Archive for the ‘Saudi Arabia’ Category

ARAB MUSLIM CONTROL on western MEDIA

February 15, 2009
ARAB MUSLIM CONTROL on western MEDIA

Prince Alwaleed ibn Talal, chief executive of S. Arabia’s Kingdom Holding Company Control on US (& other) media

Who owns CNN?

The answers might surprise you (or maybe not). Ever wonder why CNN and Time are so blatantly pro-islamic. Ever wonder why these weasels want are tooo eager to toe liberal / islamic propaganda??

A good chunk of AOL Time Warner is owned by Prince Alwaleed Ibn Talal the Saudi billionaire. It is well known that Prince AlWaleed is a front for the Saudi royal family. All of the oil money that is swindled from Aramco the Saudi oil company is “invested” by Prince Al Waleed and his company. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1465942/posts, http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/sports_basketball_heat/2008/09/beasley-hurt-ea.html?cid=132826195#comment-132826195
From the ‘Saudi Online’ page:
RIYADH, 12 March — Prince Alwaleed ibn Talal announced yesterday that he has spent $1 billion on stocks over the last six months, including another $500 million on Citigroup.
“Already the world’s largest shareholder in Citigroup, the prince’s shareholding in the world’s most profitable bank is now around $10 billion,” said a press release from his Kingdom Holding group.
“At about $43, Citi’s share price was at too attractive a price,” the prince said in the statement.
And he added $450 million to existing shares in AOL Time Warner. “The price was very cheap at around $23,” the prince said.
“I believe in the power of the AOL brand and I am already a shareholder in this global media giant. Therefore, when the price reached lucrative levels, we decided to increase our stake. The weakness in AOL’s stock price is temporary as it reflects the temporary weakness in several areas in which it is involved,” Alwaleed said.
He also increased his stake in priceline.com to $100 million, or 5.4 percent of the company.

saudia-online.com/NewsMar02/news06.shtml

AOL BIAS – This is a growing guide to AOL political and religious bias seen by AOL subscribers as
demanded by its Arab owners.
Alwaleed,Arab,owned,Arab,money
AOL shows political and religious bias in its news coverage. The bias is also seen in the use of AOL message board
censorship policies. Poster’s messages are deleted by AOL monitors violating AOL’s own Terms of Service, TOS.
Time Warner has taken no action to stop the bias but has looked into it. They did nothing. AOL is owned by Arab money.
Alwaleed spent $1 billion on stocks recently
RIYADH, 12 March — Prince Alwaleed ibn Talal announced yesterday that he added $450 million to existing shares in AOL Time Warner.
“The price was very cheap at around $23,” the prince said.
http://www.dicksguides.com/ZDGKN/POLS/AOLissues/AOLownedbyArabs.htm

Is CNN International Really – ANN or the Arab News Network ??
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/comments/122382

CAIR, WAMY to launch massive propaganda campaign“We are planning to meet Prince Alwaleed ibn Talal for his financial support to our project ….
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011934.php

Georgetown’s Capitulation to Radical Islam
By Joe Kaufman and Jeffrey Epstein
FrontPageMagazine.com Friday, January 06, 2006
Georgetown University was built with a Catholic and Jesuit identity. This bit of information is proudly displayed on the school’s website. But like Bethlehem in Israel, that identity is quickly being lost to a radical strain of Islam, as a counter-terror symposium has been abandoned and a pro-terror conference has been confirmed. Indeed, one of America’s most prestigious universities appears to be under siege.
Fearing violent reprisal from militant Muslim members of their student body, the school’s conference center rejected an educational symposium being hosted by America’s Truth Forum (formerly the People’s Truth Forum), a non-partisan, fact-based organization whose sole mission is to educate the American people on topics of national security. In this case, the subject matter to be discussed involved the “Underlying Roots of Terrorism: The Radical Islamist Threat to World Peace and National Security.”…
While the counter-terror symposium was shunned, an organization associated with violence has been awarded a forum. From February 17 – 19, the Palestine Solidarity Movement (PSM), an activist group that has expressed its willingness to work with Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, will be holding its “Fifth Annual Divestment Conference” on Georgetown University’s campus. At past events, shouts of “Kill the Jews” and “Death to Israel” could be heard amongst the crowd. And according to a news report, during PSM’s last conference, when a resolution to condemn terrorism was voted down, “the delegates erupted in cheers.”
When PSM announced its event, it’s interesting to see who they sent a press release to. A site that devotes a page to the release, Palestine Monitor, is said by one source to be a “PRO-TERRORIST SITE.” This is easy to understand, as the website contains numerous pages glorifying the Intifada (uprising) against Israel. Another location that prominently displays the press release is Ramallah Online, a hate site that equates the Jewish Star (Star of David) with the Nazi Swastika.
Not wanting to anger its on-campus insurgency, the university has remained hush about the event. The consideration of a small matter of money may also be on Georgetown’s mind. The PSM conference is coming on the heels of a $20 million donation to the school, given by a fairly effluent Saudi sheikh, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. This is the same sheikh who had previously donated $27 million to a telethon that raised money for the families of suicide bombers.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=3398EF71-9067-4C86-88D2-9A8AD51427A5

Hamas…. at least $50 million from wealthy Saudis like Prince Alwaleed ibn Talal, …
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?archive=112006

Saudi Prince Al Waleed bin Talal hoster of telethons for suicide bomber families buys large share of Fox News
Saudi prince advocates strategy of business not boycotts to ‘influence American public opinion”
September 25, 2005
http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/1109

Saudis Buying Shares of Fox lets freakin take over the oil fields already in saudi arabia… Prince al-Waleed ibnTalal already owned stock. …
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=17651_Saudis_Buying_Shares_of_Fox

New Islamic satellite channel launched
March 8, 2006
Filed under: Newspapers — Hans Henrik Lichtenberg
Prince Alwaleed ibn Talal, the chief executive of Saudi Arabia’s Kingdom Holding Company, has officially launched an Islamic satellite channel seeking to project Islam as a religion of moderation, the Arab News online daily reports. Al-Resalah (The Message) has been broadcasting informally since last Wednesday. At a press conference on Monday, Prince Alwaleed said the 24-hour channel would target an Arab audience, especially young people, by projecting ‘our Arab heritage through a modern medium.’. Al-Resalah will be the forerunner of a future English-language Islamic channel for Western audiences. The prince said the new Islamic network would provide a platform for a dialogue on religious, social and economic issues affecting everyday life, but its priority would be to counteract the misconceptions of Islam in other societies. Tarek Alsuwaidan, the channel?s general manager, said that 40 per cent of the programmes would be youth oriented, 30 per cent would target women and families, and 10 per cent would focus on children, Arab News reports. (AKI,March 08, 2006)
http://blog.newspaperindex.com/category/newspapers/page/7/

Saudi Prince Alwaleed ibn Talal owns 5.46 percent of Rupert Murdoch’s media conglomerate News Corp.
http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/002958.html

The Failure of Western Universities [incls. Middle East studies, MESA, Saudi funding at Georgetown and Harvard, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, John Esposito, Martin Kramer, Daniel Pipes]

Kari Vogt, historian of religion at the University of Oslo, has stated that Ibn Warraq’s book “Why I am Not a Muslim” is just as irrelevant to the study of Islam as The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion are to the study of Judaism. She is widely considered as one of the leading expert on Islam in Norway, and is frequently quoted in national media on matters related to Islam and Muslim immigration. People who get most of their information from the mainstream media, which goes for the majority of the population, will thus be systematically fed biased information and half-truths about Islam from our universities, which have largely failed to uphold the ideal of free inquiry. Unfortunately, this situation is pretty similar at universities and colleges throughout the West.

London’s School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), scene to a growing number of anti-Semitic incidents from an increasingly pro-Islamic campus, issued a threat to one of its Jewish students to cease his protests against anti-Semitism at the University. Gavin Gross, an American, had been leading a campaign against the deterioration of conditions for Jewish students at SOAS, which is part of the University of London. SOAS had witnessed an escalation of anti-Jewish activity, in both severity and frequency. At the beginning of the year, the Islamic Society screened a video which compared Judaism with Satanism.
Meanwhile, in a move to “promote understanding between Islam and the West,” Saudi Arabia donated about SR13 million to a leading British museum. The officials said the money from Prince Sultan would pay for a new Saudi and Islamic gallery, which would help to portray Islamic culture and civilization in right perspectives. It would also help fund scholarships for Saudi students at Oxford University.

The Saudis and other oil-rich Arabs are busy buying influence over what Westerners hear about Islam. Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz Al-Saud, a member of the Saudi Royal Family, is an international investor currently ranked among the ten richest persons in the world. He is known in the USA for a $10 million check he offered to New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani in October 2001 for the Twin Towers Fund. Mayor Giuliani returned the gift when he learned that the prince had called for the United States to “re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stance toward the Palestinian cause.”

Prince Talal is also creating a TV channel, Al-Resalah, to target American Muslims. He already broadcasts in Saudi Arabia. In 2005, Bin Talal bought 5.46% of voting shares in News Corp, the parent of Fox News. In December 2005 he boasted to Middle East Online about his ability to change what viewers see on Fox News. Covering the riots in France that fall, Fox ran a banner saying: “Muslim riots.” Bin Talal was not happy. “I picked up the phone and called Murdoch […] [and told him] these are not Muslim riots, these are riots out of poverty,” he said. “Within 30 minutes, the title was changed from Muslim riots to civil riots.”
http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/4257

: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Got Fitna?

April 1, 2008

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103 the FITNA film

YouTube – Part 1 : http://youtube.com/watch?v=5kcev1K-NOc
YouTube – Part 2: http://youtube.com/watch?v=TdLMFs4fv4E

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=25777Geert Wilders’ ‘Fitna’: Insightful and Inciteful – HUMAN EVENTS

http://bradthor.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=228 Brad Thor’s Forum

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/27/video-fitna/ Fitna update

http://pedestrianinfidel.blogspot.com/2008/03/how-to-download-fitna-verified.html How to download FITNA– VERIFIED

Technorati – ]

Exposting the ‘Islamic State Apartheid’

February 18, 2008

Exposting the ‘Islamic State Apartheid’
http://www.islamicstateapartheid.com

Welcome to IslamicStateApartheid.com
This organization has recently been founded by a group of York University students from different races and backgrounds who are disgusted by the oppression and apartheid taking place all over Islamic States.
Our goal is to expose Islamic State Apartheid and to begin the liberation of the oppressed!
The American Heritage Dictionary defines apartheid as:
A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups
Islamic State Apartheid can be divided into four categories:
1: Gender
apartheid
2: Sexual Apartheid
3: Religious Apartheid
4: Political
Apartheid
In Islamic states, women are separated from the same class as men- can’t even leave their own homes without male relatives.
In Islamic states, gays are separated from society if discovered….and most likely killed. In Islamic states, other religions are segregated and cannot attain the same rights that the state grants to the Islamic religion. In Sudan, the genocide against the Christian population is being condoned by the government of this Islamic state.
In Islamic States, people who speak out against the state are separated and segregated from the rest of society and imprisoned.
All of the above is APARTHEID! If you do not agree then you are denying the oppression of millions of these people.
BUT WHAT CAN I DO YOU ASK…
1) Read this website and make yourself more knowledgeable about the apartheid practices taking place in Islamic states!
2) Sign up for our mailing list to find out about our events in your city or schools!
3) Buy cool merchandise from our store! All proceeds go to executing campaigns!
4) Donate money to our cause! We need $ to keep up the fight!
5) Check out our resources, links, and sponsors!
6) TELL YOUR FRIENDS!

http://www.islamicstateapartheid.com/

The ‘Islamo-Fascism’ Debate

February 10, 2008

Source: Aina…

As the David Horowitz Freedom Center unveils its Declaration Against Genocide in Washington on February 9, we are inviting campus groups of all types to join us in condemning the genocidal impulse within Islamo-Fascism.

This Symposium discussion of the term “Islamo-Fascism” takes on a new urgency in light of that Declaration and of the upcoming second Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, which will hit campuses nationwide the week of April 7.

The usefulness and accuracy of this term, and the general necessity of naming the enemy properly as a prerequisite for defeating it, became a subject of national debate during the first Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, and that debate is certain to continue this April. This Symposium is dedicated to many of the issues involved.

Our guests are:

Christopher Hitchens, a contributing editor to Vanity Fair, the author of the new book god Is Not Great. How Religion Poisons Everything and the editor of the new anthology, The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever.

Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, the vice president of research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the author of My Year Inside Radical Islam , which documents his time working for the extremist Al Haramain Islamic Foundation.

Bruce Tefft, the Director of CRA’s Threat Assessment Center. He retired from the CIA as a case officer in 1995 after 21 years, 17 working in Stations abroad. He was a founding member of the CIA’s Counter-Terrorism Center in 1985 and has been involved with terrorism issues since then. After his retirement, he continued studying Islamic terrorist techniques and training more than 16,000 first responders, law enforcement, military and intelligence officials in terrorism awareness and prevention. For a two year period following 9/11, he was the Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence advisor to the New York Police Department.

Khalim Massoud, president of Muslims Against Sharia, an Islamic reform movement.

Robert Spencer, a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of seven books, eight monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including the New York Times Bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is Religion of Peace?.

Donna Hughes, Professor and Carlson Endowed Chairperson of the University of Rhode Island Women’s Studies Program.

and

Thomas Haidon, the Chief Legal and Policy Advisor of the Free Muslim Coalition and a member of its Board of Advisors. A commentator on legal issues surrounding counter-terrorism measures and Islamic affairs, he currently serves as an advisor to the New Zealand government and has provided guidance to parliamentary committees on counter-terrorism issues. His works have been published in legal periodicals, newspapers and other media.

FP: Christopher Hitchens, Robert Spencer, Bruce Teft, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, Donna Hughes and Thomas Haidon, welcome to Frontpage Symposium.

Christopher Hitchens, let’s begin with you.

Is the term “Islamo-Fascism” legitimate in terms of defining the enemy we face in the terror war?

Hitchens: The attempt by David Horowitz and his allies to launch “Islamofascism Awareness Week” on American campuses has been met with a variety of responses. One of these is a challenge to the validity of the term itself. It’s quite the done thing, in liberal academic circles, to sneer at any comparison between fascist and jihadist ideology.

People like Tony Judt write to me to say in effect that it’s ahistorical and simplistic to do so. And in some media circles another kind of reluctance applies: Alan Colmes thinks that one shouldn’t use the word “Islamic” even to designate jihad, because to do is to risk incriminating an entire religion. He and others don’t want to tag Islam even in its most extreme form with a word as hideous as fascism. Finally, I have seen and heard it argued that the term is unfair or prejudiced, because it isn’t applied to any other religion. This was most recently argued by Patrick J. Buchanan, who asked us how we would have felt if Franklin Roosevelt had described Mussolini, say, as “Christo-fascist”.

Buchanan in his own autobiography describes being raised in a home where the true heroes were Father Coughlin the Jew-baiting priest, General Franco the foe of the Reds and freemasons, and Joseph McCarthy the drink-sodden bigmouth and bigot. That’s why the term “Catholic fascist” or “clerical fascist” used to be so current on the left.

This was to recognize the undeniable fact that, from Spain to Croatia to Slovakia, there was a very direct link between fascism and the Roman Catholic Church. More recently, Yehoshua Leibowitz, editor of the Encyclopaedia Hebraica, coined the term “Judaeo-Nazi” to describe the messianic settlers who moved onto the occupied West Bank after 1967. So there need be no self-pity among Muslims about being “singled out” on this point.

The actual term “Islamofascism” was first used in 1990 in the London Independent by the Anglo-Irish writer Malise Ruthven, who was writing about the way in which traditional Arab dictatorships used religious appeals in order to stay in power. The expression has some respectable antecedents. In his book, The Politics of Social Change in the Middle East and North Africa, published by Princeton in 1965, the German scholar Manfred Halpern (himself a refugee from the Third Reich) employed the term “Islamic totalitarian” to characterize the mingled worship of a heroic past with the mobilization of “passion and violence”. Perhaps you suspect Halpern of undue sympathy with Judaism or Zionism? Very well, then, consider Professor Maxime Rodinson, one of the most intransigent critics of the state of Israel. In an exchange with Michel Foucault in the late 1970s, on the subject of the nascent Shi’a theocracy in Iran, Rodinson writing in Le Monde alluded to “a certain type of archaic fascism” taking the form of “an authoritarian and totalitarian state whose political police would brutally enforce the moral and social order.” I didn’t know about all of these for-runners when I employed the term “fascism with an Islamic face” to describe the assault on civil society on 11 September 2001, and to ridicule those who presented the attack as some kind of liberation theology in action. “Fascism with an Islamic face” is meant to summon a dual echo of both Alexander Dubcek and Susan Sontag (if I do say so myself), and in any case it can’t be used for everyday polemical purposes, so the question remains: does bin-Ladinism or Salafism or whatever we agree to call it have anything in common with fascism?

I think yes. The most obvious points of comparison would be these. Both movements are based on a cult of murderous violence that exalts death and destruction and despises the life of the mind (“Death to the intellect! Long live death!” as Franco’s accomplice General Mola so pithily phrased it in a debate with Miguel de Unamuno). Both are hostile to modernity (except when it comes to the pursuit of weapons) and both are bitterly nostalgic for past empires and lost glories. Both are obsessed with real and imagined “humiliations”, and thirsty for revenge. Both are chronically infected with the toxin of anti-Jewish paranoia (interestingly, also, with its milder cousin, anti-Freemason paranoia). Both are inclined to leader-worship and to the exclusive stress on the power of one great book. Both have a strong commitment to sexual repression, especially to the repression of any sexual “deviance”, and to its counterparts: the subordination of the female and contempt for the feminine. Both despise art and literature as symptoms of degeneracy and decadence, and burn books and destroy museums and treasures.

Fascism (and Nazism) also attempted to counterfeit the then-success of the socialist movement by issuing pseudo-socialist and populist appeals. It has been very interesting to observe lately, especially in its most recent statement on the last anniversary of 11 September, the manner in which Al Quaeda has been striving to counterfeit and recycle the propaganda of the anti-globalist and “Green” movements.

There isn’t a perfect congruence. Historically, fascism laid great emphasis on glorifying the nation state and the corporate structure. There isn’t much of a corporate structure in the Muslim world, where the conditions often approximate more nearly to feudalism than capitalism, but bin-Laden’s own business conglomerate is, among other things, a rogue multi-national corporation with some links to finance-capital. As to the nation state, Al Quaida’s demand is that countries like Iraq and Saudi Arabia be dissolved into one great revived Caliphate but doesn’t this have points of resemblance with the mad scheme of a “Greater Germany” or with Mussolini’s fantasy of a revived Roman empire?

Technically, no form of Islam preaches racial superiority or proposes a master-race. But in practice, Islamic fanatics operate a fascistic concept of the “pure” and the “exclusive” over the unclean and the kufar or profane. In the propaganda against Hinduism and India, for example, there can be seen something very like bigotry. In the attitude to Jews, it is clear that an inferior or unclean race is being talked about (which is why many Muslim extremists like the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem gravitated to Hitler’s side). In the attempted destruction of the Hazara people of Afghanistan, who are ethnically Persian as well as religiously Shi’ite, there was also a strong suggestion of “cleansing”. And of course bin-Laden has threatened force against UN peacekeepers who might dare interrupt the race-murder campaign against African Muslims that is being carried out by his pious Sudanese friends.

Essentially, though, the point of convergence occurs at the word “totalitarian”. Study any serious proclamation about shari’a and you will be struck by the way in which Islam proposes itself as a “total” solution, covering every area of life and effectively abolishing the distinction between the public and the private. All “faith” does this, in my opinion, just as all “faiths” do it, but one cannot fail to be struck by the confidence with which Islamism legislates for absolutism in every department of existence.

This makes it permissible, it seems to me, to mention the two phenomena in the same breath and to suggest that they constitute comparable threats to civilization and civilized values. There is one final point of comparison: one that is in some ways encouraging. Both of these totalitarian systems of thought evidently suffer from a death-wish. It is surely not an accident that both of them stress suicidal tactics and sacrificial ends, just as both of them would obviously rather see the destruction of their own societies than any compromise with infidels or any dilution of the joys of absolute doctrinal orthodoxy. Thus, while we have a duty to oppose and destroy these and any similar totalitarian movements, we can also be fairly sure that they will play an unconscious part in arranging for their own destruction, as well. Meanwhile, however our critics may wail about the way in which we generalize or deal in “stereotypes”, there is hardly one of them who has protested when the American flag is paraded bedecked with a swastika (a swastika!) or a cartoon of the President is carried across campus wearing a Hitler moustache. Who exactly is it who is looking for fascism in all the wrong places?

Gartenstein-Ross: Hitchens draws an excellent analogy between Fascist and jihadist ideology, and offers a competent rebuttal to various pundits’ objections to comparing the two. However, the question Jamie posed is not whether “Islamofascism” is an appropriate polemical term, or whether it is fair to compare militant Islam to Fascism. Rather, he queried whether the term is “legitimate in terms of defining the enemy we face in the terror war”; indeed, some commentators now use the term this way. My contention is that as a definitional term applied to the enemy, “Islamofascism” is too imprecise and in some ways counterproductive.

The first problem is that the term is overly broad. Hitchens actually does a good job of illustrating this problem in his opening remarks. In discussing the term’s history, Hitchens writes that Malise Ruthven first used it when “writing about the way in which traditional Arab dictatorships used religious appeals in order to stay in power.” Arab countries are, for the most part, no less fascistic today than they were in 1990, yet they are not “the enemy” in this war. Much of their heavy-handed police state tactics-for example, in Algeria and Egypt-are in fact aimed at the stateless Islamic militants against whom the present war is directed. (This statement is, of course, not meant as an endorsement of these states’ tactics.)

Taking a closer look at the Muslim world, the state of emergency that Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf declared in early November has much in common with Fascist governance-but it did not transform him from a bumbling and self-destructive ally into an enemy in the present global war. No Middle Eastern government had more in common with Fascist rule than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq: as former CIA director James Woolsey has said, the Ba’ath party was “modeled after the fascist regimes of Hitler’s Germany and Mussolini’s Italy.” But regardless of what one thinks of the Iraq war (and I have made my views on the matter clear), we did not go to war-nor would we have-because of the similarities between Saddam’s rule and Fascism. Rather, the justification was rooted in U.S. national interests, such as intelligence estimates of Iraq’s development of weapons of mass destruction and concerns about possible cooperation with al-Qaeda.

Other groups and countries that possess critical differences may be too quickly lumped together under the “Islamofascist” umbrella. There is currently a lively debate among policymakers and analysts about how the U.S. should deal with the Muslim Brotherhood. While I do not endorse the argument advanced by Robert S. Leiken and Steven Brooke about “the moderate Muslim Brotherhood,” I think the debate is a legitimate one-and that treating al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood in the same way because both are “Islamofascist” would run contrary to our strategic interests. In President Bush’s September 20, 2001 address to the joint session of Congress, he said that the U.S. would “starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another.” I think this is the right approach, and that the overbroad “Islamofascism” definition jeopardizes our ability to produce schisms between groups that in many ways are not alike.

Aside from this definitional problem, there are also tactical problems with using “Islamofascism.” The term is polemical in nature, as Hitchens readily admits when he says that he first used the phrase “fascism with an Islamic face” to “ridicule those who presented [9/11] as some kind of liberation theology in action.” His initial use of the phrase was both clever and effective. But clever polemical turns of phrase are best used sparingly. I would wager that even Hitchens cringes at how some lesser writers have used “Islamofascism.”

The use of a polemical turn of phrase to “defin[e] the enemy we face” can also limit the audience that one reaches. If I’m reading a work that employs the phraseology “Bushitler” or “Zionazi,” that’s usually a strong sign that reading further could only possibly lower my IQ. While “Islamofascism” is not as false as either of those polemical terms, people associate it with a certain political viewpoint about the war against radical Islam. If they do not agree with the viewpoint, the term causes many people to stop listening-and to disregard otherwise legitimate arguments.

Finally, use of the term “Islamofascism” makes it more difficult to work alongside moderate Muslims, who almost uniformly bristle at the phrase. It is true that a number of Muslim moderates have a wide variety of objections to terms analysts use to describe the enemy, and many of their terminological objections are in my view illegitimate. But they have some legitimate objections to the term “Islamofascism.” One legitimate objection, as detailed above, is the term’s overbreadth. Another legitimate objection is that the term will almost undoubtedly be applied against Islamic religious practice that is merely conservative and not violent. This can be seen in some of the similarities Hitchens fingers between radical Islam and Fascism, including “exclusive stress on the power of one great book,” “strong commitment to sexual repression, especially to the repression of any sexual `deviance,'” and “subordination of the female.” These descriptions can apply not just to militant practice of the faith, but also conservative manifestations.

Secularists tend to view all religious practice with suspicion, and overgeneralize on that basis. Note that Hitchens argues that there is a totalitarian tendency not just within extremist Islam, but rather that “all `faiths’ do it.” Or note Christiane Amanpour’s clumsy attempt to liken American evangelicals to the Taliban on CNN’s God’s Warriors. Moderate Muslims are rightly concerned that the “Islamofascist” label will be applied to legitimate theological practices.

In short, I have no problem with Hitchens’s initial description of bin Laden’s agenda as “fascism with an Islamic face,” and I think he proffers a strong defense of the analogy. But the term’s overbreadth obscures real distinctions that analysts need to make, and I believe there are also solid tactical reasons that those of us who care about defeating Islamic extremism should select a different label.

FP: So what is that different label going to be? We can’t just reject a term without offering a term that we think is better to describe our enemy.

Surely “Islamo-fascism” is a legitimate term. We can’t take the Islam out of the fascistic Muslims who are waging war on us, and we would be fooling ourselves if we try to sweep the word “Islam” under the rug. Moreover, it is a given that many Muslims are not fascistic — just as many Italians weren’t fascistic all because Italian fascists existed. And we can’t take the fascist out of the Muslim fascists either.

Khalim Massoud, as a reform-minded Muslim, what do you think of this term? Do you “bristle” at the term in the way that Gartenstein-Ross says that moderate Muslims “almost uniformly” do?

Massoud: I define fascism as a totalitarian political ideology with an element of superiority. German fascism’s criterion of superiority was race. Islamic fascism’s criterion of superiority is religion. Otherwise both ideologies are practically identical.

Mr. Gartenstein-Ross says “use of the term ‘Islamofascism’ makes it more difficult to work alongside moderate Muslims, who almost uniformly bristle at the phrase.” I couldn’t disagree more. As long as the user of the term makes a clear distinction between Islam and Islamofascism, moderate Muslims will not be offended by the term. And the ones who are offended are not moderate. In fact, moderate Muslims were the first to widely use this term to describe radicals in Algeria who murdered more than 100,000 of moderate Muslims.

I also disagree with Mr. Gartenstein-Ross’s contention that “treating al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood in the same way because both are ‘Islamofascist’ would run contrary to our strategic interests.” The strategic goals of al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood are identical; they both desire Global Caliphate. They may employ different tactics, but their objective is the same. And they both are Islamofascist organizations. Tactically, they need to be treated differently, but strategically they must be treated the same; these groups must be eliminated.

Starving terrorists of funding and turning them against one another hasn’t really worked so far. How can we possibly starve terrorists of funding when we are pumping billions of Petro-Dollars into Persian Gulf regimes? As for turning terrorists against each other, it might be working to some degree in Israel (Fatah vs. Hamas). However, in Iraq, Sunni terrorists are murdering Shia civilians and vice versa, but they don’t seem to be going after each other.

Mr. Gartenstein-Ross says, “I think this is the right approach, and that the overbroad “Islamofascism” definition jeopardizes our ability to produce schisms between groups that in many ways are not alike.” I don’t think we can rely on these schisms, especially when history shows that supporting the lesser evil, i.e., Afghani mujahideen against the Soviets or Iraq against Iran, may backfire. I think the correct approach is not to focus on making different terrorist groups fight each other, but to empower moderate Muslims and have them fight the radicals.

Tefft: My view is a bit more simplistic, and at the same time an amalgam of the rest of the panel. Islam is indeed fascistic in that it is (like National Socialism, Communism and Fascism) both totalitarian and posits an absolute superiority of Muslims over non-Muslims. This is demonstrated in the Islamic system of dhimmitude and the second class citizenship of kuffars who, if not killed or converted, are forced to pay the ‘jizya’ – the infidel poll tax.

The problem with using the term Islamofascist though is that it implies there is a difference in Islam between fascist Muslims and non-fascist Muslims — and this is misleading and therefore a disservice to our war effort. As the later Suras of the Koran indicate, Islam is to dominate the world, jihad is an obligation if not a duty of all Muslims, and all non-Muslims are to be converted, enslaved or killed.

As you know, the later Suras abrogate any contradictory earlier ones of “peace, love, and tolerance”. Given that the first duty of every Muslim, as an article of faith, is to accept the Koran as the literal word of Allah, is it possible for so-called ‘moderate Muslims’ to pick and choose which part of the Koran they will adhere to? To reject parts of the Koran? My understanding is that if a Muslim rejects the Koran he is rejecting Islam and Allah and is an apostate.

I think the evidence is clear that, as the Prime Minister of Turkey Erdogan said about “moderate” Islam, this past August, “These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”

In further support of Erdogan, it is interesting that no Islamic religious authority has pronounced takfir on bin Laden or al-Qaeda declaring them apostates for their terrorism in the name of Islam. This is not from fear of retaliation by the terrorists, but recognition of the fact that bin Laden is not violating Islamic principles. He is practicing Islam as the Koran and the Hadiths dictate.

Insofar as Muslims murdering Muslims, this is human nature and fascist or not, Muslims are humans. They are divided into tribes, and groups, with leaders who have ego problems. Bin Laden and the Ayatollah Khomeini agreed to an alliance in 1995 that the Shia-Sunni conflict was inevitable and would continue but that both sides, as Muslims, must devote their efforts against the main enemy, the Great Satan. After the defeat of the United States and the West, then the Shia and Sunnis would sort out their differences. This agreement has largely held, in spite of the word not getting through to some of the lower level elements who insist on blowing up each other’s mosques in Iraq and Pakistan.

FP: With all due respect, Bruce Tefft, to suggest that there is no difference between fascist Muslims and non-fascist Muslims is completely erroneous. I don’t know if I am missing something, but I think there is indeed a difference between someone who is fascist and someone who isn’t fascist.

It is a given that Islam has an intrinsic problem and that it does serve as a foundation to terror. And it is crucial that people such as yourself have the courage to raise this and to drive the point home. But to suggest that all Muslims are the same, indistinguishable from one another, and all our enemies is absurd. There are organizations such as Muslims Against Sharia and the Muslim Canadian Congress that reject Sharia and reject jihad. There are Muslims, such as the two on our panel, Khalim Massoud and Thomas Haidon, who oppose extremism and are trying to bring Islam into the democratic and modern world. They are not replicas of Osama bin Laden, they do not share his agenda, and they are his enemy and our allies.

Does this mean that there is no problem in Islamic theology? No. Does it mean that Islamic moderates and reformers don’t face a huge challenge in their effort to change Islam, especially when it is true, as you point out Mr. Tefft, that Islam itself disallows any change to its own teachings (i.e. the Qur’an)? No. But this does not mean that there are not many Muslims who want to try to create their own new Islam and who want a relaxation of Islamic principles? Whether they can do this, and whether it is possible, is another matter, but to suggest that all Muslims are the same because there are huge obstacles to an Islamic reformation is based on fundamentally flawed assumptions.

And these kinds of arguments do deadly damage to our own cause since the Muslims who embrace Western civilization and seek to change Islam, whether this is possible or not, are our inspirational hope against radical Islam. They have weapons against the enemy that we do not have and we would be foolish to push them away and consider them our enemy, when they are not.

Thomas Haidon, go ahead.

Haidon: Accurate problem definition is a crucial component to addressing any policy question. The failure to accurately frame issues and problems almost ensures a misguided policy response to any issue. Ensuring that the terminology we use to describe a problem is accurate is crucial. There are real risks if we get it wrong or articulate the problem in a manner that is “under inclusive,” inclusive or “over inclusive” (as Mr Garenstein-Ross has observed). We have seen what happens, at a policy level, when an “under-inclusive” approach has been taken to addressing the Islamist problem. The US “war on terror” has consistently failed (other than in soundbites) to identify Islam’s role. This has lead to flawed policies which have forced “democracy” in the Arab world, which has led to the consequences in Egypt and the Occupied Territories and the resurgence of Ikwan and Hamas.

An over-inclusive approach to problem identification has just been demonstrated to us by Mr. Tefft. This approach not only marginalises the Islamists, but also moderate Muslims who are in a bitter fight for survival in the battle of ideas. Mr. Tefft’s approach is not one rooted in strategy. Moderate Muslims should be viewed by non-Muslims as partners in fighting Islamists. That being said, I can understand and sympathise with Mr. Tefft’s frustration. Moderate Muslims are not always easy to identify.

Overall, while I think there is some incongruence between fascism and the nature of the Islamist threat, at a high-level I think that Islamo-fascism is an appropriate descriptor of the problem. It is neither under-inclusive nor over-inclusive. The challenge we are confronted with is a political, confrontational and authoritarian interpretation of Islam. The writings of the 20th century Islamist revivalists (Hasan Al’Banna, Sayid Qut’b, Abi Al’a Al Mawdoudi, Sheikh Haj Amin Al Husseini) demonstrate approaches in common with fascism. When one reads the writings and teachings of these individuals, which are celebrated in the Muslim world, and which form the ideological basis of the full range of Islamist organisations and movements (from Ikwan to Hamas to Al’Qaeda), there is no mistake about the commonalities and shared characteristics with fascism of Giovanni Gentile or Carl Schmitt, particularly a disdain for democracy and fundamental human rights, in favour of the rights of the collective.

Islamo-fascism, as a term, is neither “under-inclusive” nor “over-inclusive”. It defines the enemy narrowly. It has the potential to isolate some moderate and traditional Muslims, not because of the accuracy of the term, but in its delivery. The methods and ways in which the term is delivered will have a bearing on how moderate and traditional Muslims will react. The term “Islamo-fascism” is now inextricably linked to the so called “right-wing” and those who have traditionally been critical and skeptical of Islam. This perception will continue to contribute to the lack of moderate Muslim “buy in”. In my view, the “right”, which is on the forefront of this fight, needs to develop a more strategic approach in engaging moderate and traditional Muslims. How to achieve this is another question, but one that is closely linked and requires examination. It should be a core assumption (not shared by Mr. Tefft), that moderate Muslims and peaceful traditional Muslims are partners in this process. As Mr. Massoud has indicated, they need to be empowered. The term “Islamo-fascism” has the capacity to be an empowering mechanism, if delivered effectively.

Spencer: Perhaps it would be helpful to step back for a moment and recall some of the features of the phenomenon we are trying to capture in a phrase. The 20th century Islamic revivalists to which Mr. Haidon refers wrote of the need for Muslims to make war against and ultimately replace any government not based on Islamic law with a Sharia regime. This is an explicitly and inherently religious imperative, as Maududi articulated when he said that non-Muslims have “absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God’s earth nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines.” If they do, “the believers would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life.” The Islamic way of life – Sharia in its classic formulations by the schools of Islamic jurisprudence — is a total concept, encompassing every aspect of life, and subordinating every human endeavor to the Islamic cause.

Is this an Islamic imperative? Undeniably, to any rational observer — although this half of the “Islamo-Fascism” term is controverted even more heatedly than the other half. The Prime Minister of Great Britain has even forbidden his cabinet to use another compound, “Islamic terrorism,” or to suggest in any way that Islam has anything to do with the.the.the large thing that the world faces today. Yet proponents of this view are indeed, as Mr. Haidon said, revivalists: they are attempting to restore what they argue is the purity and fullness of Islam, and appeal to peaceful Muslims on that basis. Part of that fullness and purity is the proposition that there is no distinction between the sacred and the secular, and that Islamic law must be the law of the land.

Mr. Gartenstein-Ross, however, is quite right when he points out that the term “Islamo-Fascism” has been applied to governments that are not strict Sharia or Islamic revivalist regimes, but are rather dictatorships that – as Hitchens notes regarding Malise Ruthven’s original use of the word “Islamo-Fascism” – “used religious appeals in order to stay in power.” Gartenstein-Ross correctly notes that sometimes these regimes, such as in Algeria, Egypt, and now Musharraf’s Pakistan, cracked down violently on “stateless Islamic militants” who hold an ideology identical to that held by those who attacked us on 9/11. This does complicate somewhat the usefulness of the term. If the enemy is Islamo-Fascism, can the U.S. have Islamo-Fascist allies such as General Musharraf?

Ruthven’s usage is perfectly legitimate: after all, Saddam Hussein, to take the most notorious example, headed an Arab nationalist secular regime, but he never hesitated to use religious language – specifically, the language of jihad warfare – to shore up his base and try to compel Islamic hardliners in Iraq to fight to defend his regime. Nevertheless, Saddam did not institute Sharia and had no desire to do so; Musharraf, despite his own occasional use of Islamic rhetoric, is now actively engaged in combating those who want to make over Pakistan into a strict Sharia state.

The term “Islamo-Fascist” may not, therefore, apply to them or to others like them as well as it does to the likes of Osama bin Laden, Abu Bakar Bashir and others who have made it clear that they are fighting for Islam and Islamic law as they see them: Saddam, Musharraf, Mubarak and the secular rulers of Algeria may indeed be authoritarians – fascists – but there is nothing specifically Islamic about their fascism other than the fact that they themselves are Muslim rulers of majority-Muslim states. The state envisioned by Osama and his ilk, in contrast, is just as authoritarian, but it is so in a strictly Islamic context – which is why those in favor of such a state – authoritarian and Sharia-based — merit the “Islamo-Fascist” label.

I disagree with Mr. Gartenstein-Ross, however, and agree with Mr. Massoud, about the Muslim Brotherhood. Mr. Gartenstein-Ross contends that “treating al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood in the same way because both are `Islamofascist’ would run contrary to our strategic interests,” but Mr. Massoud points out correctly that “the strategic goals of al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood are identical; they both desire Global Caliphate.” As the Muslim Brotherhood’s website itself says:

“We want a Muslim individual, a Muslim home, a Muslim people, a Muslim government and state that will lead the Islamic countries and bring into the fold the Muslim Diaspora and the lands robbed from Islam and will then bear the standard of jihad and the call [da’wah] to Allah. [Then the] world will happily accept the precepts of Islam….The problems of conquering the world will only end when the flag of Islam waves and jihad has been proclaimed..The goal is to establish one Islamic state of united Islamic countries, one nation under one leadership whose mission will be to reinforce adherence to the law of Allah…and the strengthening of the Islamic presence in the world arena….The goal…is the establishment of a world Islamic state.”

That statement is quintessentially both Islamic and, in its authoritarianism and orientation of every aspect of society to Islam, Fascist.

As for Mr. Gartenstein-Ross’ contention that “the use of a polemical turn of phrase to `defin[e] the enemy we face’ can also limit the audience that one reaches,” and that “the term causes many people to stop listening-and to disregard otherwise legitimate arguments,” I’m afraid that is inevitable no matter what term one uses. People make decisions about the veracity of an argument based on who is making it, or where it is published, or what set of catch phrases are being used. That is true across the political spectrum. Dispassionate seekers after truth are as thin on the ground now as they were in Diogenes’ day, and we should not let that fact deter us from using a term that may be accurate, useful and in many ways illuminating.

And in light of the fact that the term is in both of its component parts accurate, I do wonder why, as Mr. Gartenstein-Ross says, moderate Muslims “almost uniformly bristle” at the phrase “Islamo-Fascism.” As I found myself saying many times during Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, “Islamo-Fascism” doesn’t imply that all Muslims are fascists any more than “white racism” implies that all whites are racist, or “Italian fascism” that all Italians are fascist. So much for the term’s “overbreadth.” And will it “undoubtedly be applied against Islamic religious practice that is merely conservative and not violent”? A further distinction needs to be made here: are those engaging in this conservative but not violent Islamic religious practice believers in the Islamic supremacist notion that underlies the Sharia imperative? In that case, ultimately it matters little that they are “not violent,” for they are pursuing through non-violent means the same goal that Osama and others are pursuing through violence. There are many non-violent Islamic supremacists even in America today, and we need to be aware of the congruence of their agenda with that of the violent jihadists.

When Mr. Tefft says that “the problem with using the term Islamofascist is that it implies there is a difference in Islam between fascist Muslims and non-fascist Muslims,” I think he is failing to draw the necessary distinction between Islam and Muslims. Religious traditions are large things, and while it is certainly true that all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach that Muslims must wage war against and subjugate non-Muslims under Sharia rule, it does not follow from that that all Muslims, or any given Muslim, knows of such teachings, takes them to heart, or acts upon them — or ever will.

In Islam as in all religious traditions there is a spectrum of belief, knowledge, fervor and emphasis. Islamic supremacism has not, unfortunately, been disavowed by any orthodox sect or school of Islam, but for a variety of historical and cultural reasons these teachings have not been emphasized for a considerable period in some areas of the Islamic world. Because of the deep traditional roots of these teachings, jihadist recruiters in person and via cassette tapes, DVD’s and the Internet are making inroads in these peaceful Muslim communities, and have seized the intellectual initiative in the Islamic world. Nonetheless, there is a large difference between fascist and non-fascist Muslims.

Unlike many analysts, I do not believe we can encourage those non-fascist Muslims by pretending that the Islamic texts do not say what they say, or that the jihadists have no case to make on Islamic grounds; rather, I believe that their case can only be combated by being confronted for what it is. There may be considerable numbers of Muslims who would sincerely renounce Islamic supremacism if given a chance to do so. But since the problem is not even being presented in those terms, non-Muslims are too often fooled by false moderates and pseudo-reformers.

And one quibble: Mr. Tefft says that “the later Suras of the Koran indicate” that “all non-Muslims are to be converted, enslaved or killed.” Actually, the choices for non-Muslims delineated by Muhammad and Islamic law are not conversion, slavery, or death, but conversion, subjugation, or death (cf. Qur’an 9:29, as well as the hadith recorded at Sahih Muslim 4294). Subjugation is not, strictly speaking, slavery, although the distinction between the two at various points in Islamic history was exceedingly fine. Non-Muslims had to accept a humiliating second-class status and held their lives and property always at the sufferance of their Muslim overlords, but they were not slaves outright.

Hughes: The comments and responses in this symposium are useful and enlightening. I think this is just what is needed to characterize and define what our moderator (Mr. Glazov) refers to as “our enemy.” Some may think that referring to Islamic militants as the enemy is too polarizing, but from my view, as a feminist concerned about the well being and rights of women and girls, they are indeed one of the most serious, global threats to women and girls.

As for the term “Islamo-Fascism,” it is a compound term comprised of two essential elements. First of all, it connects the growing threat to the religion that the militants choose to explain and justify their beliefs and actions. They have chosen this base for their ideology. They proclaim themselves to be God’s warriors and call their actions jihad. Their opponents did not project it on to them. It may challenge us to precisely name and identify who they are, but the Islamic radicals are not confused. I know liberal, moderate, and progressive Muslims who also are not confused, they have no trouble distinguishing between the Islamic fundamentalists and Muslims who have different interpretations of the religious texts, especially as they translate the texts into how they live their lives and define their politics.

The second part of the term “Islamo-Fascism” is also important. “Fascism” clearly indicates that this is a political movement. We can debate whether “fascism” is the correct name or not. Some say it isn’t because it differs in some ways from previous fascist movements and regimes. Well, nothing is ever exactly like anything else. I’ll let the historians and political scientists debate this one. If they come up with a better term, they can let us know. The point is we need a term that names this phenomenon as a political movement with common ideology, tactics, and way of ruling once control of territory is established.

A political label also helps us distinguish the political movement from conservative, traditional practices. This distinction is most apparent when we look at the lives of women. There are many families, communities and entire nations that are conservative and traditional, which often translates into suppression and strict control of women and girls. Females are oppressed by discriminatory attitudes and practices, often reinforced by violence (i.e. honor killings). Feminists say that sexism is political. A rallying cry of the second wave of the women’s movement (1960s) was “the personal is political.” While I agree that the status of women and girls is always political, influenced by culture, religion, and traditional practices, I want to distinguish between the small “p” politics of traditional practices, and the capital “P” politics of Islamo-Fascism.

The small “p” politics of sexism is systemic discrimination that exists all over the world; sometimes it is so severe that it reaches the level of oppression. Women’s liberation movements have addressed sexism throughout the world, some more successfully than others. In the ideology and practices of Islamo-Fascism, sexism is politicized. The suppression of women is incorporated in the capital “P” political movement.

As the influence of Islamo-Fascism grows and as Islamo-Fascists gain control of territory, women and girls and their rights become political targets. As I like to say “Terrorism begins at home.” The most severe oppression of women and girls we have ever seen took place under the Taliban in Afghanistan, where girls were banned from education and women were banned from working and consigned to house arrest. They could only emerge from their houses if they covered their bodies and identities with a burqa and were accompanied by a male member of their family.

Islamo-Fascism politicizes sexism, making the oppression of women and girls a political goal. Their success in controlling a population can be measured by the extent to which they have suppressed women and girls. It is their visible sign-to the communities they control and to the outside world-that they are in control. Just as anti-Semitism is a global prejudice, with consequences–sometimes severe consequences-to individuals, it is when anti-Semitism is incorporated into a political movement, as it was with Nazism, that it becomes more virulent and deadly. That is what Islamo-Fascism is doing with sexism. Because even the most misogynous Islamo-Fascist recognizes the biological indispensability of women, they don’t advocate genocide. Instead they practice slavery. Women and girls who violate their rules are viciously punished with whippings. In order to terrorize the rest of the population, a few women and girls are killed, often in brutal public executions, such as stoning to death.

To conclude, it is important to have accurate term or terms to describe the global threat we are facing. The “war on terror” as a label has failed us. My students have no idea what it means. It carries no information. It doesn’t identify the enemies the war is against or their ideas and goals. In fact, it’s a rather sad state of affairs that six years after 9-11 and nine years after the U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania we are still trying to decide what to call the people and movement that have targeted us.

In the end, we may decide there are better terms to refer to this militant, deadly political movement, but Islamo-Fascism moves us in the right direction of identifying and characterizing it.

Hitchens: I feel very much vindicated by the comments of the learned members of this panel: whether our disagreements are concerned with principle or with emphasis they are nonetheless of the sort that enable one to learn. I think that the most thin-skinned objector to the coupling of the terms “Islamic” and “fascist” would have to agree that this symposium has enlarged and clarified the subject.

I myself am of the opinion that monotheistic religious belief, with its celebration of an absolutist and unchangeable deity, is in any case implicitly and explicitly totalitarian. But this does not mean that every Baptist in every epoch is always and everywhere the equivalent of today’s members of the deluded “Mahdi Army”, say.

Fascism is not something that can be a permanent part of the landscape. It is hysterical and spasmodic and relies on very strenuous forms of mobilisation. Even when victorious it probably cannot constitute, for very long, a regime. Its tendency to self-destruction is very marked, as I tried to point out. However, it is in some ways precisely this futility and degraded romanticism that make it so dangerous.

I tried to introduce a version of the term because, as Marx says at the opening of the Eighteenth Brumaire, a person trying to learn a new language will always have a tendency to translate it back into the tongue that he already knows. I knew that there would be those who compared the struggle against jihadism to the Cold War (and I argued with Jim Woolsey and others that this was no time to resurrect The Committee for the Free World: an opinion of mine that events have not forced me to reconsider.) The battle, it seemed and seems to me, was very much more like the earlier struggle against an essentially irrational movement. Stalin and Mao may have been deeply unstable people but they were somehow constrained by a wooden materialism: religious intoxication can have the effect of making half-way sane people act with wild disregard for their own self-interest, let alone the interests of others. Khalim Massoud has noticed this demented tendency in the case of the Algerian jihadists, who ended up excommunicating an entire North African population as infidel. Similar pathologies are observable among the sadistic maniacs of Al Qaeda in Mesopotomia.

Let us not forget that ultimate victory over fascism was made possible in large part because of that movement’s own tendency to act in mad ways. (Declaring war on three fronts at once, expelling all those who knew anything about nuclear physics, diverting rail-cars and troops and materiel for the purpose of eliminating civilians.) Thus, in pointing out the kinship between one kind of irrational fanaticism and another, I was also hoping to put a bit of heart and stomach into the argument, and suggest a thoughtful confidence in ultimate victory. This confidence is given a slight surge, in my own case at least, by observation of the criminally insane and self-defeating tactics that the fascists of Islam have been pursuing since the fall of 2001.

I should add the anti-fascists of Islam, who have born much of the heat and burden of the day, deserve a much more honorable title that that of “moderate”. Perhaps this condescending terminology could furnish the material for a subsequent FP round-table.

FP: And the round-table on this subject will begin immediately. Thank you for the excellent idea Mr. Hitchens.

Mr. Gartenstein-Ross, your turn my friend.

Gartenstein-Ross: At the outset, I’d like to agree with Hitchens’s remark that even “the most thin-skinned objector to the coupling of the terms `Islamic’ and `fascist’ would have to agree that this symposium has enlarged and clarified the subject.” In fact, I recently spoke with a “moderate” Muslim colleague (I put the term “moderate” in quotations not to suggest that my colleague is a closet extremist, but to signal my agreement with Hitchens’s statement of the term’s inadequacy) about Hitchens’s initial contribution to this symposium. On hearing that past usage of the terms “Catholic fascist,” “clerical fascist,” and “Judaeo-Nazi” mean that Islam is not being uniquely singled out, he commented, “As a Muslim, that makes me feel somewhat better about the term.”

That being said, I do not waver from my initial position in this debate: while the analogies between Islamic extremism and fascism are clear, and while Hitchens (and, perhaps, others?) has competently employed the polemical term to rebut those who would like to paint al-Qaeda as a kind of turbaned liberation theology, “Islamofascism” is not the term we should use to define the enemy. It seems that I am alone on the panel in taking that position: the only other contributor who opposes the use of this term is Tefft, who argues that it falsely “implies there is a difference in Islam between fascist Muslims and non-fascist Muslims.” That is, obviously, not my argument. Now, it’s always pleasant to be the lone dissenter in a debate-particularly in a debate like this, where I’m not forced to distance myself from the kind of hypersensitive “how could you even think of using that term?” arguments to which the other panelists alluded. But because I am a lone voice, you’ll have to indulge the length of this summary of the reasons that I encourage others to avoid “Islamofascism” as a definitional term.

The first argument I advanced against the term is its overbreadth. Arab countries, for example, are generally no less fascistic than they were in 1990 when Malise Ruthven applied the term to Arab dictatorships-yet they are not the enemy that we’re fighting. My argument on this point has not been refuted. Haidon argues that the term is “an appropriate descriptor of the problem” because such twentieth century revivalists as Hassan al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb, and A.A. Maududi have approaches in common with fascism. (He also mentions Haj Amin al-Husseini, grand mufti of Jerusalem, who had more in common with fascism than just an approach.) I don’t disagree with the parallels that Haidon draws, but they are not responsive to my argument: while “Islamofascism” is a fair description of the jihadist ideologues whose views drive al-Qaeda and other militant Islamic movements, it also describes many other actors in the Middle East. The term has been applied to groups ranging from al-Qaeda and Hizballah to the PFLP, Iraqi Ba’ath party, and Syrian Alawite elite. “Islamofascism” largely appears to have become a stand-in for “Middle Eastern bad guys.”

Spencer agrees that there is a problem with overbreadth, but attempts to mitigate it by pointing out that although Pervez Musharraf, Saddam Hussein, and other leaders in the Muslim world to whom the term “Islamofascist” might apply employ religious rhetoric, they have not implemented sharia law. Therefore, Spencer states, the term might not “apply to them or to others like them as well as it does to the likes of Osama bin Laden, Abu Bakar Bashir and others who have made it clear that they are fighting for Islam and Islamic law as they see them.” His argument is true enough if one emphasizes the “Islamo” half of “Islamofascism.” But if one emphasizes the “fascism” half of the term, it fits Middle Eastern regimes better than it does al-Qaeda. I do not deny the authoritarian nature of today’s militant Islamic movement, nor its conception of religious supremacy-but some Middle Eastern regimes explicitly drew their organizing principles from twentieth century fascist movements. George Michael (no, not the Wham! singer) writes in his book The Enemy of My Enemy:

The German model of centralized government and corporatist nationalism remained attractive to many of the early pan-Arab nationalists in Egypt, some of whom sought the creation of an “Arab Reich” that would unite all Arabs into one nation. The early pan-Arab leaders searched for methods to mobilize their populations and build independent nations. They were influenced in large part by European fascists who viewed the state as an organic outgrowth of the nation. As they saw it, only a strong, authoritarian state could protect the nation. Hence, the German model of bureaucratic centralization and authoritarianism looked attractive to many Arabs who sought an alternative way to modernize their countries.

This approach was most influential in Egypt, where such former Nazis as Otto Skorzeny, Johann von Leers, Wilhelm Farmbacher, Oskar Munzel, and Wilhelm Voss were given positions in Gamal Abdel Nasser’s government. But former Nazi officials were granted sanctuary in other Middle Eastern states as well (notably Syria), and the fascist model was adopted elsewhere: recall that in my first contribution to this symposium, I quoted former CIA director James Woolsey’s statement that Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath party was “modeled after the fascist regimes of Hitler’s Germany and Mussolini’s Italy.” In contrast, if you look at the kind of rule that was set up under the Islamic Courts Union in Somalia, under al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) in those parts of Iraq that came under its control, and more contemporaneously in northern Pakistan, these are not typical fascist states. Rather, their murderous political apparatus is somewhat unique. The same can be said of the long-term end-states laid out by both Indonesia’s Jemaah Islamiyah and also the international Hizb-ut-Tahrir movement. So if you give equal weight to both “Islamo” and also “fascist” in the term we are debating, overbreadth remains a problem.

My remarks about the Muslim Brotherhood have been somewhat misapprehended. Massoud decries the tactic of “supporting the lesser evil,” while Spencer quotes from the Brotherhood’s web site to show that the organization is “both Islamic and, in its authoritarianism and orientation of every aspect of society to Islam, Fascist.” I did not claim otherwise: in my first contribution, I said that both al-Qaeda and the Brotherhood should be considered “Islamofascist” if one employs that term. Massoud in fact makes my point for me by stating that, tactically, al-Qaeda and the Brotherhood “need to be treated differently.” One reason a definitional term like “Islamofascism” is not useful is that it may obscure the tactical need to deal differently with such groups. (Incidentally, I’m currently participating in a separate FPM symposium on the Brotherhood that further elucidates my views on the group.)

Massoud claims that turning terrorists against one another “hasn’t really worked so far.” Nothing could be further from the truth. A critical reason that the U.S. has made such gains in Iraq over the past year is our ability to engage locals through the Awakening movement, along with other institutions such as the Concerned Local Citizens. Our ability to “turn” former insurgents has been an important part of this. Turning former insurgents has reduced the pool of potential recruits for AQI, created a mechanism for allowing experienced Sunni fighters to provide security in their areas, established a security force with local knowledge of AQI (since many of these men were formerly aligned with or subordinate to AQI), and provided a reconciliation mechanism for incorporating large numbers of armed Sunnis into the security forces in their areas. It has also been an important part of convincing people to stop participating in the insurgency. I don’t think the U.S. has done a fantastic job of this beyond Iraq, but Iraq clearly shows that turning terrorists against one another can work.

My next argument was that, tactically, using a polemical term to define the enemy can limit the audience that one reaches. Spencer replies that “[d]ispassionate seekers after truth are as thin on the ground now as they were in Diogenes’ day”-and thus we shouldn’t worry about employing potentially alienating terminology. It is true that we live in an age where public commentary can be characterized by its cheapness, demagoguery, and overall cowardice. Yet I don’t think the situation is as bleak as portrayed by Spencer. If it were, why are any of us wasting our time engaging in public commentary about terrorism and religious extremism? None of the panelists has seriously disputed the fact that the term “Islamofascism” causes a portion of the one’s potential audience to simply tune out. Why use such a term when there are other options?

Finally, I argued that the term “Islamofascism” makes it more difficult to work with moderate Muslims. Certainly Massoud and Haidon provide examples of Islamic moderates who aren’t upset by usage of the term, but Massoud’s statement that “the ones who are offended are not moderate” is simply untrue. I personally know a number of moderate Muslims who take exception to that phraseology. It is true that some Muslim extremists masquerading as moderates have objected to the term, but it’s a category error to say that therefore any Muslim who objects to the term “Islamofascism” is not moderate.

I stated in my first contribution that some moderate Muslim objections to the term “Islamofascism”-and to other terminology used to describe militant Islam-are illegitimate. But are there legitimate objections? I think so. One legitimate objection is the term’s overbreadth, which I have already discussed at length. A second legitimate objection that I outlined in my initial response is the concern that the term will be employed against religious practice that is merely conservative and not violent. In response, Spencer asks whether “those engaging in this conservative but not violent Islamic religious practice” are “believers in the Islamic supremacist notion that underlies the Sharia imperative.” If they are, he argues that “it matters little that they are `not violent.'” While I do not want to excuse those who seek to impose brutal forms of sharia through non-violent means, I note that within virtually all religions there is a constant struggle to determine what the faith means, and how it intersects with society. Some Muslims, for example, define themselves as pro-sharia, but in fact mean that they incorporate sharia into their personal lives while favoring secularism in society. This approach appears contradictory at first, and only time will tell if it can gain traction. There are also some Muslims who define themselves as pro-sharia but interpret the sharia in such a way that it has little in common with the religious laws adopted by the Taliban, the Islamic Courts Union, or Saudi Arabia. I agree with Spencer that we do Muslim moderates no favors “by pretending that the Islamic texts do not say what they say,” but a distinction (albeit one that is not always crystal clear) exists between conservative and militant practices of Islam.

How do I define the enemy? Sadly, my own terminology isn’t all that exciting. I agree with Glazov that one cannot remove the word “Islam” from the equation because that is how bin Laden and others expressly frame their motivations. I tend to use the phrase “militant Islam” because we are contending with Islamic movements defined by their willingness to take up arms for their cause. I use the terms “radical Islam” and “extremist Islam” because Islamic terrorist movements are radical or extreme by any sane definition-and both terms signal that this is not.

http://www.aina.org/news/20080208141046.htm

B. Clinton takes on [911 ‘conspiracy theories’ liar] heckler [Islamists are continuing to murder all around the world!]

February 1, 2008

B. Clinton takes on [911 ‘conspiracy theories’ liar] heckler [Islamists are continuing to murder all around the world!]

Bill Clinton takes on heckler January 31, 2008 Posted: 02:00 PM ET

Watch Bill Clinton take on a heckler Thursday. (CNN) – Bill Clinton engaged with a heckler head on Thursday at a Denver campaign stop.

The former president had just begun his speech when a man began to shout about 9/11 conspiracies.

As security attempted to escort him out, Clinton stopped his speech, saying, “What are you screaming about? Let him talk.”

“Are you one of those it-was-an-inside-job guys? Let me tell you something… I let you be rude and interrupt me, scream at the top of your lungs. 9/11 was not an inside job; it was an Osama bin Laden job with 19 people from Saudi Arabia,” Clinton continued. “They murdered 3000 Americans and others foreigners, including over 200 other Muslims. And we look like idiots, folks, denying that the people who murdered our fellow citizens did it when they are continuing to murder all around the world. So we heard from you: you go away.”

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/01/31/sot.clinton.hecklers.cspan

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/31/bill-clinton-takes-on-heckler/

Islamic Hajj & Major Terror Plot (2007)

December 25, 2007

Islamic Hajj & Major Terror Plot (2007)

Saudis arrest 28 in Hajj terror plot
United Press International – Dec 24, 2007
24 (UPI) — Saudi Arabian security officials said all but one of 28 men arrested for allegedly plotting a terror attack on Muslim Hajj festivities… http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/12/24/saudis_arrest_28_in_hajj_terror_plot/4284/ 

Saudi police foil Haj terror plot Online – International News Network
http://www.onlinenews.com.pk/details.php?id=122306

Major terror plot, says Saudi Arabia
http://www.hindu.com/2007/12/23/stories/2007122355901200.htm

28 Arrested In Saudi For Alleged Terror Plot Against Hajj PilgrimageAHN
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7009529722

Being a minority in a majority hostile middle east – Arab racism & Islamic bigotry against Israel

December 25, 2007
(This was sent in by A.)
Being a minority in a majority hostile middle east – Arab racism & Islamic bigotry against Israel
Let’s face it, had Israel be just another Arab, Muslim country, non of the so called ‘Arab Israeli conflict’ would have existed at all.
Had it been really [mainly] about “land” (or/and about a flag), the Arabs would have agreed to the UN’s partition plan/offer in 1948.
But No! The Arab racists and Islamic bigots wouldn’t have it just as long as there’s also a Jewish state.
What “territories” did the Arabs “fight” about in the 1920’s massacres on the Jews?
Can anyone point for me the exact “territory”, the Islamic Republic of Iran’s “case” in “dispute” is all about?
Had it been about Arab world being “preoccupied” with the Arab “Palestinians”, the Arabs wouldn’t have oppressed, persecuted, massacred them (in Lebanon, Kuwait, Jordan, S. Arabia, Iraq, etc.).
Had the Arab world been real brothers to the Arabs that call themselves “Palestinians” (since the 1960’s), they wouldn’t have prevented any chance by humane heroic Israel to improve their status, but No! The Arab anti-Israel racists always preferred using them and their misery against the “Zionist enemy”, it also ss a devious diversion for their population being constant victims of the horror of all Arab oppressive dictatorships.
Just a side note, Can anyone answer me this, How come it was rather the Arab filthy oil rich countries that were behind Europe’s pledge of billions of dollars to the “Palestinians” in Dec. 2007?
Why can’t the Arab Muslim majority accept the Israeli minority in its midst just as the Israeli democracy accepts its 20% Arab minority? [even though it is the only refuge for persecuted Jews while Arabs have so much land]?
It is clear, it was always the case that the Arab Muslims’ initiated “conflict” with the non Arab, non Muslim minority, is nothing but Arab racism & Islamofascism, as long as the Arab Muslims does not erase its hatred drive in their children via satanic cartoons, hype anti Israel propaganda in every “report”, glorification of “Palestinian” mass murderers as “martyrs”, no gesture [release of ‘Palestinian’ terrorists or land give away], on top of so many gestures by Israel the gem, will erase the “conflict”, the bigotry is entirely on the Arab Muslims bloody (with the conflict’s victims’ blood o both sides) hands.

MUSLIMS’ HAJJ, VIOLENCE & ISLAMIC APARTHEID

December 20, 2007

MUSLIMS’ HAJJ, VIOLENCE & ISLAMIC APARTHEID

Timeline of incidents in the Hajj

1979 About 250 Saudi militants take over Grand Mosque in Mecca. More than 100 of the fighters and 127 Saudi troops are killed in a two-week siege.

1987 Around 400 people, mainly Iranian Shia pilgrims, are killed in clashes with Saudi security forces during anti-Western protests in Mecca.

1989 One pilgrim is killed and 16 wounded after a bomb explodes near the grand mosque. Saudi Arabia beheads 16 foreigners found guilty of planting the bombs.

1990 A stampede in a tunnel at Mecca causes the deaths of 1426 pilgrims, mostly from Indonesia and Turkey.

1994 A stampede near Jamarat Bridge in Mena kills 270.

1997 A fire kills 343 pilgrims and injures 1500 at camp in Mena.

1998 A stampede near Jamarat Bridge kills 119 when people fall of an underpass.

2001 A stampede near Jamarat Bridge kills 35.

2003 A stampede near Jamarat Bridge kills 14 people when pilgrims going in the opposite directions collide.

2004 A 27-minute stampede near Jamarat Bridge kills at least 251 during the stoning ritual.

2006 A stampede kills 345, the highest number in 16 years, 600 injured.

SOURCE: english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/75168ECF-25CB-4EB3-AA0D-B3C4535A5D47.htm

Hajj Pilgrims Told of War on Islam :: Understanding Islam :: HyscienceHajj Pilgrims Told of War on Islam. Topics: Understanding Islam … This of course includes terrorism, hate, violence, jihadism and the spread of …
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2006/01/hajj_pilgrims_t_1.php

Iranian hajj pilgrims shout “Death to Israel” and “Death to America” (Dec. 2007)
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019227.php

The Hajj: Terrorism Potential Abounds

By Fred Burton and Scott Stewart

Courtesy of Strategic Forecasting

More than 2 million Muslims from around the world are expected to travel to Saudi Arabia to perform the Hajj, that annual pilgrimage to Mecca that runs this year Dec. 18-21.

Because of the history of violence during the Hajj — some of it extreme — Saudi officials step up security during the period, and last week they concluded what they called the country’s largest-ever anti-terrorism security sweep — an operation that resulted in the arrest of more than 200 suspected al Qaeda militants. Riyadh said the operation was intended as a warning to militants who would seek to abuse the event and disturb the pilgrims. Because of past debacles during the Hajj, the Saudi government nowadays can be expected to deal with any militant activity quickly and harshly.
http://farleftrx.com/the-hajj-terrorism-potential-abounds.htm

A mob of Muslim pilgrims enraged over flight delays to the Islamic holy city of Mecca stormed a plane at Kabul Airport and beat Afghani-stan’s aviation …
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2002/02/16/124137

Hajj has frequently been marred by violence
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6089

The cleric who delivered the sermon Friday at the annual hajj pilgrimage had a simple request: God grant victory to Muslims fighting around the world. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=9751_Peaceful_Religion_Watch#comments

TheReligionofPeace – Milestone: 5000 Islamic Terror Attacks.The Religion of Peace has been bombing, shooting, stabbing and blasting peace all over the …. With Hajj sermons using Jihad as an excuse for more Jihad, …
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Articles/Milestone5k.htm 

Incidents during the Hajj – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia1.1 2006 stampede. 2 Fires; 3 Protests and violence; 4 Disease; 5 Al Ghaza Hotel collapse; 6 Official responses. 6.1 Casualties during the 2007 Hajj …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incidents_during_the_Hajj 

Hundreds killed in Hajj stampede 

At least 345 Muslim pilgrims have died in a crush during the stone-throwing ritual at the Hajj pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia, officials say. 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4606002.stm

Hundreds killed in stampede at pilgrimage

Up to 400 dead; ‘the bodies were piled up,’ witness says…

400 people were killed. More than 1,000 people were injured…

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10818604/

FEAR OF VIOLENCE OVERSHADOWS HAJJ United Press International; Feb 7, 2003; 941 Words 00-00-0000 Fear of violence overshadows Hajj WASHINGTON, Feb 07, 2003 (United Press … holy Islamic city of Mecca for the annual Hajj pilgrimage. Saudi authorities have announced … unprecedented security measures for the weeklong Hajj celebrations that begin this weekend.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-71585007.html

Ask The Imam – Jihad Is Better Than Hajj… Moderate islam will never condemn terrorism, because terrorism is moderate islam. Reality Bytes December 9th, 2007 at 2:37 pm. Let’s be clear here – Hajj is the poll tax we the infidels pay to Islam for its “protection” so since we are inferior to the Muslim, there is nothing we can do that would be as good as what they do, which is there Jihad. I think I’ll watch Planet of The Apes again tonight.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/ask-the-imam-giving-to-jihad-better-than-hajj

PeaceWatch #446 Terror at the Hajj… The fact that terrorist groups of any sort are operating at the Hajj has … in the Hajj (The greater pilgrimage), one of the five pillars of Islam, …
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2137


The ISLAMIC APARTHEID

Arab racism must go

December 13, 2007

Arab racism must go

There will be no peace around here before Arabs view Jews as human beings

Jackie Levy Published:  12.03.07,
Despite all the ceremonial declarations uttered in Annapolis, my attention was drawn to a small story about the organizers tasked with planning the seating arrangements. As those were peace talks, and as all of us want peace, the organizers were warned about the need to ensure that no Syrian or Saudi official unintentionally encounters some Zionist pest.
 

This was indeed a large venue, but still, people (just like monkeys) sometimes have to go to the bathroom or wash their hands. In short, they may have to pass through a narrow corridor where, you never know, you may encounter one of those – well, here the speaker is supposed to venomously utter the word: “Zionist.”
Syria’s motives for attending the conference were quite clear. They came to score points and extricate themselves, as much as is possible, out of the axis of evil. In short, they came because of Syrian issues – all the rest didn’t quite interest them, and it was not easy for them as it is. But to bump into an Israeli?! A Jew! Face to face, with no Condoleezza or a sea of officials around. Just you and I. Now that’s way too much, being forced to exchange glances or even mumble something. This is where we draw the line.
After all, Arabs are honorable people, and the Israelis, on top of all the other trouble, have this bad habit of using such incidents in order to suddenly show friendliness, utter some kind of silly joke, and then tell everyone about it. Years after Annapolis, some Israeli minister or advisor could write in his memoirs how he made a quick comment to the Syrian official about the crappy American coffee, and yes, he thinks he saw a hint of a smile on the Syrian’s face – for a moment there, the Israeli will say, we were able to overcome the raging conflict and just be two men, Khaled and I, yearning for some good coffee.
 

The end of the story is that it was not easy at all to arrange the chairs. Sophisticated algorithms were utilized and multifaceted maneuvers previously only known in Astronomy were used, so that under no circumstances would an Arab and a Jew come in contact or some share kind of proximity that could hurt the feelings of the nation.

Our enemies are racist
Simply put, our enemies, among other things, are quite racist. As opposed to some stigmas, it turns out that arrogance is not an Israeli monopoly. It’s amazing how the Arab world managed to convince the West that the racist hatred is merely legitimate religious sensitivity that must be taken into consideration.
We should also take a moment to consider the fact that for us these things always sound like a silly joke. We treat it the same way we ridicule the Arab refusal to compete against Israeli athletes. None of us, with the exception of the margins of the far Right, have a problem meeting an Arab, shaking his hand, or showing sympathy for him.
The thing is, on their side it’s an absolutely serious matter. It’s hard to believe that anyone in the Arab media was joking about the seating arrangements.
   
 
For years we’ve been reprimanding ourselves over our attitude to Arabs and our racist jokes. Yet while we were busy reprimanding, we almost failed to notice that something changed around here. When was the last time you heard a derogatory term like “towel head” being used seriously, without any sarcasm? When was the last time an Israeli film featured an Arab character that was less than divine?
Meanwhile, the exact opposite is happening on the other side. And no, we’re not talking about a minor issue. Even if all the roadblocks will be removed, there will be no peace around here as long as Muslim Arabs don’t view Jews as human beings.
 
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3478505,00.html

ISLAMIC APARTHEID – MUSLIMS’ APARTHEID

December 12, 2007

ISLAMIC APARTHEID

[Islam’s Apartheid, Muslims Apartheid, Apartheid in the Muslim world, in the Arab World]

Islam’s Apartheid

Saudi Arabia, the custodian of “true Islam” imposes a raft of restrictions on women … Islam is religious apartheid
http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/12/islams_apartheid.html

Islamic Apartheid

Millat in France: Islamic Apartheid
http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/28303  

BBC News | EDUCATION | ‘Apartheid’ row over Islamic school http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1162708.stm

Muslim apartheid: Getting behind the veil By Peter C. Glover … by The British Islamic Human Rights Commission
http://catholicinsight.com/online/culture/printer_691.shtml

D H I M M I :: Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights Represents minority religious and ethnic communities from around the world in opposition to radical Islamic intolerance and violence.
http://www.dhimmi.com/ 

No, they’re talking about ethnic cleansing, making “Palestine” Judenrein, free of Jews. And a state born in such sin will never redeem itself. …
http://www.opinionet.com/article.php?id=2212

Fighting Islam’s Gender Apartheid …
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12290

Anger in Holland over ‘apartheid’ Islamic hospital | International …It has also been dubbed “apartheid” by a prominent nationalist MP, Geert Wilders. But construction work on the clinic is about to start and it aims to open …
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/05/wmuslims105.xml

David Davis, attacked Muslim leaders for risking “voluntary apartheid”,
Timothy Garton Ash: Fatal mistake of ignoring dissidents within Islam …
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1923309,00.html

Digital Journal – Islam’s Declared Apartheid on “Infidels” (the …Specifically, Imani examined the basic ideas behind the spread of apartheid and the spread of fundamentalist Islam. He also looks at the treatment of women …
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/75894/
Islam_s_Declared_Apartheid_on_Infidels_the_rest_of_us
_

the facts that the Palestinians have adopted Islamic law into their constitution, or that they are governed currently by an Islamic party. Why aren’t they labeled as an “Islamic apartheid state”?
http://www.tommyduggan.com/VP070506francis.html

Islam is Religious Apartheid
http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=847

World Politics Watch | Muslim Apartheid in Britain: A Veiled Threat? The issue of Muslim women wearing veils in public has ignited an unprecedented national debate on the subject and on multiculturalism generally across …
http://www.worldpoliticswatch.com/Article.aspx?id=275

Tories accuse Muslims of ‘creating apartheid by shutting themselves off’ … represents a toughening of the Tory stance on the dangers of Islamic radicalism …
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/15/nveil15.xml

If we do not oppose and defeat Islamic gender Apartheid, democracy and freedom cannot … If we do not stop Islamic gender and religious Apartheid abroad, …
http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/articles.php?article=gender_apartheid.htm

American Thinker: Islam’s ApartheidIt is the long sub-humanized Muslim women who must discard Islam and claim their … Islam is religious apartheid. And apartheid, by universal agreement, …
http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/12/islams_apartheid.html

Muslim apartheid: getting behind the veil – Free Online Library: Muslim apartheid: getting behind the veil. by “Catholic Insight”; Philosophy and religion Apartheid Muslims.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Muslim+apartheid:+getting+behind+the+veil-a0156002645

Racial, and Islamic apartheid in Sudan..
http://www.southsudan.net/Professor.htm

BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Malaysia ‘apartheid’ row deepens, There has been an angry reaction in Malaysia to remarks by the daughter of the former PM comparing Muslim women to black South Africans under apartheid. …
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4795808.stm

Gender Apartheid and Islam by .
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16440

 The Muslim Persecution of Christians
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10242

Clarity & Resolve: Happy-Fun Islamic Apartheid Day at Six Flags, Fun Islamic Apartheid Day at Six Flags, NJ. Satan! Attention New Jersey and Tri-State are kuffar: I hope you weren’t planning on going to Six Flags…
http://clarityandresolve.com/archives/2005/09/happyfun_islami.php

From Salman Rushdie to WTCThe crimes against humanity of supporters of Islamic Apartheid and their attacks on progress and human rights has not started with their brutal terrorist …
http://www.ghandchi.com/87-aboutWTC.htm

The Treatment of Infidels in Saudi Arabia —a Time to Apologise? This is open, clear and meticulously planned Islamic apartheid which might even surpass the enormity of the apartheid policies of the erstwhile South …
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/KhaledWaleed20620.htm

Amil Imani – Islam’s Apartheid, A few cases should suffice to fully substantiate the contention that Islam is religious apartheid. And there is no need to draw cases from the repugnant …
http://www.amilimani.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=52&Itemid=2

“Muslim apartheid burns bright in France” (Minette Marrin, … Khan, 30, incites British Muslims to ignore the moderate Islamic leaders who want integration …
http://watch.windsofchange.net/2005/05_1107_1113.htm

Insurgency in Thailand – Threat Migration? – Pag, His goal is to create a greater pan-Islamic State that includes most of … and a desire of Muslim apartheid.
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?p=11887

Rants about Islamic extremists and cruel policies in Arab states are valid … East — a region where Islamic apartheid is the actual order of the day. …
http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2007/1/31/opedFreedomAndRight
ToProtestNoNationShouldBeImmuneFromCr iticism

Christians in the Middle East Christian Arab existence in Jerusalem is being threatened because its Arab population … Islam operates a system of racial and religious apartheid
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/index3.htm

It’s not only Arab countries, but in non-Arab Muslim countries as well
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10242

Durban & Islamo Arab Apartheid
http://www.dhimmi.com/durban.htm

Apartheid Mecca
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=8070_Apartheid_Mecca

Aparthied Saudi Style
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/386  

Saudi Shiites
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-taheri052303.asp  

Apartheid Indonesia
http://www.hannity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43027  

From Salman Rushdie to WTC
http://www.ghandchi.com/87-aboutWTC.htm  

Norwegian Minister Erik Solheim, apartheid, Jews and Muslims: A letter from NIS
http://www.norskisraelsenter.no/engl/2006-04-27-solheim-apartheid.php

Muslim Aparthied burns bright in France
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,24391-1869908,00.html

Bahai News – Mandela betrayed Iran prisonersThe Islamic Republic of Iran is a prejudicial legal order whose … dismiss the Islamic Republic’s systematic persecution of religious minorities such as … bahai
http://library.com/newspapers/062800.html

The Persian Journal: Lack of Human Rights in Iran | The Tharwa project, The Islamic Republic in Iran (IRI) created a double apartheid system based on both gender and beliefs. This has resulted in a multi-layer system in which …
http://www.tharwaproject.com/node/2781

Muslim silence about Islamic crimesIn the anti-Semitic Islamic Republic of Iran, to be accused of aiding Israel is … But there have been no statements of outrage at Iran’s persecution of
http://www.israelinsider.com/views/articles/views_0015.htm

Why we stay mute on Islamic sex apartheid | The Australian, US Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton last week urged President George W. Bush to call on King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to drop all charges … against the gender apartheid under which women in large parts of the Islamic world live, as there was against racial apartheid in South Africa. …
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22882381-7583,00.html

On Faith: Sulayman Nyang: Catholic Struggle a Guide for African …Does Mr. Sulayman S. Nyang support the Islamic apartheid practiced in Saudi Arabia which does not allow non-Muslims to openly practice their faith, …
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sulayman_s_nyang/2007/03/
catholic_struggle_a_guide_for/all_comments.html

Think tank takes on ‘gender apartheid’ in Muslim world… political scientist said that a public struggle against “gender and creed apartheid” in the Muslim world would be effective in that …
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1184063443927&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFul

Why We Should Oppose Independent Kosovo Global Politician, NY – Dec 6, 2007 Sir Jadunath Sarkar, the pre-eminent historian of Mughal India, wrote this about dhimmitude, the humiliating apartheid system imposed upon non-Muslims under …
http://globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=3845&cid=3&sid=10

It’s (Islamic) apartheid (against Indians), says poet who fled Malaysia Daily News & Analysis, India – Nov 27, 2007 “Article 153 of the Malaysian Constitution explicitly privileges Malay Muslims above all other ethnicities – principally ethnic Indians [of whom Tamils make …
http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1135947


The Islamic Apartheid that created a myth on Israel

The very APARTHEID bastion of the world, otherwise known as the ‘Islamic world’, or the totalitarian dictatorships inc. where no one is ever equal there, not women, not one class to the other, not one minority has any decent rights, but persecuted in the regular Arab racism’s supremacy & Islamic apartheid, or Islamo fascism.

In order to divert attention from the real criminals of apartheid in this world [or to disperse their populations’ resentment of the oppressive regimes], and much much worse then that [to say the least], they, in their collective hatred & Apartheid motivation against the ‘non Arab’ the ‘non Muslim’ entity AKA Israel, to deny it’s right to exist, have come up with a myth about “apartheid in Israel”, what it actually means is that if democratic & free Israel dares to defend it’s self from a Racist Arab terrorist it is doomed to be branded as an “apartheid” system.

The sad part is of course that some have been bought by Arab oil money like Jimmy Carter, but the world should not let the magic sand cover the Arabian monsters including those “freedom fighters” fascists in Gaza that oppress Christians or those “moderate” ‘Palestinians’ that try to ethnic cleanse all Jews from the land, and so far there’s not one Jewish family under “moderate” fascist ‘palestine’.


Islamic ‘Palestinian’ Apartheid

Middle East Information – MEIC Issues and analysis of the Middle …JIMENA Statement on Hamas: Hamas: Promoting Religious Apartheid … It relegates Jews and Christians to a subjected and humiliated status in a medieval …
http://www.middleeastinfo.org/forum/index.php?s=
16417e5601d4e732be17c50efe36e59a&showtopic=8870

American Christian Claims His Life Was Threatened by PA Official [Oct 2007
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200710/INT20071031c.html

Christians Are Persona Non Grata in Gaza, Palestine Facts · The evolution of Islamic terrorism: An overview ….. Debka (1); Deconstructing apartheid accusations (1); Dhimmitude News Network (1)
http://smoothstone.blogspot.com/2007/10/christians-are-persona-non-grata-in.html

[ISLAMIC “PALESTINIAN” APARTHEID] Expert: ‘Christian groups in PA to disappear’
Jpost ^ | Dec. 2007
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1195546795874&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


Technorati –