood and property of people of Dar Al—Harb [the Domain of Disbelief where the war for the domination of Islam should be waged, i.e. including within Western Europe and America] is not protected. Because they fight against and are hostile towards the Muslims, they annulled the protection of his blood and his property… in modern war, all of society, with all its classes and ethnic groups, is mobilized to participate in the war, to aid its continuation, and to provide it with the material and human fuel required for it to assure the victory of the state fighting its enemies. Every citizen in society must take upon himself a role in the effort to provide for the battle. The entire domestic front, including professionals, laborers, and industrialists, stands behind the fighting army, even if it does not bear arms.

Allah has also made the prophet Muhammad into an epitome for religious warriors [Mujahideen] since he ordered Muhammed to fight for religion… the first assignment is to prepare the hero who is willing to put his life in his own hands for Allah’s sake, and he who does not care whether he encounters death or death encounters him…He [i.e., a self—immolating bomber] kills the enemy while taking self—risk, similarly to what Muslims did in the past… He wants to scare his enemies, and the religious authorities have permitted this. They said that if he causes the enemy both sorrow and fear of Muslims… he is permitted to risk himself and even get killed.

Qaradawi stated his ultimate goals explicitly—consistent with orthodox jihad ideology—at a Muslim youth convention in 1995 in Toledo, Ohio: “We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America!”. Subsequently Qaradawi issued a public fatwa on December 2, 2002, calling on Muslims to conquer Europe, stating, “Islam will return to Europe as a conqueror and a victor after being expelled from it twice – once from the south, from Andalusia, and a second time, from the east, when it knocked several times on the doors of Athens.” Qaradawi’s fatwa ruled, in addition, that Muslims should re-conquer, “former Islamic colonies to Andalus (Spain), southern Italy, Sicily, the Balkans and the Mediterranean islands.”

In light of the most recent attacks in London and Glasgow will the West’s intellectuals finally awaken to this threat—the jihad? Will they study with seriousness and urgency the theological-juridical underpinnings of the Islamic jihad, and its 14 centuries of brutal, imperialistic conquests, continuing through the present, whose ultimate goals are the re-establishment of a supranational Muslim Caliphate, and imposition of Shari’a  totalitarianism across the globe?

Julien Benda in his classic 1928 La Trahison de Clercs (The Treason of the Intellectuals) decried with prophetic accuracy how the abandonment of objective truth abetted totalitarian ideologies, which lead to the cataclysmic destruction of World War II. Ignoring, dismissing, or worse, continuing to vilify thoughtful and intrepid scholars such as Dufourcq and Bat Ye’or reflects the broader La Trahison de Clercs of our time: the complete failure of Western intellectuals to study, understand, and acknowledge the heinous consequences of the living Islamic institution of jihad war.

Finally, in an ironic but hopeful turn of events, perhaps this impassioned mea culpa from former British jihadist Hassan Butt will at last prove clarifying for the willfully blind and timorous non-Muslim elites in the West:

…it isn’t enough for Muslims to say that because they feel at home in Britain they can simply ignore those passages of the Koran which instruct on killing unbelievers. By refusing to challenge centuries-old theological arguments, the tensions between Islamic theology and the modern world grow larger every day. It may be difficult to swallow but the reason why Abu Qatada – the Islamic scholar whom Palestinian militants recently called to be released in exchange for the kidnapped BBC journalist Alan Johnston – has a following is because he is extremely learned and his religious rulings are well argued. His opinions, though I now thoroughly disagree with them, have validity within the broad canon of Islam. [emphasis added]

The Muslim community in Britain must slap itself awake from this state of denial and realise there is no shame in admitting the extremism within our families, communities and worldwide co-religionists…Muslim scholars must go back to the books and come forward with a refashioned set of rules and a revised understanding of the rights and responsibilities of Muslims whose homes and souls are firmly planted in what I’d like to term the Land of Co-existence. And when this new theological territory is opened up, Western Muslims will be able to liberate themselves from defunct models of the world, rewrite the rules of interaction and perhaps we will discover that the concept of killing in the name of Islam is no more than an anachronism.

Technorati – ]