Posts Tagged ‘Muslim’


VIDEO: What a Billion Muslims Really Think

March 8, 2010

A Study in Muslim Doctrine: Nidal Hasan and Fort Hood

November 24, 2009

Nidal Hasan and Fort Hood: A Study in Muslim Doctrine

by Raymond Ibrahim
Pajamas Media
November 18, 2009

One of the difficulties in discussing Islam’s more troubling doctrines is that they have an anachronistic, even otherworldly, feel to them; that is, unless actively and openly upheld by Muslims, non-Muslims, particularly of the Western variety, tend to see them as abstract theory, not standard practice for today. In fact, some Westerners have difficulties acknowledging even those problematic doctrines that are openly upheld by Muslims — such as jihad. How much more when the doctrines in question are subtle, or stealthy, in nature?

Enter Nidal Malik Hasan, the psychiatrist, U.S. Army major, and “observant Muslim who prayed daily,” who recently went on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, killing thirteen Americans (including a pregnant woman). While the media wonders in exasperation why he did it, offering the same old tired and trite reasons — he was “picked on,” he was “mentally unbalanced” — the fact is his behavior comports well with certain Islamic doctrines. As such, it behooves Americans to take a moment and familiarize themselves with the esotericisms of Islam.

Note: Any number of ulema (Muslim scholars) have expounded the following doctrines. However, since jihadi icon and theoretician Ayman Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s number two, has also addressed many of these doctrines in his treatises, including by quoting several authoritative ulema, I will primarily rely on excerpts from The Al Qaeda Reader (AQR), for those readers who wish to source, and read in context, the following quotes in one volume.

Wala’ wa Bara’

Perhaps best translated as “loyalty and enmity,” this doctrine requires Muslims to maintain absolute loyalty to Islam and one another, while disavowing, even hating (e.g., Koran 60:4), all things un-Islamic — including persons (a.k.a. “infidels”). This theme has ample support in the Koran, hadith, and rulings of the ulema, that is, usul al-fiqh (roots of Muslim jurisprudence). In fact, Zawahiri has written a fifty-page treatise entitled “Loyalty and Enmity” (AQR, p. 63-115).

One of the many Koranic verses on which he relies warns Muslims against “taking the Jews and Christians as friends and allies … whoever among you takes them for friends and allies, he is surely one of them” (Koran 5:51), i.e., he becomes an infidel. The plain meaning of this verse alone — other verses, such as 3:28, 4:144, and 6:40 follow this theme — and its implications for today can hardly be clearer. According to one of the most authoritative Muslim exegetes, al-Tabari (838-923), Koran 5:51 means that the Muslim who “allies with them [non-Muslims] and enables them against the believers, that same one is a member of their faith and community” (AQR, p. 71).

Sheikh al-Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (1263-1328), takes the concept of loyalty one step further when he tells Muslims that they are “obligated to befriend a believer — even if he is oppressive and violent towards you and must be hostile to the infidel, even if he is liberal and kind to you” (AQR, p. 84).

In ways, Hasan’s life was a testimony to loyalty and enmity. According to his colleague, Dr. Finnell, Hasan “was very vocal about the war, very upfront about being a Muslim first and an American second.” If his being “vocal about the war” is not enough to demonstrate unwavering loyalty to Islam, his insistence that he is first and foremost a Muslim is. Other evidence indicates that the primary factor that threw him “over the edge” was that he was being deployed to a Muslim country (Afghanistan) — his “worst nightmare.”

According to a fellow Muslim convenience store owner who often spoke with Hasan, the thought that he might injure or kill Muslims “weighed heavily on him.” Hasan also counseled a fellow Muslim not to join the U.S. Army, since “Muslims shouldn’t kill Muslims,” again, showing where his loyalty lies. Tabari’s exegesis comes to mind: the Muslim who “allies with them [non-Muslims] and enables them against the believers, that same one is a member of their faith and community,” i.e., he too becomes an infidel (AQR, p. 71).

Another source who spoke with Hasan notes that “in the Koran, you’re not supposed to have alliances with Jews or Christian or others, and if you are killed in the military fighting against Muslims, you will go to hell.”

At any rate, surely none of this should come as a surprise. In April 2005, another Muslim serving in the U.S. Army, Hasan Akbar, was convicted of murder for killing two American soldiers and wounding fourteen in a grenade attack in Kuwait. According to the AP, “he launched the attack because he was concerned U.S. troops would kill fellow Muslims in Iraq.”


This doctrine, which revolves around deceiving the infidel, is pivotal to upholding loyalty and enmity wherever and whenever Muslim minorities live among non-Muslim majorities. In fact, the Koran’s primary justification for deception is in the context of loyalty: “Let believers [Muslims] not take for friends and allies infidels [non-Muslims] instead of believers. Whoever does this shall have no relationship left with God — unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions” (Koran 3:28). In other words, when necessary, Muslims are permitted to feign friendship and loyalty to non-Muslims, or, in the words of Abu Darda, a pious companion of Muhammad, “We grin to the faces of some peoples, while our hearts curse them” (AQR, p. 73). Taqiyya’s importance for upholding loyalty and enmity is evidenced by the fact that, just three pages into his treatise, Zawahiri has an entire section called “The Difference Between Befriending and Dissembling.” There he shows that, while sincere friendship with non-Muslims is forbidden, insincere friendship — whenever beneficial to Muslims — is not.

Again, Zawahiri quotes that standard reference, Tabari, who explains Koran 3:28 as follows: “Only when you are in their [non-Muslims’] power, fearing for yourselves, are you to demonstrate friendship for them with your tongues, while harboring hostility toward them. But do not join them in the particulars of their infidelities, and do not aid them through any action against a Muslim” (AQR, p. 74).

And therein lies the limit of taqiyya: when the deceit, the charade begins to endanger the lives of fellow Muslims — whom, as we have seen, deserve first loyalty — it is forbidden. As Zawahiri concludes, the Muslim may pretend, so long as he does “not undertake any initiative to support them [non-Muslims], commit sin, or enable [them] through any deed or killing or fighting against Muslims” (AQR, p. 75).

Again, we are reminded that the “moment of truth” for Hasan, who seems to have led something of a double life — American major and psychiatrist by day, financial supporter of jihadi groups and associate of terrorists by night — is the fact that he was being deployed to Afghanistan, i.e., he would have been aiding non-Muslim Americans against fellow Muslims (remember, he was “a Muslim first and an American second”). He tried to prevent this, getting a lawyer, to no avail. Thus, since he had taken deceit to its doctrinal limit and was now being placed in a position where he would have to actually demonstrate his loyalty to Americans against Muslims, it appears he decided to take it to the next level (see doctrine below).

Incidentally, we also find that “he [Hasan] was going to be kind of the caretaker for [American] Muslim soldiers. Sometimes Muslim soldiers have a rift between what they’re doing and their faith,” according to Major Khalid Shabazz, an Army Muslim chaplain. “That person who is a leader needs to quell some of those fears and help them through that process.”

This all sounds well and good, but what, precisely, does it mean? If, as we have seen, Islam clearly forbids Muslims from aiding infidels against fellow Muslims, and if being in the U.S. Army requires American Muslims to fight non-American Muslims now and again, how was Hasan — or any other observant Muslim — going to “quell some of those fears and help through that process”? How, if not by merely instructing them in the centuries-old arts of taqiyya?


Amongst learned infidels, jihad is the most recognized and notorious of all Muslim doctrines. Literally meaning to “struggle” or “strive,” jihad can take on any form, though its most native and praiseworthy expression revolves around fighting, and killing, the infidel enemy — even if it costs the Muslim fighter (the mujahid) his life: “Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the Hereafter fight in the path of Allah; whoever fights in the path of Allah — whether he dies or triumphs — we shall richly reward him” (Koran 4:74). And “Allah has purchased from the faithful their lives and possessions, and in return has promised them the Garden. They will fight in the path of Allah, killing and being killed” (Koran 9:111).

The hadith also has its fair share of anecdotes advocating the “one-man jihad.” Zawahiri’s treatise, “Jihad, Martyrdom, and the Killing of Innocents,” (AQR p. 137-171), spends much time justifying the desperate solo jihad — otherwise known as the “martyrdom operation” — including by offering the following hadith: “A Muslim asked Muhammad, O Messenger of Allah! If I plunge myself into the ranks of the idolaters and fight till I am killed — what then, to heaven? He [Muhammad] said yes. So the man plunged himself into the ranks of the idolaters, fighting till he was slain” (AQR, p. 153).

The learned ulema agree. According to al-Qurtubi (d. 1273), “There is no wrong for a man to singlehandedly attack a mighty army — if he seeks martyrdom — provided he has the fortitude.” Others indicate that one of the reasons making the one-man jihad permissible is that it serves to “terrify the foe” (AQR, p. 155).

And there it is: When all else failed, when Hasan’s forthcoming deployment into Muslim land forced him to expose where his true loyalty (wala’) lies, pretense (taqiyya) gave way to full-blown struggle (jihad). Hasan, who sacrificed many years to become a psychiatrist and a U.S. Army major, in the clear words of the Koran “exchange[d] the life of this world for the Hereafter.” Evidence also indicates that he believed “martyrdom operations” were not only valid but laudable acts of courage, writing “YOUR INTENTION IS THE MAIN ISSUE” (capitals in original). Zawahiri puts it more articulately: “The deciding factor is … the intention.” Is the mujahid killing himself “to service Islam [laudable martyrdom], or is it out of depression and despair [forbidden suicide]?” (AQR, p. 157).

(Unfortunately and, no doubt, much to Hasan’s chagrin, infidel medics ensured his failure to achieve martyrdom.)

The greatest proof that, at least in his own mind, Hasan was waging a jihad is the fact that he utilized that immemorial jihadi war cry — Allahu Akbar! — which has served to terrify the infidel denizens of the world for centuries. Here’s an example from Muslim history (circa the early 8th century): “The [non-Muslim] inhabitants of eastern Anatolia were filled with terror the likes of which they had never experienced before. All they saw were Muslims in their midst screaming ‘Allahu Akbar!’ Allah planted terror in their hearts. … The [non-Muslim] men were crucified over the course of 24 km” (from Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk).

Indeed, while the takbir (the formal term for “Allahu Akbar”) can be used in various contexts, it is by far primarily used in a jihadi context, past and present. Nearly 1,400 years ago, Muhammad and the early Muslims cried “Allahu Akbar” immediately before attacking their infidel neighbors; eight years before the Fort Hood massacre, Mohamed Atta cried “Allahu Akbar” immediately before crashing a hijacked plane into one of the Twin Towers on 9/11. Even Bukhari, the most authoritative hadith compiler, has an entire chapter titled “The Recitation of Takbir [i.e., Allahu Akbar] in War.”

Yet confusion abides. An AP report writes: “As if going off to war, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan cleaned out his apartment, gave leftover frozen broccoli to one neighbor, and called another to thank him for his friendship — common courtesies and routines of the departing soldier. Instead, authorities say, he went on the killing spree that left thirteen people at Fort Hood, Texas, dead.” Contrary to the tone of this excerpt, Hasan’s actions were far from contradictory. After all, he was “going off to war.”

Wala’ wa bara, taqiyya, and jihad all help explain Hasan’s actions. Even so, other lesser-known aspects of Islam lend their support to the view that he was acting from an Islamist framework.


Several people who encountered Hasan before, and even during, the time he went a-jihading note that he evinced an almost unnatural amount of calmness — certainly for one getting ready to go on a killing spree. No doubt, many will point to this as a sign that he was suffering from some sort of schizophrenic episode.

Yet the fact remains: according to jihadi lore, a feeling of tranquility and calmness is supposed to descend on the mujahid, especially during the most stressful moments of combat (see Koran 9:26 for confirmation). This is known as sakina (calmness, tranquility). Osama bin Laden himself often describes his experience of sakina during the Afghan-Soviet war: “Once I was only thirty meters away from the Russians and they were trying to capture me. I was under bombardment, but I was so peaceful in my heart that I fell asleep. Before a battle, Allah sends us sequina [sakina] — tranquility.” Of course, whether Hasan experienced “true” sakina, or whether he was merely affecting to himself, is irrelevant. Rather, the point here is that, once again, that which appears inexplicable or indicative of “mental instability” can be explained through an Islamic paradigm.


According to Sharia law, Muslims are not permitted to voluntarily reside in non-Muslim nations, such as America, except under certain circumstances. One of these is if the Muslim is actively engaged in da’wa, that is, proselytizing; another is if he fights in the path of Allah, jihad. Both serve the same purpose: empowering Islam by numbers and territory, respectively. Merely living in infidel territory out of choice, however, because it offers a “better life,” is forbidden. (To get an idea of how serious a matter it is for Muslims to reside in non-Muslims nations, see some online fatwas.)

Accordingly, we find that the observant Hasan, prior to his jihadi spree, was engaged in da’wa for years. In fact, he aggressively pursued it to the point that he was reprimanded by the authorities. Nor did he cease trying to proselytize — that is, trying to validate his living with infidels — until the day before he went on his rampage, when he gave his neighbor a copy of the Koran. Of course, many Westerners will project their notions of proselytism onto Hasan and see only a God-fearing man “altruistically” concerned for the souls of others. Unfortunately, even the business card he included with his Koran gifts is indicative of violence, as it stealthily introduces him as a “soldier of Allah.” Moreover, the “altruistic” interpretation fails to take into account the sort of legalism observant Muslims such as Hasan often adhere to: if he literally believed he was “exchanging this life for the Hereafter,” he most likely also believed that he had to justify his voluntary dwelling with infidels, hence the da’wa.

* * *

Soon following the Fort Hood massacre, FBI agent Brad Garrett explained Hasan’s behavior as follows: “It’s one of those things that he obviously went to kill a lot of people [jihad] and commit suicide [martyrdom]. Maybe in his own mind that he’s saving future lives [Muslim loyalty].” Read with the bracketed concepts I supplied, Hasan’s actions become logical and consistent — again, from an doctrinal point of view, that is, from a point of view the West, especially its leaders, are loath to explore and alacritous to ignore.

For example, “U.S. Rep. Andre Carson, an Indiana Democrat who is one of two Muslims serving in Congress, cautioned against focusing on the alleged shooter’s religion [and thus its doctrines] and instead said the discussion should be about mental health issues.”


U.S. Congressional Representative Andre Carson, Indiana Democrat – (one of the two Muslims in the U.S. Congress) – may have explained a lot more then he intended to when he said the discussion about Nidal Milak Hasan “should be about mental health issues” – Most of us already know that this is the only option.

Killing spree of 14 deaths and 30 wounded.

So, real Muslims are either crazy or they are just acting out their religious obligations.

Flagrant obfuscations aside, the facts remain: loyalty to Muslims and enmity for infidels (wala’ wa bara’), a secretive double life (taqiyya), violence in the name of Allah (jihad) — all these can easily explain Hasan’s violent rampage in Fort Hood.

The ultimate lesson? So long as Muslim doctrines are downplayed in the West, so long will warning signs, even concrete intelligence, be ignored, so long will such seemingly inexplicable incidents occur, so long will the media continue grasping for straws and Americans be “completely blindsided,” so long will “Muslim grievance” be the default answer, so long will appeasement and concessions (domestically and internationally) be the only solution, so long will jihadis and Islamists grow emboldened and contemptuous, expecting more. Ad infinitum.

Conversely, if the Fort Hood massacre causes Americans to begin taking Islam’s doctrines more seriously, the thirteen slain, while dying tragically, will not have died in vain.

Originally published at: and

Raymond Ibrahim is the associate director of the Middle East Forum and the author of The Al Qaeda Reader, translations of religious texts and propaganda

Related Topics: Muslims in the United States, Radical Islam, TerrorismRaymond Ibrahim receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free mef mailing list This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.


The massacre at Fort Hood and Muslim soldiers with attitude

November 6, 2009

The massacre at Fort Hood and Muslim soldiers with attitude

By Michelle Malkin  •  November 6, 2009 12:01 AM

Scroll for updates…7:39am Eastern press conference…Ft. Hood officials disclose that the murder victims included 12 soldiers and 1 civilian…first responder heroine who shot Hasan is in stable condition…witnesses still being interviewed “all through the night”…they confirm that Hasan was wearing his uniform…

I was traveling to Wichita for a speaking event/fundraiser (which I’ll tell you more about later) when news of the Fort Hood massacre broke. Please continue to pray for the 12 murder victims [update 11/6: now 13 dead] and their families, and the 30 wounded and their families.

Allahpundit at Hot Air has a massive, blow-by-blow post on all the latest developments. The Christian Science Monitor profiles Nidal Malik Hasan, the Muslim soldier identified by the military as the shooter:

Terry Lee, a retired Army colonel who knew Hasan, told Fox News about a story he heard secondhand. He said a fellow colleague had told him that Hasan had made “outlandish comments” about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and US involvement in them and that “Muslims had a right to rise up and attack Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

“[He] made comments about how we shouldn’t be over there – you need to lock it up, Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor,” Lee added.

But the suspect’s cousin, Nader Hasan, gave Fox News a different picture. He said his cousin had never deployed but was affected by the war and had been concerned about his impending deployment.

“He would tell us how he would hear things, horrific things, things from war probably affecting him psychologically,” Nader Hasan said.

From AP:

His name appears on radical Internet postings. A fellow officer says he fought his deployment to Iraq and argued with soldiers who supported U.S. wars. He required counseling as a medical student because of problems with patients.

There are many unknowns about Nidal Malik Hasan, the man authorities say is responsible for the worst mass killing on a U.S. military base. Most of all, his motive. But details of his life and mindset, emerging from official sources and personal acquaintances, are troubling.

“Troubling.” And familiar.

At least six months ago, Hasan came to the attention of law enforcement officials because of Internet postings about suicide bombings and other threats, including posts that equated suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save the lives of their comrades.

Here’s the Scribd comment of Nidal Hasan:

There was a grenade thrown amongs a group of American soldiers. One of the soldiers, feeling that it was to late for everyone to flee jumped on the grave with the intention of saving his comrades. Indeed he saved them. He inentionally took his life (suicide) for a noble cause i.e. saving the lives of his soldier. To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. Its more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause. Scholars have paralled this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers. If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory. Their intention is not to die because of some despair. The same can be said for the Kamikazees in Japan. They died (via crashing their planes into ships) to kill the enemies for the homeland. You can call them crazy i you want but their act was not one of suicide that is despised by Islam. So the scholars main point is that “IT SEEMS AS THOUGH YOUR INTENTION IS THE MAIN ISSUE” and Allah (SWT) knows best.

Those of you with long memories will remember all those who came before Hasan. Here is my column from March 2003 on Muslim soldiers with attitude:

Sgt. Asan Akbar, a Muslim American soldier with the 326th Engineer Battalion, had an “attitude problem.”

According to his superiors and acquaintances, Akbar’s attitude was bitterly anti-American and staunchly pro-Muslim. So how did this devout follower of the so-called Religion of Peace work out his attitudinal problems last weekend?

By lobbing hand grenades and aiming his M-4 automatic rifle into three tents filled with sleeping commanding officers at the 101st Airborne Division’s 1st Brigade operations center in Kuwait.

Akbar is the lone suspect being detained in the despicable attack, which left more than a dozen wounded and one dead. Surviving soldiers say Akbar, found cowering in a bunker with shrapnel injuries, was overheard ranting after the assault: “You guys are coming into our countries, and you’re going to rape our women and kill our children.”

“Our”? At least there’s no doubt about where this Religion of Peace practitioner’s true loyalties lie.

Naturally, apologists for Islam-gone-awry are hard at work dismissing this traitorous act of murder as an “isolated, individual act and not an expression of faith.” But such sentiments are willfully blind and recklessly p.c.

Sgt. Akbar is not the only MSWA — Muslim soldier with attitude — suspected of infiltrating our military, endangering our troops and undermining national security:

– Ali A. Mohamed. Mohamed, a major in the Egyptian army, immigrated to the U.S. in 1986 and joined the U.S. Army while a resident alien. This despite being on a State Department terrorist watch list before securing his visa. An avowed Islamist, he taught classes on Muslim culture to U.S. Special Forces at Fort Bragg, N.C., and obtained classified military documents. He was granted U.S. citizenship over the objections of the CIA.

A former classmate, Jason T. Fogg, recalled that Mohamed was openly critical of the American military. “To be in the U.S. military and have so much hate toward the U.S. was odd. He never referred to America as his country.”

Soon after he was honorably discharged from the Army in 1989, Mohamed hooked up with Osama bin Laden as an escort, trainer, bagman and messenger. Mohamed used his U.S. passport to conduct surveillance at the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi; he later pled guilty to conspiring with bin Laden to “attack any Western target in the Middle East” and admitted his role in the 1998 African embassy bombings that killed more than 200 people, including a dozen Americans.

Ain’t multiculturalism grand?

– Semi Osman. An ethnic Lebanese born in Sierra Leone and a Seattle-based Muslim cleric, Osman served in a naval reserve fueling unit based in Tacoma, Wash. He had access to fuel trucks similar to the type used by al Qaeda in the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers, which killed 19 U.S. airmen and wounded nearly 400 other Americans.

Osman was arrested last May as part of a federal investigation into the establishment of a terrorist training camp in Bly, Oregon. Osman recently pleaded guilty to a weapons violation, and the feds dropped immigration charges against him in exchange for his testimony.

Ain’t open borders grand?

– John Muhammad. The accused Beltway sniper and Muslim convert was a member of the Army’s 84th Engineering Company. In an eerie parallel to the Akbar case, Muhammad is suspected of throwing a thermite grenade into a tent housing 16 of his fellow soldiers as they slept before the ground-attack phase of Gulf War I in 1991. Muhammad’s superior, Sgt. Kip Berentson, told both Newsweek and The Seattle Times that he immediately suspected Muhammad, who was “trouble from day one.”

Curiously, Muhammad was admitted to the Army despite being earlier court-martialed for willfully disobeying orders, striking another noncommissioned officer, wrongfully taking property, and being absent without leave while serving in the Louisiana National Guard.

Although Muhammad was led away in handcuffs and transferred to another company pending charges for the grenade attack, an indictment never materialized. Muhammad was honorably discharged from the Army in 1994. Eight years later, he was arrested in the 21-day Beltway shooting spree that left 10 dead and three wounded.

Ain’t tolerance grand?

– Jeffrey Leon Battle. A former Army reservist, Battle was indicted in October 2002 for conspiring to levy war against the United States and “enlisting in the Reserves to receive military training to use against America.” According to the Justice Department, he planned to wage war against American soldiers in Afghanistan.

Ain’t diversity grand?

“It’s bad enough we have to worry about enemy forces, but now we have to worry about our own guys,” Spc. Autumn Simmer told the Los Angeles Times this week after the assault on the 101st Airborne. The Islamist infiltration of our troops is scandalous. Not one more American, soldier or civilian, must be sacrificed at the altar of multiculturalism, diversity, open borders, and tolerance of the murderous “attitude” of Jihad.

FYI: Convicted Beltway sniper John Muhammad is scheduled to be executed next week. No doubt the families of the Muslim sniper victims are re-living the horror tonight.

FYI: Muslim US soldier Hasan Abujihaad was convicted last year on espionage and material terrorism support charges
after serving aboard the USS Benfold and sharing classified info with al Qaeda financiers, including movements of US ships just six months after al Qaeda operatives had killed 17 Americans aboard the USS Cole in the port of Yemen.

On Twitter, follow #fthood for news updates.

More Twitter-related news here.


Clarice Feldman notes President Obama’s “odd” — to say the least — reaction to the attack on Fort Hood soldiers:

On Thursday, 11 soldiers and civilian police at Fort Hood were slaughtered execution-style at close range and over 30 others wounded, allegedly by a U.S. Army Major Malik Nadal Hasan. The President immediately addressed the nation concerning this horrific event.

However, his expression of grief was very odd. He spent the first two minutes of the four-and-a-half minute address in a light-hearted discussion of his earlier “Tribal Nations Conference” on Native American rights, including a “shout out” recognition of a conference attendee.

When he finally got around to the purpose for his public appearance, he gave an uninspired and rambling dissertation on the tragedy. Even then, he could not keep the topic focused on sympathy for the pain of others:

I want all of you to know that as Commander in Chief, that there’s no greater honor, but no greater responsibility for me (emphasis his) than to make sure that the extraordinary men and women in uniform are properly cared for…

Poor soul, it’s so saddening to know how this tragedy affects him. Listening to this address provides some insight into Obama’s character and how he ranks his priorities.


Business as usual: The whitewashing of jihad by the MSM. See here and here.

I’ve said it many times over the years and it bears repeating again as cable TV talking heads ask in bewilderment how all the red flags Hasan raised could have been ignored: Political correctness is the handmaiden of terror.



U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul, a Republican from Austin, was briefed by military officials and said Hasan had taken some unusual classes for someone studying about mental health.

“He took a lot of extra classes in weapons training, which seems a little odd for a psychiatrist,” McCaul said.

McCaul said Hasan had received poor grades for his work at Walter Reed and was not happy about his situation in Fort Hood, where Hasan apparently felt like “he didn’t fit in.”

“He’s disgruntled because he had a poor performance evaluation, he doesn’t believe in the mission, he’s looking at getting transferred to Afghanistan or Iraq,” McCaul said. “He’s not happy about all that.”

McCaul added that officials planned to interview Hasan to try to determine for sure that he was not working with foreign agents.

“From an intelligence standpoint, that’s key, finding out if he talked to anyone overseas,” McCaul said.


Bruce Bawer has a brilliant essay on the MSM whitewashing of jihad:

CNN (ditto the New York Times website) was considerably less useful than the tidbits I picked up online by following links on various blogs and in Facebook postings. They led me to (among other things) an AP story, a Daily Mail article, and a Fox News interview that provided telling details: Hasan had apparently been a devout Muslim; Arabic words, reportedly a Muslim prayer, had been posted on his apartment door in Maryland; in conversations with colleagues he had repeatedly expressed sympathy for suicide bombers; on Thursday morning, hours before the massacre, he had supposedly handed out copies of the Koran to neighbors. A couple of these facts eventually surfaced on CNN, but only briefly; they were rushed past, left untouched, unexamined; the network seemed to be making a masterly effort to avoid giving this data a cold, hard look. Meanwhile it spent time doing heavy-handed spin — devoting several minutes, for example, to an inane interview with a forensic psychiatrist who talked about the stress of treating soldiers bearing the emotional scars of war. The obvious purpose was to turn our eyes away from Islamism and toward psychiatric instability as a motive.

…after [the Anderson Cooper show] was over, we got a “special edition” of Larry King Live hosted by Wolf Blitzer. This one really took the cake. By way of “illuminating” Hasan’s actions, Blitzer interviewed a panel of — no, not experts on Islamic jihad, but psychiatrists. Blitzer endlessly repeated the mantra that Hasan had been “taunted” for being Muslim, had feared going to a war zone, and had ultimately gone “berserk,” and the docs echoed this line. “He did not reach for help when he should have,” lamented one panelist. Another opined: “It sounded like it got to be too much for him.” Yet another told us: “All kind of people need help who aren’t getting help. … He was feeling picked on by his colleagues. … He was strained. He was scared.”

Could there be a more bitter contrast? At Fort Hood, so many courageous GIs, all of them prepared to risk their lives fighting the Islamic jihadist enemy in defense of our freedom, several of them now dead. And, on our TV screens, so many apparently craven journalists, public officials, psychiatrists, and (alas) even military brass — all but a few of whom seemed unwilling to do anything more than hint obliquely at the truth that obviously lies at the root of this monstrous act.

And now: Reports that Hasan shouted “Allahu Akbar!” during the attack.

Nothing to see here. Move along…

Posted in: Islam, War

Introspection, Not Rationalization, Needed in Wake of Fort Hood Slaughter

November 6, 2009

Introspection, Not Rationalization, Needed in Wake of Fort Hood Slaughter

IPT News
November 6, 2009

A picture of Nidal Malik Hasan is emerging from the slaughter he carried out Thursday during a ceremony at a Fort Hood readiness center, leaving 13 people dead and another 30 wounded.

Born in Virginia, sent to medical school by the U.S. Army, the psychiatrist was chastised for proselytizing to his patients about Islam. Asked his nationality, he didn’t identify himself as an American but as a Palestinian. He appeared pleased by the shooting death of a Little Rock Army recruiter in June and reportedly was heard saying “maybe people should strap bombs on themselves and go to Times Square.”

In the fateful moment before he opened fire on his unarmed victims, he shouted “Allahu Akhbar.”

With each new disclosure, some media outlets and organized Islamist groups increasingly are trying to deflect attention away from Hasan’s religious motivation. In a statement condemning the attack, the Muslim American Society’s Freedom Foundation referenced past shootings by soldiers on their bases and cited the suicide rate at Fort Hood.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a statement once the killer’s name was known condemning the attack and saying “No religious or political ideology could ever justify or excuse such wanton and indiscriminate violence.”

The condemnations are welcome and appropriate if not the only thing that could be done in response to the tragedy. As we have noted previously, such unequivocal statements are much harder to come by when arrests are made before the killings can be carried out or when the killers share the Islamists’ ideology.

Arab-American Anti Discrimination Committee President Mary Rose Oakar issued a statement calling the Hasan attack “absolutely deplorable.” But she also emphasized that the violence “has nothing to do with any religion, race, ethnicity, or national origin.”

Friday morning, CAIR national spokesman Ibrahim Hooper told radio interviewer John Hockenberry that Hasan’s motivation remains unknown:

“He could have just snapped from some kind of stress. The thing is when these things happen and the guy’s name is John Smith nobody says well what about his religious beliefs? But when it is a Muslim sounding name that automatically comes into it.”

Contrast that with blogger Shahed Amanullah’s willingness to address the matter with courage and honesty lacking among the American Muslim community’s self-anointed national spokesmen:

“Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, was reportedly troubled by his impending deployment to Iraq. Mental instability and depression has resulted in violence within the armed forces before. But unless Hasan left an explicit message to that effect, a religiously-inspired political act of violence is, much as we’d be unwilling to admit it, entirely plausible. With that in mind, Muslims will have to ask themselves some difficult questions as to why there are still those among us who continue to find justification for acts such as this in their faith.”

Hasan’s murderous rampage is just the latest in a string of attempts to murder American soldiers at home. It’s a point Daniel Pipes made in 2003 after Hasan Akbar, a sergeant in the 101st Airborne Division, rolled a grenade into a tent holding his fellow soldiers on the eve of the invasion of Iraq. Akbar was found legally sane, convicted and sentenced to death in 2005.

In June, Abdulhakim Muhammad killed an Army recruiter in Little Rock and wounded a second recruiter. He told investigators he would have killed more people if he had seen them.

Fortunately, other plots were broken up by law enforcement before anyone got hurt. But in those cases, the Islamist organizations have cast the FBI as engaging in a sinister effort to entrap people otherwise uninterested in violence or incapable of carrying it out.

Among the examples:

Fort Dix

On May 7, 2007, six individuals were arrested for plotting an attack on the Fort Dix military base in New Jersey. The goal of the attack, according to court documents, was to “kill as many soldiers as possible.” Following a jury trial, the plotters were found guilty on charges of conspiracy to harm U.S. military personnel on December 22, 2008. CAIR initially was supportive following the arrests saying, “we applaud the FBI for its efforts and repeat the American Muslim community’s condemnation and repudiation of all those who would plan or carry out acts of terror while falsely claiming their actions have religious justification.”

Later, CAIR also requested that media outlets and public officials refrain from linking this case to the faith of Islam. The council asked mosques and Islamic institutions in New Jersey and nationwide to report any incidents of anti-Muslim backlash.

Bronx Terror Plot

On May 20, 2009, James Cromitie and three others were arrested and indicted on charges arising from a plot to detonate explosives near a synagogue in the Bronx and to shoot down military planes at the New York Air National Guard Base at Stewart Airport in Newburgh, NY. Although they initially condemned the plotters and congratulated the FBI on its efforts, MPAC came to question the motives and methods of the FBI saying that “none of these cases that we’re talking about now involved in al Qaida cells. These were individuals who were either petty criminals or gullible people who were guilty of stupidity. They were not imminent threats to our country, as the FBI has stated.”

North Carolina Jihad

On July 27, 2009, Daniel Patrick Boyd and six others were indicted in North Carolina for planning to “advance violent Jihad including supporting and participating in terrorist activities abroad and committing acts of murder, kidnapping, or maiming persons abroad,” after three years of being under surveillance by the FBI. Among the allegations was that Boyd and his co-conspirators intended to attack the Quantico Marine base. Because a member of Boyd’s group cooperated with law enforcement, MPAC insinuated the FBI improperly investigated the case: “the arrests come at a time when questions have been raised about the use of FBI informants in mosques and tense relations between law enforcement and local communities.”

The same pattern has been applied in the past two weeks, since FBI agents shot and killed a Detroit imam who fired first. Luqman Abdullah had a long history of advocating an offensive jihad and using his mosque for training in martial arts and with weapons. Yet CAIR and other Islamist groups have argued his religious justifications should not be a part of the case and allege the FBI reacted with excessive force after Abdullah fired his weapon.

There’s obviously a lot more to Hasan’s attack still to be learned. He reportedly dreaded his pending deployment to Iraq and may have snapped. But to dismiss his statements about people “strap[ping] bombs on themselves” or that Muslims should rise up and fight the aggressors is irresponsible and counter productive.

This is no isolated incident and the sooner national groups face that fact, the sooner they might heed Amanullah’s challenge to engage in a genuine search for the causes and confront those who help foster such violent ideology.


Men Dressed as Women

September 15, 2009

No one can tell a Muslim woman from a man.  Often we find terrorists in a women’s dress.



Jews and Muslims

September 4, 2009

The Jews and the Muslims (an interesting point of view and well worth the 50 seconds it takes to read.)

The Global Islamic population is approximately (1,200,000,000) ONE-BILLION TWO-HUNDRED MILLION, or 20% of the world’s population.

Muslims have received the following Nobel Prizes:

Literature :
1988 – Najib Mahfoo

1978 – Mohamed Anwar El-Sadat
1994 – Yaser Arafat:
1990 – Elias James Corey
1999 – Ahmed Zewai

Economics: (zero)



1960 – Peter Brian Medawar
1998 – Ferid Mourad



The Global Jewish population is approximately (14,000,000) — Only FOURTEEN MILLION Or about 0.02% of the world’s population.

Jews have received the following Nobel Prizes:

1910 – Paul Heyse
1927 – Henri Bergson
1958 – Boris Pa sternak
1966 – Shmuel Yosef Agnon
1966 – Nelly Sachs
1976 – Saul Bellow
1978 – Isaac Bashevis Singer
1981 – Elias Canetti
1987 – Joseph Brodsky
1991 – Nadine Gordimer World

1911 – Alfred Fried
1911 – Tobias Michael Carel Asser
1968 – Rene Cassin
1973 – Henry Kissinger
1978 – Menachem Begin
1986 – Elie Wiesel
1994 – Shimon Peres
1994 – Yitzhak Rabin

1905 – Adolph Von Baeyer
1906 – Henri Moissan
1907 – Albert Abraham Michelson
1908 – Gabriel Lippmann
1910 – Otto Wallach
1915 – Richard Willstaetter
1918 – Fritz Haber
1921 – Albert Einstein
1922 – Niels Bohr
1925 – James Franck
1925 – Gustav Hertz
1943 – Gustav Stern
1943 – George Charles de Hevesy
1944 – Isidor Issac Rabi
1952 – Felix Bloch
1954 – Max Born
1958 – Igor Tamm
1959 – Emilio Segre
1960 – Donald A. Glaser
1961 – Robert Hofstadter
1961 – Melvin Calvin
1962 – Lev Davidovich Landau
1962 – Max Ferdinand Perutz
1965 – Richard Phil lips Feynman
1965 – Julian Schwinger
1969 – Murray Gell-Mann
1971 – Dennis Gabor
1972 – William Howard Stein
1973 – Brian David Joseph son
1975 – Benjamin Mottleson
1976 – Burton Richter
1977 – Ilya=2 0Prigogine
1978 – Arno Allan Penzias
1978 – Peter L Kapitza
1979 – Stephen Weinberg
1979 – Sheldon Glashow
1979 – Herbert Charles Brown
1980 – Paul Berg
1980 – Walter Gilbert
1981 – Roald Hoffmann
1982 – Aaron Klug
1985 – Albert A. Hauptman
1985 – Jerome Karle
1986 – Dudley R. Herschbach
1988 – Robert Huber
1988 – Leon Lederman
1988 – Melvin Schwartz
1988 – Jack Steinberger
1989 – Sidney Altman
1990 – Jerome Friedman
1992 – Rudolph Marcus
1995 – Martin Perl
2000 – Alan J. Heeger

1970 – Paul Anthony Samuelson
1971 – Simon Kuznets
1972 – Kenneth Joseph Arrow
1975 – Leonid Kantorovich
1976 – Mil ton Friedman
1978 – Herbert A. Simon
1980 – Lawrence Robert Klein
1985 – Franco Modigliani
1987 – Robert M. Solow
1990 – Harry Markowitz
1990 – Merton Miller
1992 – Gary Becker
1993 – Robert Fogel

1908 – Elie Metchnikoff
1908 – Paul Erlich
1914 – Robert Barany
1922 – Otto Meyerhof
1930 – Karl Landsteiner
1931 – Otto Warburg
1936 – Otto Loewi
1944 – Joseph Erlanger
1944 – Herb ert Spencer Gasser
1945 – Ernst Boris Chain
1946 – Hermann Joseph Muller
1950 – Tadeus Reichstein
1952 – Selman Abra ham Waksman
1953 – Hans Krebs
1953 – Fritz Albert Lipmann
1958 – Joshua Lederberg
1959 – Arthur Kornberg
1964 – Konrad Bloch
1965 – Francois Jacob
1965 – Andre Lwoff
1967 – George Wald
1968 – Marshall W. Nirenberg
1969 – Salvador Luria
1970 – Julius Axelrod
1970 – Sir Bernard Katz
1972 – Gerald Maurice Ed elman
1975 – Howard Martin Temin
1976 – Baruch S. Blumberg
1977 – Roselyn Sussman Yalow
1978 – Daniel Nathans
1980 – Baruj Benacerraf
1984 – Cesar Milstein
1985 – Michael Stuart Brown
1985 – Joseph L. Goldstein
1986 – Stanley Cohen [& Rita Levi-Montalcini]
1988 – Gertrude Elion
1989 – Harold Varmus
1991 – Erwin Neher
1991 – Bert Sakmann
1993 – Richard J. Roberts
1993 – Phillip Sharp
1994 – Alfred Gilman
1995 – Edward B. Lewis


The Jews are NOT promoting brain washing children in military training camps, teaching them how to blow themselves up and cause maximum deaths of Jews and other non Muslims !

The Jews don’t hijack planes, nor kill athletes at the Olympics, or blow themselves up in German restaurants There is NOT one single Jew that has destroyed a church. There is NOT a single Jew that protests by killing people.
The Jews don’t traffic slaves, nor have leaders calling for Jihad and death to all the Infidels.

Perhaps the world’s Muslims should consider investing more in standard education and less in blaming the Jews for all their problems.

Muslims must ask ‘what can they do for humankind’ before they demand that humankind respects them.

Regardless of your feelings about the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians and Arab neighbors, even if you believe there is more culpability on Israel’s part, the following two sentences really say it all:

‘If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence.

If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel …’

Benjamin Netanyahu


I’m not asking you to forward this … on the other hand,


Barack Hussein Obama (Soetoro)

September 4, 2009
Meet the Soetoros

Left to Right:
Lolo Soetoro, Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro,baby Maya Soetoro, and 9 year old Barry Soetoro


This registration document, made available on Jan. 24, 2007, by the Fransiskus Assisi school in Jakarta, Indonesia,

shows the registration of Barack Obama under the name Barry Soetoro made by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro.
Name: Barry Soetoro

Religion: ….. Islam

Nationality: ….. Indonesian

How did little INDONESIAN, Barry Soetoro, (A.K.A. Barack Obama) get around the issue of nationality to become president?

Someone who tells lies is a L __ __ r?


In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama’s qualifications for the presidency, the group

“Americans for Freedom of Information” has released copies of President Obama’s college transcripts

from Occidental College .

Released today, the transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro,

received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school.

The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought
by the group in the Superior Court of California.

The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a
fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program.

To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship.

This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama’s detractors have been seeking.

Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US
citizenship, this is looking pretty grim.

The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about
Obama’s legitimacy and qualification to serve as president.

When reached for comment in London , where he has been in meetings with British Prime
Minister Gordon Brown, Obama smiled but refused comment on the issue.

Britain ‘s Daily Mail has also carried the story in a front-page article titled, “Obama Eligibility Questioned,”

leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama’s first official visit
to the U.K.

In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced

that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama’s legal eligibility to serve as
President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey .

This lawsuit claims Obama’s dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president.

Donofrio’s case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama’s citizenship or qualifications to
serve as president.

Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of

Obama’s campaign spending.

This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records.

Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still on-going but that the final report will be provided to the

U.S. attorney general, Eric Holder.
Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter.




Farah’s birthday challenge: A $10,000 gift to hospital

WND editor says he will make donation if Obama releases long-form document

Posted: August 03, 2009

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

WASHINGTON – In another bid to persuade Barack Obama to release his long-form birth certificate publicly, WND Editor and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Farah today said he would donate $10,000 to the birth hospital listed on the document.

Obama has resisted pleas from a growing chorus of Americans who can’t understand why he would spend more than $800,000 fighting lawsuits calling for the release of the document rather than let the American people see it.

This document purports to be a Kenyan certification of birth for Barack Obama, allegedly born in Mombasa, Kenya, in 1961

“We’ve tried the stick,” said Farah. “Today, as Barack Obama celebrates what he claims to be his birthday, I want to try the carrot approach. Obama has said he was born in Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu. He participated in a fund-raiser for the medical center in January. WND will send a check to whatever birth hospital is listed on his long-form birth certificate. All Obama has to do to see that donation made is to release it publicly.”

Farah invites the public to raise the bounty beyond $10,000 by making contributions in any amount.

This offer, Farah said, does not supplant or replace a previous offer he put on the table to provide a minimum of $10,000 to anyone providing proof he or she was present at Obama’s birth. Last week, Jason Hommel, an investment adviser, offered a $100,000 reward to anyone who can prove Obama is a natural born citizen and eligible to be president.

COLB image released by Obama campaign June 2008

“I figured we couldn’t entice Obama to prove his own eligibility for money,” said Farah. “But because we all know that Obama cares so much about health care and charity, I figured we might persuade him to end this national mystery with a significant cash pledge to the hospital in which he entered the world. And what better time to make the announcement than what he claims to be his birthday.”

(Story continues below)

// // //

The controversy over Obama’s birthplace has lingered since last year’s presidential campaign, but has heated up in the last three months since Farah began what he calls a “personal crusade” to get to the truth. The last two weeks have witnessed a barrage of coverage by the U.S. and international news media – mainly ridiculing the notion that there is any legitimate controversy at all.

Copy of original long-form birth certificate of Susan Nordyke, born in Honolulu the day after Obama’s reported birthdate

Nevertheless, recent polls show the issue resonating with the American people, who are buying up bumper stickers, yard and rally signsand donating to Farah’s campaign to purchase billboards around the country asking, “Where’s the birth certificate?”

In addition, more than 430,000 people have signed Farah’s petition calling on all controlling legal authorities to verify Obama’s constitutional eligibility.

“Barack Obama claims to have been born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961,” explains Farah. “His entire constitutional claim to the presidency rests on this premise. Yet, he refuses to release a copy of his long-form birth certificate – the only document that could possibly corroborate his claim. Instead, he has released to select news organizations and posted on the Internet a document that could never serve as proof he was born in the United States – a so-called ‘certification of live birth,’ a digital document that could, can and has been obtained by people who were actually born outside the country. The American people can never be certain their president is legitimate constitutionally without proof.”

To date, no hospital in Hawaii has come forward to claim this historic birth.

No doctor or nurse has come forward to say they were present for that historic birth.

No witness of any kind has come forward to say they have first-hand knowledge or involvement in that historic birth – at least in Hawaii.

Obama’s paternal grandmother, Sarah Obama, did claim to have been present for the birth. However, she lives in Kenya.

If you are a member of the media and would like to interview Joseph Farah about this story, email


Obama’s speech had factual ommissions

June 29, 2009

11 June 09


Obama‘s speech in Cairo good for U.S.-Muslim relations,” by a local director of the American Jewish Committee, did not represent this Jew’s appreciation for what was contained in this lengthy talk.

The AJC spokesperson selectively hunted through the speech in order to extract the portions that he quoted, heaping glowing praise on the president, stating, “President Obama spoke the truth with a clear, unwavering voice.” There were many truths in his speech, in addition to many historical and factual omissions.

The president spoke of the Palestinians having “endured the pain of dislocation,” that they wait in refugee camps “for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead.” He spoke of their humiliation and displacement brought on by Israel’s founding. Does he mean that Israel is the culprit in this situation?

Is he not aware of neighboring Muslim nations keeping these people in squalor for decades, purposefully as anti-Israel public relations hostages? He received a rousing ovation at this comment from the Muslim audience. Perhaps from the AJC, as well.

Is this president not aware of the United Nations having created individual states, side by side, Jewish and Arab, in 1947?

Is he not aware that Egypt was one of many Muslim nations to have attacked Israel in 1948, 1967 and in 1973, with the goal of eradicating the Jewish state?

Is he not aware that these attacking countries called for Palestinian Arabs to flee the fledgling Jewish state in order to clear the way for the Arab victory that would enable them to return to their homes after all Jews had been slain?

Is our president not aware that Israel, in an act of good faith after the 1967 Six-Day War, initiated by Egypt, among other Muslim states, graciously returned the Sinai, together with its Israeli constructed and operating oil fields, to Egypt?

Why couldn’t President Obama tell the Egyptians a bit of real Palestinian-Egyptian history to complement his Israel-bashing about the pain and suffering of the Palestinians? A true teacher covers the entire realm of an era. However, Obama glossed over facts that would not have been too well accepted by his audience. That did not go over well with me.

Alan Bergstein is a resident of Boca Raton.


Muslim Appointed BBC Head of Religion

June 25, 2009  12 May 09

The reaction of many to the appointment of Muslim, Aaqil Ahmed to the post of Head of Religion and Ethics at the BBC must be—’How is this possible?’  Until now, our public national broadcaster has been charged with reflecting our Country’s Christian heritage and ethos.  Aaqil Ahmed’s appointment is controversial because his background and previous work at Channel 4 has revealed a noticeable bias towards Islam and multiculturalism.

According to The Daily Telegraph, senior bishops wrote to the BBC’s Director General Mark Thompson when it was envisaged that Mr. Ahmed might be appointed, to question the BBC’s commitment to Britain’s Christian audience.  The Archbishop of Canterbury had also raised concerns with Mr. Thompson that the ‘Christian voice is being sidelined’ after Mr. Ahmed was first connected to the role.

The appointment could be seen as the inevitable result of our multicultural society, in which all religions are viewed as of equal value.  This is the secularist point of view—that religion should be confined to the home and the church and excluded from the public square and the workplace.  A cursory survey of the Christian Legal Centre’s website ( will reveal the increasing intolerance of this ideology as far as Christians are concerned.

It could also be seen as another sign that our country is in danger of becoming Islamised, alongside, for example, the fact that under pressure from Muslims, the Qur’an is now placed on a higher shelf than the Bible in courtrooms, or the fact that Shari’ah Law is used to judge disputes in Muslim Arbitration Tribunals (now officially part of the English Legal System). Our Government appears to make concessions to the Muslim community, in contrast to its marginalisation of Christianity and the rights of Christians in recent years.

Another interpretation is that the appointment is the result of the European Directive of 2000, which was implemented in the UK by the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. These ‘equalitarian’ provisions force employers to appoint an applicant to a role who is broadly the ‘best person’ for the job—if the candidate’s religion is ignored, that is.  This applies to every role, except where there is a ‘genuine and determining occupational requirement’ that they should be of a particular religion.

According to The Guardian, Jana Bennett, director of BBC Vision, said that the areas of broadcasting that the ‘Knowledge’ jobs commission (such as religion and ethics) ‘go to the very heart of the BBC’s public purposes’.  Clearly, the BBC did not think that their Head of religion and ethics—in our country where 70% of the population still align themselves with Christianity—needed to be a Christian.

The Lord Jesus said that if the eye is single the whole body will be full of light.  He went on to warn that if the light becomes darkness how great will be that darkness (Matt 6:22-3).  When Christianity is no longer the light of a nation then the nation becomes full of darkness.  Christianity is the only way by which man may know God. What is required today is for Christians in this country to stand up for the Faith and act on what they believe—that Jesus Christ is indeed the way, the truth and the life for all that live in 21st century Britain.

Please see also our web article entitled: Controversial Muslim programme-maker appointed head of BBC religious broadcasting at:


Great Nidra Poller Articles

June 23, 2009

This great series of stories are just fascinating.  Nidra Poller is a dear lady – writing from Paris – Don’t miss her great insight.


Nidra graces us with her unique insight into the Iranian election bloodbath.

On those frail shoulders the world might turn

Paris 19 June 2009

Nidra Poller

Something is missing from most of the analyses floating around this week as Iranians one by one proclaim liberty against overwhelming odds. So many commentators seem to be afraid to capture the moment in its near miraculous scope. I’ve been connected to the résistance pipeline for years through friends like Banafsheh Zand Bonazzi, Ken Timmerman, and Michael Ledeen. They think this movement could push all the way past Ahmadinejad, past Mousavi, and topple the mullahs.

I don’t know what will come of it. Whether or not the revolt is crushed in blood and broken bodies or, if it succeeds, goes on to build one more variation on the theme of Islamic Republics, at this very moment we are witnessing the unquenchable desire for freedom in its penultimate stage. We see the living proof that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights… No tyranny is powerful enough to resist this truth when its victims believe in their rights.

It is so dramatic! Why doesn’t it resonate in our “free” world? I feel uplifted at the very thought that it might go all the way. Ayatollah Khamenei is looking frail these days. Ahmadinejad has lost his glow. The very mechanics of it is so fascinating, I can’t think of anything else. You have a population crushed under the heel of turbaned perverts that lapidate, hang, torture, gouge, slash, lash and imprison at will. The tyrants build nuclear weapons, threaten to wipe Israel off the map, menace Europe, the United States, neighboring Muslim countries… Even though everyone in his right mind knows they must not be allowed to get the Bomb, almost no one has the courage and the means to stop them.

Wherever you turn, it’s one big sigh of resignation. Our people living in wealthy democracies are so languid it’s infuriating. No one is asking you to go and bomb Natanz, buddy, just to say that it could be done, someone should do it, and if someone does, the rest of us should nod and say “well done.” Even that is too much for your average conversationer. B Hussein O put them at ease with his coming-out-of-the-Muslim-closet speech in Cairo. He said, among other rhetorical atrocities, that no country can decide who should be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Whew! Sit back and snore, there’s no need to fret.

Now, in the space of one week, something totally unexpected is happening. Even those who hoped for regime change from within are surprised. Rightfully so. It’s one thing to imagine a popular revolt, altogether another to watch it happen.

We are, justifiably, wary. Enthusiastic crowds brought down the Shah and we know where that led. But, millions of individuals acting from their own indomitable need for freedom can, this time around, bring down the mullahs and make way for something like a decent government. This too is possible. No one knows today which way it will go. I am not thrilled to hear the cries of allahu akhbar. But it doesn’t destroy my sense of wonder at the capacity of individuals to seize their rights with their bare hands.

It’s uplifting, because these crowds are composed of individuals, acting one by one together. This is not crowd psychology in all its horror. Men and women each one separately breaking the chains that bind them, each one separately drawing courage from the depths of their being, each one individually crossing the line from slavery to freedom. They are telling us “I am not afraid anymore.”

No surprise that the champions of the Palestinian cause are not inspired by the Iranian people’s movement. The whole vocabulary of the Arab-Israeli conflict is dumbfounded. Nothing the mullahs do is disproportionate, the death toll got stuck at the number seven and no amount of blood could push it upward, graphic images don’t provoke outcries and, unless I am mistaken, no one is calling for a cease fire, no one is going to the UN.

President Obama has egg on his face but the media photoshop it away. Where’s the Obama effect now? Wedged in between Hamas and Abbas, competing for the intransigency award. It’s the Bush effect in Iran today. And the smarties who kept telling us you can’t impose democracy with guns and bombs are exposed. Truth is, they wouldn’t want to “impose” democracy with flowers and candy. They don’t even want to help Iranian citizens who are willing to go for it with their own blood sweat and tears.

In France, the capital of human rights, media coverage of events in Iran is particularly opaque. No enthusiasm, hardly any debate or analysis, no big picture. But our president took a stand!

Am I running away with my hopes? Maybe, maybe not. What if it works, what if the people overthrow the mullahs, what if their freedom is not snatched away once more, what if Iran really becomes the nation that cowardly western leaders have been pretending to see behind the snarling little monkey-face tyrant? A dignified refined nation that deserves a place at our table. A regional power that can have a stabilizing influence on the region. An unclenched fist. So where is the outstretched hand now?

On those frail shoulders the world could turn. If they succeed, would it mean that we don’t have to dread a nuclear attack on Israel or bear the burden of an Israeli attack on Iran? Would it mean no more money for Hamas, Hizbullah, and thousands of mini terror enclaves disseminated throughout our free nations? Would it strike hope in the hearts of other Muslims who are tired of living under sharia law? Couldn’t it turn the tables, shift the balance of power, slice into the lethal narrative and begin a new story, closer to the truth?

Whether they succeed today and fail afterward, or fail today and succeed the next time, nothing can deprive me of this moment of wonder at the power of one single human being—or a million of them one by one– to transform the world. This is why people like me fervently defend our right to think for ourselves and express ourselves in our own words, without making painful concessions to the multitude of guardians who stand between us and our readers. And this is why I am never pessimistic, never fatalistic.

What will happen to the Jews in Europe, I’m asked. What will happen to Europe. Europe is finished, isn’t it? If the Israelis don’t make peace with the Palestinians and give them a state, what are they going to do, kill them all? What are you going to do with all the Muslims in Europe… There are a billion and a half Muslims in the world, you can’t be against all of them…

Ah but that’s not how these questions will be settled. Not by stale arguments and twisted logic. And not by peace processes! There are upstarts hidden under every hard surface, and their power is immense. Acts of courage show the way. They cast a brilliant light on human events. Benjamin Netanyahu stood up to Obama. Avigdor Lieberman did not cave in to Hillary Clinton. Young Iranians born into a barbaric oppressive state know the taste for freedom. Their elders remember. My heart goes out to them. No matter what happens next, we have shared a moment of humanity. And the world has changed.

UPDATE: As I love to commiserate with Nidra [Poller], here is her reaction — from the other front line, France:

I followed Bibi’s speech on a live stream from Bar Ilan. Reception was shaky. I’ll have to see the written text to make a proper analysis. But here’s my first reaction: I was happy! I was happy because he stood up to Barack Hussein Obama like a proud Israeli. He didn’t swallow even a crumb of that lethal narrative about how Israel was a consolation prize for the Holocaust and Israel had been stuck in the Palestinian’s craw for 61 years, and Israel is the cause of all the world’s ills…

He stated our conditions. Recognition that Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people. We are here because this is our land. Give up trying to kill us by every means imaginable and unimaginable. Forget about flooding us with refugees. We took the refugees from Arab lands, you take care of your own refugees. Jerusalem will never be divided. We will make no commitment to restricting growth in the settlements. We tried every kind of peace plan, every kind of withdrawal. It doesn’t work.

We will not allow the creation of another Hamastan that can attack Tel Aviv, ben Gurion airport… We will not talk to Hamas, we don’t talk to people who want to destroy us.

He began with shalom and ended with shalom and spoke of shalom all through his speech. Shalom is the peace we want. Real peace, with fruitful multiplication and swords turned into plowshares. He held out a vision of the kind of peace that could exist in the Middle East IF AND ONLY IF Israel’s neighbors accept her existence as a Jewish state.

Towards the end, he spoke of Palestinians, a flag and a hymn. Maybe I listened selectively. I didn’t hear the word “state.” Whatever it was the Palestinians would fly their flag over, it would not be a territory from which to kill Israelis. Demilitarized. No weapons smuggling. Not like what is happening today in Gaza.

OK, call it wishful listening. To me he was saying that the kind of state the Palestinians want is not on the table and not on the horizon.

As soon as the speech was over I rushed to hear how French media would react. State-owned France Info said Netanyahu accepts a Palestinian state but it has to be demilitarized. Abbas, they report, says Netanyahu torpedoed any hope of peace. He asked too much.

Well, that seemed like a reasonable reaction from Abbas. It reassured me. Then I checked out FoxNews. And then the Figaro: “Netanyahu accepts the principle of a Palestinian state.” And finally, the Jerusalem Post. Our friend Aryeh Eldad said it too. Netanyahu crossed the red line. All the conditions he set forth will be forgotten, the only thing that will be remembered is that he agreed on the principle of a Palestinian state.

Can I still be happy? Didn’t Bibi stand up to Obama? Everyone else is caving in. Driveling. Drooling. And he lobbed those shots right back into Obama’s court, one by one, like a pro. Everyone knows the Palestinians don’t want a demilitarized state. So what does the word “state” mean if, in fact, Netanyahu pronounced the word?

Obama makes the most scandalous dhimmi speech ever pronounced in modern times and gets praised all over the planet. Netanyahu answers him back without pulling punches or picking a fight, and all you’ll hear is that he agrees that the Palestinians should have a state.

[dhimmi: Second class citizens.  That’s what Islam expects us to be.  All we have to do is pay them.]

I don’t think he did.

To be continued…


Paris June 14, 2009, 4 :10 PM

Nidra Poller

Two state pollution, two state delusion, two state concoction, two state distraction, two state corruption, two state disruption, two state misconception, two state misdemeanor, two state mistake, two state takeover, two state holdup…two state solution. You see? Those three words—two state solution– were not joined at the hip. They are not an organic whole. They are not verified by their inseparability. Whatever was put together by the will of man can be taken apart by his intelligence. Each element can be examined independently.

“Two” meaning who? Which two states are we talking about? Gaza and Judea-Samaria? Judea-Samaria and Israel? Israel and Gaza? Obviously not. So wipe out the “two,” it is mathematically incorrect.

“State”? What kind of state? Both the same kind? Sovereign and defendable? No. Everyone promises us that the sweet little Palestinian state they are going to force down our throats will of course be harmless. That is unarmed. More accurately “disarmed” because they are currently armed to the teeth and intend to get armed to the heavens. And our state, our Israel? Will it be the sovereign Jewish state created and built by the Jews, beautifully armed and brilliantly skilled, proud and independent, peaceful and prosperous? No. It will be a borderline state. Not Jewish. Not sovereign. Not free to defend itself, weakened, pushed down to the beach and into the sea. Strike out the “state,” it’s geopolitically false.

“Solution”? What solution?  The solution of what? Solution by fiat? By bla bla repetition? By unanimous hypocrisy?

Here’s an example in private life:

After all these decades of sexual freedom, women’s liberation, ease of coupling and ease of separation, we still get mismatching that leads in too many cases to nasty divorces, tugs of war over the children, drawn out court cases, dilapidation of financial resources, psychological trauma and sometimes murder. What’s to be done about it?

Not to worry.

Try the two parent solution. Two parents, living separately in peace and harmony, each in his own home, each equally devoted to all the children, living and letting live in fruitful prosperity. Why not? And how is this achieved? You just repeat it every time the problem is raised. Two parent solution, two parent solution, two parent solution.

It’s magical. It would probably even work for orphans.

Yes, death is a pesky problem that can strike anyone when least expected. Though we all know we will die one day, that our loved ones will die, that our forebears already died, we take death personally as an unbearable tragedy. Great writers write about it, philosophers try to wring it dry with highminded conversation, truthtelling poets describe its sting with such force they make us cry, but surely there must be some way to get past this problem that has caused so much suffering on both sides—that of the living and that of the dead.

Why not have the “two person solution?” Make people in two copies. When one dies, you throw it away and take out the replacement.

It should be clear from these two examples that everything can be solved with a solution.

Not so? Then why is the democratically elected prime minister of the sovereign Jewish state of Israel being pushed up against the wall and threatened with worse than death unless he squeals “yes, yes, I want a two-state solution”? And why are we hoping and praying he says NO?

Because the words can be disconnected and analyzed all the way down to their hidden meaning. And the catch phrase can be reconstructed in transparent truth. It’s so precise, it’s almost mathematical. Maybe it’s kabalistic. Whatever. Here’s the correct equation:

Following the demonstration above, strike out “two”—it’s mathematically incorrect. Strike out “state”—it’s geopolitically false. Retain “solution”—for the sake of argument. Take “two” and “state,” reduce to basic, heat to room temperature, carefully place each recomposed letter on the page, as follows.

F …I…N…A…L

Place to the left of “solution” and you get the macabre joke:


Say what?

Say NO.!!!

Monday, June 08, 2009


The real story hat tip martin

U.S first lady Michelle Obama and France’s First Lady Carla Bruni-Sarkozy attend a ceremony to mark the 65th anniversary of the D-Day landings in Normandy at Colleville-sur-Mer cemetery, June 6, 2009.

See more of Michelle photos at Yahoo Photos

Nidra Poller wrote this wonderful piece at the end of May, and I thought you would enjoy it.

It’s amusing how Obama campaigned on forging better relationships with the world and repairing Bush’s damage to America’s image in the world. Bush looks positively loved next to this clown. Merkel can barely stand him, and Sarkozy? Don’t even get me started in Israel.

It seems Obama is obsessed with getting in good with da jihad. The thing is, recent elections across Europe and the Middle East shows us the world is moving to the right while Obama careens wildly out of control to the radical left.

Why does Obama cold shoulder Sarkozy?

May 22, 2009

Nidra Poller

Why does Barack Hussein Obama shun Nicolas Sarkozy and why does it matter?

Curiously enough this Franco-American iceberg is escaping attention on both sides of the Atlantic. I gave up asking for reactions from otherwise astute observers in France who shrug their shoulders, raise their eyebrows, and mumble “Ah bon? Je n’ai rien remarqué.” It’s so glaring they don’t even notice it.

And here in the United States, the people who have been telling me–the longtime resident of France–that George Bush poisoned our relations with Europe and Barack Obama will turn them to milk and honey, don’t seem to notice that nothing of the sort is happening.

Why should President Obama be chummy with President Sarkozy? And why doesn’t he want to be? This is not a rhetorical question that will be followed by a torrent of revelations and glib explanations. I really don’t know what is going on here, but I am sure it matters.

Whatever you think of France you have to admit that it is still a power to be reckoned with in Europe and, to a lesser extent, on the international scene. The Franco-German “couple” counts for more than the sum of the parts of the European Union. France maintains significant influence in the Arab-Muslim world, much of which was under its colonial domination until recently…and now the liberated colonies are exerting their dominion over France by way of immigrant populations. France, more than any other continental European nation, seeks to exert its influence wherever conflict focuses world attention. France, self-appointed embodiment of human rights, rushes to the rescue of besieged populations when disaster strikes, waves the banner of the oppressed, and lends support—if only vocal– to aspiring peoples. As a major proponent of Euro-pacifism France has effectively undermined American power over the past decades and nourished the moral confusion that weakens the West in its conflict with global jihad.

Having promised to align the United States with suave European savoir faire, President Obama would be expected to grow closer to France, the world capital of diplomacy. Sarkozy, for his part, has made a step in America’s direction: While remaining faithful to the “diplomacy first & foremost” mode of operation, he has affronted strong domestic opposition by increasing troop strength in Afghanistan, reintegrating the NATO command, and taking a strong stand against Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Is that the rub?

Weeks after President Sarkozy’s triumphant May 2007 election he fostered rapprochement with the United States by accepting an invitation to a cookout lunch at the Bush family home in Kennebunkport. This chumming up to George Bush was grist for the smash-Sarkozy mill that is running strong to this day. The president was recently accused of lèse majesté for allegedly saying–at a private luncheon—that Spanish President Zapatero is “not intelligent” and Obama is inexperienced. The source that had leaked the comments rapidly came forward to add the missing words and prove that they were not insulting, but international media had already run with the story and our French media scooped up their dirt and dumped it on the president’s head. They claimed the “uppity arriviste Nicolas” was an international laughing stock. The joke is, those international media were only repeating what French media told them.

If Sarkozy is as disgraceful as his detractors claim, why do they find Obama so admirable? The critics who dump on “Sarko the omnipresident” for running to the scene of every issue big or small instead of letting his Prime Minister govern and his Ministers handle whatever they are Minister of, applaud Obama every time he runs up or down a flight of stairs, grabs a mike, and shows his face. They snarl at Sarkozy’s infradig accent and commonplace vocabulary but jive with Obama’s street talky hype. The French whined for months when their president took a long weekend to court and marry Carla Bruni; they drool over hand-holdings between Barack and Michelle. The hate-Sarkozy crowd snickers over outdated nude pictures of the graceful French first lady, a former model, that circulate in the sewers of the Net; willfully blind French commentators praise Michelle’s stunning taste in fashion. Sarkozy, they say, is so bling bling it’s a scandal. Then Obama gave madame a priceless rock of a ring in gratitude for her comradely support of his presidential campaign and it was ooooohhh soooo tender. The French president’s immigrant origins—a Hungarian father, a Jewish Thessalonian grandfather– earn him zero brownie points and a flow of gutter anti-Semitism. Needless to say Obama, the “first black American president,” hits the jackpot. And so on and so forth: whatever Obama does, doesn’t do, is, isn’t, lacks or has is good. Nothing Sarkozy can do, say, be, or wish for can find favor with the handful of opinion-makers who rule the roost. It’s unfair!

Obama insulted Gordon Brown, his wife touched the Queen of England, he fuels a shameless personality cult and throws in his wife and daughters for cutesy cutesy photo ops. French journalists and opposition politicians raked Sarkozy over the coals for giving a warm welcome to Ghadafi after the military personnel unjustly held in Libyan prisons were released…with the help of the then first lady, Cecilia. They haven’t raised an eyebrow as Obama fawns over Muslim countries to the point of rewriting American history and demographics (the US a nation of Muslims and miscellaneous others, Islam’s contribution of to our society…). If American media, having massively contributed to Barack Hussein Obama’s popularity and electoral success serve up a bit of objective reporting when his government hits a bump—the Nancy Pelosi two-step, for example —French media cover their eyes in embarrassment.

Curiously, the opinion-makers who get their kicks out of throwing darts at Sarkozy haven’t noticed that in snubbing the French president, Obama is snubbing France and all that’s in it.

Repeated attempts by Nicolas Sarkozy’s aides to arrange for an official visit to Washington were rebuffed. On several occasions, rumors of an impending Obama-Sarkozy encounter rippled and faded. In France we were led to believe the American president would visit Omaha Beach with his French counterpart between the G20 meeting in London and the NATO summit in Strasbourg. Then we learned, from US sources, that Obama’s team had humored the Frenchies and even walked through the event before informing them that the Franco-American cordiality show was postponed once again. The Omaha Beach junket is now promised for the June 6th Normandy landing commemoration …two days after Obama’s epistle to the Muslims pronounced in Cairo.

Unless I am mistaken, Nicolas Sarkozy was standing right behind the Saudi king when Barack Hussein Obama bowed deeply in reverence to the Muslim potentate at the G20 reception. At the NATO summit he told the EU to open its arms wide and welcome Turkey. Gulp! Will he smooth things out at Omaha Beach? Try to talk the French into taking a few dozen Gitmo guys? Get some inside tips on nationalized health care?

I don’t think they will broach the very delicate subject of…how shall we say…government meddling…no, let’s not be too harsh…government intervention in all things economic. What if Nicolas asked Barack (if they ever get to first-name status) why he is striving to impose…excuse me, institute interventionist economic policies that, he, Nicolas, promised to phase out because he, and a healthy majority of French voters, are convinced that the French economy has gone from doldrums to dumps to recession precisely because of a lack of freedom. Overweening labor unions, overbearing taxes, overweight bureaucracy, and a preference for handouts over endeavor have been the bane of France’s existence.

Sarkozy’s promised reforms have been butting against opposition from a coalition of the parliamentary left, the far left, labor unions, ecologists, and Islamists, with the helping hand of intellectuals and the media. Whereas Obama is hoping to make his promised changes with the help of the Congressional left, the far left, labor unions, ecologists, and…?

The Normandy hills are so green and peaceful today. The beaches are bright and clean. Row upon row of white crosses, studded with white Stars of David, stretch as far as the eye can see. Will the sobering reminder of young American lives lost to defeat the Nazi tyranny that held France in its murderous grip restore the warmth of Franco-American friendship when the two presidents meet on June 6th? Or will this be a chilly downgrading encounter that makes France look like an old friend who hasn’t done much with his life? Someone you meet once a year, when you can’t find a good excuse to avoid him?

Update June 4: reports today that Sarkozy’s team tried every which way to set up a tête à tête with Obama on the fringes of the D-Day commemoration. Nothing doing. Le Figaro reports that offers to schedule quality time between the two heads of state have been rebuffed. Obama is not interested in breakfast, lunch, or dinner. He won’t even prendre un verre with our president. They say the whole bit about the Queen of England is one more ploy by Obama’s guys to avoid close contact with Sarkozy. Following upon the miracle of the loaves featured in the Cairo speech—America’s 2 million or so Muslims became 7 million—you have to wonder why the president of “one of the world’s largest Muslim countries”—the USA dixit Barack Hussein Obama—would brush off the president of the European country that boasts the biggest Muslim population…approximately 7 million in fact, but it’s only a guess because ethnic and religious breakdowns are outlawed in France. Having offered a set of DVDs to Gordon Brown, an i-phone to the Queen, I suppose President Obama will be bringing an appropriate gift to Nicolas Sarkozy. Maybe a Walmart grooming kit? With one of those neat Fusion razors? And two packages of blades?

Nidra Poller


Evangelism Explosion

June 17, 2009

EE is producing remarkable results.

Please view and download the selected pages from the EE magazine.   We’ve highlighted some key points.

D. James and Anne Kennedy Training Center for World Evangelism – Thousands Trained:  Centers located in Fiji, Ukraine, Vietnam, Indonesia and Middle East leading to salvations by the hundreds of thousands.

“…we work tirelessly on every continent to help believers regularly introduce others to the Savior.  We start by training believers, who reach out to unbelievers and care for them, fellowship with them, share the truth with them, and then train them to share their faith.  In doing this, we follow the example of Jesus.”




From On High The President Surveys World

June 15, 2009

From On High The President Surveys World


When President Obama returned from his first European trip, I observed that while over there he had been “acting the philosopher-king who hovers above the fray mediating” between America and the world.

Now that Obama has returned from his “Muslim world” pilgrimage, even the left agrees. “Obama’s standing above the country, above — above the world. He’s sort of God,” Newsweek’s Evan Thomas said to a concurring Chris Matthews, reflecting on Obama’s lofty perception of himself as the great transcender.

Not that Obama considers himself divine. (He sees himself as merely messianic, or, at worst, apostolic.) But he does position himself as hovering above mere mortals, mere country, to gaze benignly on the darkling plain beneath him where ignorant armies clash by night, blind to the common humanity that only he can see.

Traveling the world, he brings the gospel of understanding and godly forbearance. We have all sinned against each other. We must now look beyond that and walk together to the sunny uplands of comity and understanding. He shall guide you. Thus:

(A) He told Iran that, on the one hand, America once helped overthrow an Iranian government, while on the other hand “Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians.” (Played a role?!) We have both sinned; let us bury the past and begin anew.

(B) On religious tolerance, he gently referenced the Christians of Lebanon and Egypt, then lamented that the “divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence” (note the use of the passive voice). He then criticized (in the active voice) Western religious intolerance for regulating the wearing of the hijab — after citing America for making it difficult for Muslims to give to charity.

(C) Obama offered Muslims a careful admonition about women’s rights, noting how denying women education impoverishes a country — balanced, of course, with “meanwhile, the struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life.”

Well, yes. On the one hand, there certainly is some American university where the women’s softball team has received insufficient Title IX funds — while, on the other hand, Saudi women showing ankle are beaten in the street, Afghan school girls have acid thrown in their faces and Iranian women are publicly stoned to death for adultery. (Gays, as well — but then again we have Prop 8.) We all have our shortcomings, our national foibles. Who’s to judge?

Muslim Cruelty

That’s the problem with Obama’s transcultural evenhandedness. It gives the veneer of professorial sophistication to the most simple-minded observation: Of course there are rights and wrongs in all human affairs. Our species is a fallen one. But that doesn’t mean that these rights and wrongs are of equal weight.

A CIA rent-a-mob in a coup 56 years ago does not balance the hostage-takings, throat-slittings, terror bombings and wanton slaughters perpetrated for 30 years by a thug regime in Tehran (and its surrogates) that our own State Department calls the world’s “most active state sponsor of terrorism.”

True, France prohibits the wearing of the hijab in certain public places, in part to allow the force of law to protect Muslim women who might be coerced into wearing it by neighborhood fundamentalist gangs.

But it borders on the obscene to compare this mild preference for secularization (seen in Muslim Turkey as well) to the violence that has been visited upon Copts, Maronites, Baha’i, Druze and other minorities in Muslim lands, and to the unspeakable cruelties perpetrated by Shiites and Sunnis upon each other.

Covets Applause

Even on freedom of religion, Obama could not resist the compulsion to find fault with his own country:

“For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation” — disgracefully giving the impression to a foreign audience not versed in our laws that there is active discrimination against Muslims, when the only restriction, applied to all donors regardless of religion, is on funding charities that serve as fronts for terror.

Obama undoubtedly thinks he is demonstrating historical magnanimity with all these moral equivalencies and self-flagellating apologetics. On the contrary. He’s showing cheap condescension, an unseemly hunger for applause and a willingness to distort history for political effect.

Distorting history is not truth-telling, but the telling of soft lies. Creating false equivalencies is not moral leadership, but moral abdication. And hovering above it all, above country and history, is a sign not of transcendence but of a disturbing ambivalence toward one’s own country.


Cartoon: Obama says “America is NOT a Christian Nation”

June 4, 2009


Covering for the radicals

June 2, 2009
Comment RSS // ShareThis

A prominent Muslim American leader issued a stern warning to the FBI. Informants should never breach the grounds of a mosque. No matter what.

“Our Koran is off limits,” said Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Los Angeles office said at an Anaheim mosque in April. “Our youth, who they try to radicalize, are off limits. Now is the time to tell them, ‘we’re not going to let this happen anymore.’ ”

It was the lead element in a Los Angeles Times story by Paloma Esquivel. The story described the sense of betrayal felt by Muslim activists like Ayloush after “the FBI sent an informant into a mosque in Orange County, surveilled community leaders and sent an agent to UC Irvine – caus[ing] some to begin questioning the FBI’s real intentions.”

The story never names the person agents wanted the informant to approach; much less the man’s family ties to Osama bin Laden or his efforts to conceal his continuing relationship with the relative. Nor does it explain to readers that CAIR may have some sour grapes toward the FBI, which cut off access to CAIR last summer in light of court evidence showing the group, which touts itself as the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights organization, was born to serve a Hamas-support network in the U.S.

It’s just one example of reporters favoring a good quote over the old shoe-leather approach of tracking down a paper trail. For some veteran journalists, it can be too much to take. Mary Jacoby, a former Wall Street Journal reporter now operating her own website, called out “the usual bunch of uninformed reporters” who seem glad to serve as a megaphone for CAIR and other apologists for terror.

Jacoby wrote some stories for the Investigative Project on Terrorism before launching Among them was her story breaking the news of cut off from FBI contact, tracking down written proof and obtaining formal confirmation from the FBI. Contrast that with stories in the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Detroit News and St. Louis Post-Dispatch which seem to accept any claim about FBI behavior that comes forward yet seem to run out of space before explaining what the record says about people like Niazi and groups like CAIR.

“It’s easy to believe the worst about the FBI,” Jacoby wrote. “But in this case, the Bureau has bent over backwards to be fair. But it’s stopped bending – and rightly so.” Jacoby noted that Richard Powers, assistant director of the Bureau’s congressional affairs office, revealed in a letter why the FBI ended contacts with CAIR’s national leadership: because evidence in the federal government’s terrorism prosecution case against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) showed that CAIR had ties with Hamas. In a recent letter to three U.S. senators, an FBI congressional liaison indicated that the Bureau wasn’t sure whether that relationship ever ended:

“Nevertheless, until we can resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and HAMAS, the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner,” the letter said.

CAIR was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the case, which ended with the November 2008 convictions of five former HLF officials on all charges for conspiring to raise $12 million for Hamas. Two of the defendants received 65-year prison terms, with the others sentenced to terms between 15 and 20 years.

Those are pretty serious allegations from the nation’s top law enforcement agency. Yet, Detroit News reporter Greg Krupa can’t seem to bring himself to report them to his readers. Krupa didn’t mention the FBI cut off for nearly three months. When he finally did, he offered scant details about the evidence prompting the FBI decision, and cast doubt on some of it.

For example, in a conversation recorded in 1993 by the FBI, Hamas members and supporters discussed creating a new political organization to help their cause. Transcripts and other records identify CAIR founder Omar Ahmad in attendance and the FBI says co-founder and current CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad was there, too. Krupa said that identification is based solely on “the sound of his voice.” Yet, an examination of what “Nihad” said shows it was Awad. In addition, Awad has never contested the allegation since an FBI agent first said it during testimony in August 2007.

For good measure, Krupa adds:

“Officials of CAIR and defense lawyers in the Muslim charity case say no evidence was presented that CAIR intended to work on behalf of Hamas or that it was established as a result of the recorded conversation.

While the U.S. and other governments consider Hamas a terrorist group, many Muslims and Arabs consider it a resistance group, and say Palestinians have a right to resist Israel.”

By any measure, the Holy Land Foundation trial and its aftermath have been disastrous for CAIR’s spin campaign to convince people it is a moderate civil rights organization. Since the trial, CAIR and its allies have sought to discredit the FBI. CAIR is part of a coalition calling itself the American Muslim Task Force on Civil Rights and Elections, which has staged a series of news conferences denouncing the FBI for violating Muslim rights by conducting surveillance in mosques. That has garnered sympathetic coverage across the country, including the Los Angeles Times article mentioned earlier.

These organizations seized on the case of Ahmadullah Niazi, who was arrested in February for allegedly lying on his U.S. application for naturalization, obtaining a passport through fraud and lying to federal investigators. Niazi, a naturalized U.S. citizen, drew attention from the FBI because his brother-in-law, Amin al-Haq, had served as Osama bin Laden’s security coordinator and was named as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist by the U.S. government in 2001. Niazi was accused of failing to disclose his links to terrorists when he applied for naturalization in 2004 and of lying about his travels to Pakistan – where he met with al-Haq in 2005. A search warrant affidavit also indicates Niazi is suspected of illegally structuring financial transactions to avoid detection by law enforcement.

Testifying at Niazi’s February 24 bond hearing, FBI agent Thomas Ropel III said it was Niazi who initiated conversations about jihad – not the FBI informant. Niazi said that holy war was an Islamic duty, Ropel added. Niazi also discussed sending the informant to terror training camps in either Yemen or Egypt and had instigated conversations about “conducting terrorist attacks and blowing up buildings.”

Moreover, according to Ropel, Niazi lied to the FBI about the number of times he discussed jihad with the informant: Niazi claimed that the pair had spoken about the issue once or twice, when agents already possessed “at least 15 or 20 such conversations.”

Niazi, of course, has not been convicted of any crime and is entitled to the presumption of innocence. But the FBI’s allegations against him are serious ones, and they are critical to understanding why the Bureau was investigating Niazi. Yet they were virtually ignored in media accounts of the case that appeared in the Los Angeles Times, Detroit News and St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Niazi’s name was not even mentioned in any of the stories.) The media coverage amounted to a propaganda windfall for the Islamists, courtesy of the people Mary Jacoby skewers as “the usual bunch of uninformed reporters.”

These are not isolated examples. Another of Jacoby’s former employers, the St. Petersburg Times, has repeatedly exhibited a blind spot toward admitted Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) member, Sami Al-Arian. He pled guilty in 2006 to conspiring to provide goods and services to the PIJ. As part of his plea, Al-Arian admitted lying about his PIJ connection and knowledge of the organization. At his sentencing, the judge blasted Al-Arian for lying about his support for terror and his work on the PIJ’s governing board.

He now is fighting criminal contempt charges, claiming the plea agreement absolved him of complying with a federal grand jury subpoena in a Virginia terror financing case.

In a March 6 story, reporter Meg Laughlin claimed a new prosecution filing in that contempt case proved Al-Arian’s argument:

“For the first time, federal prosecutors in Alexandria, Va., have acknowledged that when Sami Al-Arian took a plea deal in early 2006, federal prosecutors in Tampa believed — as did Al-Arian — that it exempted him from testifying in other cases.”

That would be shocking. But it’s simply not true and the proof is in the same document Laughlin cited. It summarizes findings of an internal review of the case and includes this passage:

“To the contrary, the evidence shows that (1) MD FL [Middle District of Florida] and DOJ [Department of Justice] prosecutors did not equate cooperation and compelled testimony … did not believe that Al-Arian or his experienced attorneys thought that his plea immunized him from compelled testimony.” [Emphasis added]


“The government attorneys who negotiated the plea agreement in Florida clearly understood that the plea agreement barred EDVA [the Eastern District of Virginia] from prosecuting Al-Arian for any offense then known to the government, but did not understand any provision in the plea agreement to bar EDVA from compelling Al-Arian’s testimony. Not only was such a provision never requested by defense counsel, it would have required a global agreement difficult to achieve, and no such provision had ever been the subject of an agreement within their experience.” [Emphasis added]

Either the reporter misread something, failed to read the entire document, or ignored the prosecution’s representation.

Similarly, Time magazine ran a March 18, 2009 article by reporter Wendy Malloy titled, “Despite Acquittal, a Florida Terror Suspect’s Legal Saga Continues,” which depicts al-Arian as a “victim” of the U.S. legal system even though he was convicted of the material-support charge – a terrorism-related felony. Al-Arian had no shortage of opportunities to have his case heard, but lost in four different federal courts: district court, two appellate courts and even the Supreme Court.

Then there’s New York Times reporter Neil MacFarquhar, who has repeatedly whitewashed the extremist records of Islamist groups such as CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and the Muslim Students Association (MSA). In one article, he dismissed criticism of the Justice Department’s presence at a 2007 ISNA convention. MacFarquhar ignored disturbing information about ISNA that came out during the HLF prosecution, including evidence of its foundations in the Muslim Brotherhood and its multiple contributions to Hamas through its subsidiary, the North American Islamic Trust.

In his story, MacFarquhar allowed ISNA keynote speaker, U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), to launch a specious, unrebutted attack on two of his colleagues, Reps. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) and Sue Myrick (R-NC) for writing a letter challenging the Bush Justice Department’s official participation in the ISNA conference. Their letter, Ellison said, was “ill informed and typical of bigoted attacks that other minorities have suffered.”

But Ellison’s argument was a cheap shot: Hoekstra and Myrick never criticized Islam or minorities. Instead, they criticized ISNA as an organization – a Muslim Brotherhood front group with an extensive record as apologists for terror groups. MacFarquhar then went on to quote Zaid Shakir, who he described as “an African-American imam with rock-star status.” Shakir complained about hearing comments on talk radio from people who were “Making stuff up about Islam.”

MacFarquhar’s “rock star” was the same person who told a different ISNA conference in Texas months earlier: “We Muslims are weak because we don’t have planes and trains and bombs and nuclear weapons and the Kaafir [infidel] are strong because they have all that in abundance.” The Times story neglected to mention a speech at a 2005 convention in Canada in which Shakir said of America:

“And the finger of blame will be pointed at all of those real or imagined terrorists scattered all over the world, and no mirror will be held up to see the terrorism that is being inflicted on the people of the world because of the policies of the United States of America.”

In a subsequent piece, MacFarquhar portrayed Amir Mertaban, a radical leader of the Muslim Students Association, as an “inclusive” moderate based on his willingness to admit a coed wearing a miniskirt into the MSA to the consternation of more traditionally minded members. MacFarquhar overlooked comments Merteban had made a year earlier during a speech at U.C. Berkeley. A Muslim man is allowed to have four wives, Merteban said, and no matter what Osama bin Laden may – or may not — have done, Muslims are obliged to defend him “to the end.”

MSAs routinely invite radical Islamic speakers who justify suicide bombing and make anti-American and anti-Semitic statements. Speaking at an April 2002 MSA event at San Francisco State University, Imam Abdul Malik Ali demanded that Muslims stop using the term “suicide bombers:”

“When a person commits suicide, they are depressed! When a person commits suicide, they are without hope! When a person commits suicide they are losing their patience. They are in a state of despair! These brothers — and sisters –before they go out on their martyr missions, are doing videotapes, and they are saying ‘Yeeeuuhh! I’m doing this! I’m doing this!’ And their mothers are right next to them saying, ‘Go ahead and go!’ “

Israel, Ali added approvingly, was in “serious trouble” and because it could not defend its people against such attackers:

“You cannot win against a people like this! Because you have Israelis whose ideology is so bankrupt –You never hear an Israeli talking about ‘I hope I’m going to die.’ They want to live, they want to live. And once you go up against a people who love death more than you love life, you in trouble, man [sic].”

MacFarquhar did not report this or any other radical statement by Malik Ali that can be found with a simple Google search.

Balance is a noble pursuit in journalism. But true balance requires more than presenting “both sides” of an issue. Stories about terrorism and extremism are complex and sensitive. But when there is a record to document many of the allegations – it requires more effort than simply asking two sides to comment.


Likely intel pick: Muslims were here first

February 26, 2009

WorldNetDaily Exclusive

Likely intel pick: Muslims were here first
Pushed Saudi-funded textbook that wildly fabricates history

Posted: February 25, 2009
11:20 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein


TEL AVIV, Israel – The Obama administration’s reported pick for a top intelligence post once peddled a book to U.S. public schools that falsely claims Muslims inhabited North America far before European explorers.

The book, funded by Saudi Arabia, also contains widely inaccurate anti-Israel Arab propaganda.

Charles “Chas” Freeman, the U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War, is slated to head the National Intelligence Council, according to multiple reports. Yesterday, it came to light Freeman has financial ties to the infamous bin Laden family – including dealings he defended after Sept. 11, 2001.

Freeman served as president of the Middle East Policy Council, a Washington-based Saudi backed nonprofit that received tens of thousands of dollars per year from the bin Laden family and other Saudi donors.

In 2003, Freeman’s council joined with California-based Arab World and Islamic Resources in selling to U.S. schools the “Arab World Studies Notebook,” set to be a textbook on Arab issues and history.

A report from that year by the Text Book League, an online resource on some 200 educational items for middle-school and high-school educators, highlighted major historical fabrications found in Freeman’s schoolbook including the claim Muslims inhabited the New World in pre-Columbian times and also spread throughout the Caribbean, Central America, South America and even Canada.

(Story continues below)

English explorers met “Iroquois and Algonquin (Native American) chiefs with names like Abdul-Rahim and Abdallah Ibn Malik,” the schoolbook claimed, without providing any evidence.

In actuality, the first Muslim to enter the historical record in North America was Estevánico of Azamor, who came with the Spanish in 1539. Islam is not believed to have taken root in Canada until the mid-19th century.

The book goes on to present Jesus as an “important figure” in Islam and states as fact it is “well known, the Quran was revealed through the Prophet Muhammad.”

The schoolbook “present(s) Muslim myths as ‘history,’ endorse(s) Muslim religious claims, and propagat(es) Islamic fundamentalism,” stated the Text Book League report.

An investigative article by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency in 2005 further exposed some of the anti-Israel claims in the book Freeman was peddling.

The JTA found the book described Jerusalem as unequivocally “Arab,” characterized Jewish residence in the holy city as “settlement”; labeled the “question of Jewish lobbying” against “the whole question of defining American interests and concerns”; and suggested the Quran “synthesizes and perfects earlier revelations.”

Blogs and Israeli news media websites the past few days have been highlighting recent comments Freeman made that are perceived as heavily critical of Israel.

He told the Washington Institute of Foreign Affairs in 2007 that Israeli policy is generating anti-American sentiment while the Jewish state “no longer even pretends to seek peace with the Palestinians; it strives instead to pacify them.”

“American identification with Israeli policy has also become total. Those in the region and beyond it who detest Israeli behavior, which is to say almost everyone, now naturally extend their loathing to Americans,” Freeman claimed.

Freeman lauded Hamas as the only democratically elected government in the Arab world and claimed the terrorist group “is showing that if we offer it nothing but unreasoning hostility and condemnation, it will only stiffen its position and seek allies among our enemies. In both cases, we forfeit our influence for no gain.”

“The Journal is filled with anti-Israel messages that are beyond even the broadest definition of mainstream of U.S. thinking on the region,” wrote Sammy Benoit of the Yid with Lid blog.

Freeman has bin Laden ties

Yesterday, Ashley Rinsdberg, a Jerusalem-based researcher and blogger for the Daily Beast website dug up another issue that may cause even bigger worry for the likely Obama appointee – he had business ties to Osama bin Laden’s family and strongly defended the connections after 9/11.

Rinsdberg documented how as chairman of Projects International, Inc., a company that develops worldwide business deals, Freeman declared in an Associated Press interview just after the 9/11 attacks he was still “discussing proposals with the Bin Laden Group – and that won’t change.”

The Bin Laden Group is a multinational construction conglomerate and holding company for the assets owned by the bin Laden family. It was founded in 1950 by Sheik Mohammed bin Laden, father of the terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden.

Freeman told the AP companies that have “had very long and profitable relationships are now running for public relations cover.”

He said bin Laden remains “a very honored name” in the Saudi kingdom.

In a separate interview Sept. 28, 2001, Freeman told the Wall Street Journal he spoke at the time to two of Osama bin Laden’s brothers following the mega terrorist attacks. He said they told him the FBI had been “remarkably sensitive, tactful and protective” of the family during the current crisis.

The Journal noted Freeman’s ties to the bin Laden family went beyond admiration and business. He served as president of the Middle East Policy Council, a Washington-based Saudi backed nonprofit that at time was receiving tens of thousands of dollars a year from the bin Laden family.

Freeman maintained to the Journal that the bin Laden family company was closely aligned with American interests and that the group was part of the “establishment that Osama’s trying to overthrow.”

Osama bin Laden worked briefly in his family business and is reported to have inherited as much as $50 million from his father in cash and stock. The Saudi Bin Laden Group has invested in the Carlyle Group, a global private equity investment firm to which former President George H. W. Bush served as adviser. Former President George W. Bush sat on the board.


Muslim Television Channel Founder Charged With Beheading His Wife

February 16, 2009

Muslim Television Channel Founder Charged With Beheading His Wife

Monday , February 16, 2009

By Joshua Rhett Miller


get_a(300,250,”frame1″); ADVERTISEMENT

The estranged wife of a Muslim television executive feared for her life after filing for divorce last month from her abusive husband, her attorney said — and was found beheaded Thursday in his upstate New York television studio.

Aasiya Z. Hassan, 37, was found dead on Thursday at the offices of Bridges TV in Orchard Park, N.Y., near Buffalo. Her husband, Muzzammil Hassan, 44, has reportedly been charged with second-degree murder.

“She was very much aware of the potential ramification of her filing for divorce might have,” said attorney Elizabeth DiPirro, whose law firm, Hogan Willig, represented Aasiya Hassan in the divorce proceeding. “But she wanted to proceed despite the potential for it to erupt.”

DiPirro said the couple had “physical confrontations off and on” for their entire eight-year marriage that had recently escalated to death threats. The grounds for divorce were “cruel and inhuman treatment,” DiPirro said, referring to mulitple prior incidents of abuse. She declined to elaborate.

“We were worried about the situation becoming volatile,” DiPirro said.

The couple had two children, ages 4 and 6, DiPirro said. Muzzammil Hassan also has two children, ages 17 and 18, from a previous marriage.

DiPirro said Aasiya was a “brave” mother who sought a better life for her young children.

“She was a very brave woman who was extremely devoted to her children and had come to this decision after a long, thoughtful process and was determined to change her life for herself and her children,” DiPirro said.

Orchard Park Police Chief Andrew Benz told the Buffalo News that Aasiya Hassan had obtained an order or protection on Feb. 6, barring her husband from their home. Police have reportedly still not found the weapon allegedly used in the killing. Benz did not immediately return requests for comment Monday.

“Obviously this is the worst form of domestic violence possible,” Erie County District Attorney Frank Sedita told the Buffalo News.

Muzzammil Hassan, who founded Bridges TV in November 2004 to counter anti-Islam stereotypes, surrendered to police Thursday. Hassan touted the network as the “first-ever full-time home for American Muslims,” according to a press release.

“Every day on television we are barraged by stories of a ‘Muslim extremist, militant, terrorist, or insurgent,'” Hassan said in the 2004 release. “But the stories that are missing are the countless stories of Muslim tolerance, progress, diversity, service and excellence that Bridges TV hopes to tell.”

Dr. Khalid Qazi, a friend of the couple and president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council of Western New York, said the channel had been under financial strain.

“I cannot believe it — I know them both well,” Qazi told the Buffalo News. “I cannot get a handle on this.”

Samira Khatib, a friend of the couple, said Aasiya Hassan encouraged her husband to launch the cable channel.

“They were really more than married — they encouraged each other in everything,” Khatib told the Buffalo News. “She was such a lovely person.”

According to the station’s Web site, Aasiya Hassan “came up with the idea” for the network. The Web site, which shows an undated photo of the couple in happier times, identifies her maiden name as Aasiya Zubair.


PATHETIC ‘MESSAGE’ – Obama’s odd Islamic Outreach

February 6, 2009




January 29, 2009

IN his “first message to the Muslim world” Tuesday, President Obama on Al-Arabiya TV invited the Is lamic Republic in Iran to “unclench its fist” and accept his offer of “un conditional talks.”

A few hours later, after Obama had appeared on the Saudi-owned satellite-TV channel, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told a crowd of militants that no talks are possible unless the United States met a set of conditions.

He demanded a formal apology for unspecified US “crimes” against Iran and the Islamic world. The crucial condition, however, was that America should withdraw its troops from other countries, “taking them back to their own territory.”

The contrast couldn’t have been greater. Obama tried to be as conciliatory as possible – asking only for an “unclenching” of the Iranian fist – a change of style. Ahmadinejad asked for concrete US moves, notably a global military retreat that would leave the Middle East at Tehran’s mercy.

In the understatement of the year, Obama said: “Iran has acted in ways not conducive to peace and prosperity in the region.” He also claimed that Iran’s support for terrorists, though “not helpful,” is a thing of the past – yet Tehran was running guns to Hezbollah and Hamas even as he spoke.

ON Al-Arabiya, Obama did something more interest ing: He cast himself in the role of a bridge between America and the Muslim world, a kind of honest broker between two camps in conflict.

To hammer in the point, he recalled the Muslim part of his own family background and his childhood in Muslim Indonesia – a topic he’d carefully avoided during the campaign. He also asserted that America is a land of “Muslims, Christians, Jews” and others – making sure to mention Muslims first.

At times, Obama sounded like a marriage counselor. He said his job is to communicate to Americans that “the Muslim world is full of extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives.” On the other hand, he said, he’d also tell the Muslims that “Americans are not your enemy.”

Obama looked to the past rather than the future to give such platitudes a tinge of political vision. He said he wanted a return “to the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago.”

The problem is that few people in the Muslim world will welcome his back-to-the-future approach. Thirty years ago, Obama was a teenager in Indonesia. Vice President Joseph Biden, however, was already a senator and a champion of President Jimmy Carter’s strategic retreat.

What was happening during what Obama seems to regard as the “golden age” of Carter’s leadership? US diplomats were held hostage in Tehran and daily humiliated with mock executions. Soviet troops were annexing Afghanistan to the Evil Empire. Saddam Hussein was preparing to invade Iran, starting an eight-year war that claimed a million lives. Mecca was under siege by the ideological antecedents of Osama bin Laden. Syrian troops were preparing to march into Lebanon.

OTHER features of this “golden age”: the seizure of power by mullahs in Tehran, the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, the coming to power of communists in the Horn of Africa, the military coup in Turkey, the first Islamist terror attacks in Algeria, unprecedented waves of repression in Egypt and Saudi Arabia and the imposition of military rule in Pakistan.

During the same period, and its immediate aftermath, dozens of Americans from many walks of life were seized as hostages and sometimes brutally murdered in several Muslim countries. The US ambassador in Sudan was murdered; the CIA station chief in Beirut abducted, taken to Tehran and killed under torture.

A similarly dark picture could be drawn of the situation 20 years ago, when America was arming the mujahedin in Afghanistan while Saddam Hussein was preparing to invade Kuwait.

And the first President George Bush was then trying to court the Iranian mullahs in much the same way as Obama is trying today. But the mullahs were training and arming Hezbollah units in Lebanon and opening channels to Palestinian radicals who would soon re-emerge as Hamas. Saddam was gassing thousands of Kurds to death, while Turkey was dragged into a full-scale war on Kurdish communist secessionists. Meanwhile, the Libyan terror network was killing American GIs in Europe and blowing up US jetliners over Western skies.

No – that was no golden age, either.

THE truth is that the Middle East is not much better off than at any time since its emergence as a geopolitical unit after World War I. Thanks to the transformation of America from a power guaranteeing the deadly status quo into one that supports reform and change, the region has started to experience new currents of democratization.

Afghanistan and Iraq have been liberated, their peoples given a chance to build new systems of their own choice. The Syrians have been kicked out of Lebanon. Libya has been disarmed. Egypt has been forced to allow multiparty presidential elections. More than a dozen Arab states have adopted constitutions and introduced some form of electoral politics. Kuwaiti women have won the right to vote and get elected.

Iran’s democratic forces are encouraged to launch their campaign against the mullahs. The Islamists have been roundly defeated in Algeria, Egypt, Yemen and Saudi Arabia.

For the first time, the question of democracy is top of the political agenda in virtually every Muslim state.

Obama should remember that he is the president of the United States – not an impartial broker. It was unfortunate that he described himself as a bridge. For a bridge has no personality of its own and cares little about who might cross it and in which direction.

IF this was meant as the first direct contact between Obama and the Mus lim world, the Al-Arabiya interview must be rated as a missed opportunity.

Obama’s remarks about the Israel-Palestine issue were so trite as to merit no analysis. He said he was sending former Sen. George Mitchell to listen to all sides – as if the world has not been hearing their stories for more than six decades.

The president appeared apologetic, offering no hope for democratization and economic development. He made no mention of the economic meltdown that is creating unprecedented mass unemployment in many countries of the region.

Nor did he offer any support to democratic forces facing crucial elections in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, Egypt and Algeria this year.

He had nothing to say about the thousands of Iranian workers who have been thrown into prison solely because they created independent trade unions. Nor did he mention Iranian women’s courageous “a million signatures campaign” or the series of student revolts that have been crushed by the mullahs with exceptional violence.

Nor was there any nod toward reformers in Saudi Arabia and Egypt or the heroic Lebanese democratic leaders who are fighting to preserve their nation’s independence from Iran and Syria.

Obama didn’t call for the release of the tens of thousands of political prisoners held in more than two dozen Muslim countries or a moratorium on executions that each year cost the lives of hundreds of dissidents.

CASTING himself in the role of a “bridge” and dreaming of a return to an illusionary past, Obama appeared unsure of his own identity and confused about the role that America should play in global politics. And that is bad news for those who believe that the United States should use its moral, economic and political clout in support of democratic forces throughout the world.


Nothing to be Apologizing For

February 3, 2009


Fighting For And Freeing Muslims Is Nothing To Be Apologizing For

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER | 2 February 2009 | I.B.D

Every new president flatters himself that he, kinder and gentler, is beginning the world anew. Yet, when Barack Obama in his inaugural address reached out to Muslims with “to the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect,” his formulation was needlessly defensive and apologetic.

* Americans are quickly learning that Obama has a different loyalty.

Is it “new” to acknowledge Muslim interests and show respect to the Muslim world? Obama doesn’t just think so, he said so again to millions in his al-Arabiya interview, (His first interview – His FIRST PRIORITY?!) insisting on the need to “restore” the “same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago.”

Astonishing!! In these most recent 20 years — the alleged winter of our disrespect of the Islamic world — America did not just respect Muslims, it bled for them. It engaged in five military campaigns, every one of which involved — and resulted in — the liberation of a Muslim people: Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq.

* Has any American ever heard one thank you or compliment for our effort?

The two Balkan interventions — as well as the failed 1992-93 Somali intervention to feed starving African Muslims (43 Americans were killed) — were humanitarian exercises of the highest order, there being no significant U.S. strategic interest at stake.

In these 20 years, this nation has done more for suffering and oppressed Muslims than any nation, Muslim or non-Muslim, anywhere on earth. Why are we apologizing?  [???] * Has any Muslim shown any appreciation?  I don’t think so.

And what of that happy U.S.-Muslim relationship that Obama imagines existed “as recently as 20 or 30 years ago” that he has now come to restore? Thirty years ago, 1979, saw the greatest U.S.-Muslim rupture in our 233-year history: Iran’s radical Islamic revolution, the seizure of the U.S. embassy, the 14 months of America held hostage.

* Don’t forget that America’s FIRST THIRTY YEARS of our existence required our founders and leaders to fight radical Islam, to learn about the Qur’an and it’s plan for world conquest.  That’s why President Jefferson had to read the Qur’an.  Those Barbary Pirates were the radical Muslims – that’s where our “leathernecks” come from – to fight sword wielding Muslims of that day.

Which came just a few years after the Arab oil embargo that sent the United States into a long and punishing recession. Which, in turn, was preceded by the kidnapping and cold-blooded execution by Arab terrorists of the U.S. ambassador in Sudan and his charge d’affaires.

This is to say nothing of the Marine barracks massacre of 1983, and the innumerable attacks on U.S. embassies and installations around the world during what Obama now characterizes as the halcyon days of U.S.-Islamic relations. [!!]

Look. If Barack Obama wants to say, as he said to al-Arabiya, “I have Muslim roots, Muslim family members, have lived in a Muslim country” — implying a special affinity that uniquely positions him to establish good relations — that’s fine. * He’s telling this to his supporters – who are (many of them) hearing it for the first time.

But it is both false and deeply injurious to this country to draw a historical line dividing America under Obama from a benighted past when Islam was supposedly disrespected and demonized.

As in Obama’s grand admonition: “We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith’s name.” Have “we” been doing that, smearing Islam due to a small minority? * Has any of us heard a Muslim criticizing Islamic attacks on American interests?  You will never hear that.

George Bush went to the Islamic Center in Washington six days after 9/11, when the fires of Ground Zero were still smoldering, to declare “Islam is peace,” * (that was naïve and the Hadiths clearly tell us that for Islam – the only peace that we can expect is when they control the whole world) to extend fellowship and friendship to Muslims, to insist that Americans treat them with respect and generosity of spirit.

And America listened. In these seven years since 9/11 — seven years during which thousands of Muslims rioted all over the world (resulting in the death of more than 100) to avenge a bunch of cartoons — there’s not been a single anti-Muslim riot in the United States to avenge the greatest massacre in U.S. history.

On the contrary. In its aftermath, we elected our first Muslim member of Congress and our first president of Muslim parentage.

“My job,” says Obama, “is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives.”

* Has anyone read or heard any such statements(?) that the Muslim world is filled with – “extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives”-  The only Muslim I know who says that is Dr. Zuhdi Jasser – a Muslim American and former physician to the U.S. Congress.    He is the only person I know who is not afraid to tell you the truth about Islam – Interested? Write for ‘THE THIRD JIHAD’ – Radical Islam’s Vision For America DVD.   Rudy Giuliani: called the DVD “A wake-up call for America” – Jim Woolsey, CIA Director; Senator Joe Lieberman, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge – all appear in the production.

That’s his job? [?]

* His job is to do all that he can to protect America from an attack by an enemy.  Let’s pray that he will get his act together and do this.

Do Americans think otherwise? Does he think he is bravely breaking new ground? George Bush, Condoleezza Rice and countless other leaders offered myriad expressions of that same universalist sentiment.

Every president has the right to portray himself as ushering in a new era of this or that. Obama wants to pursue new ties with Muslim nations, drawing on his own identity and associations. Good.

But when his self-inflation as redeemer of U.S.-Muslim relations leads him to suggest that pre-Obama America was disrespectful or insensitive or uncaring of Muslims, he is engaging not just in fiction but in gratuitous disparagement of the country he is now privileged to lead.

* We know Obama is no Messiah – far from that – He does deal in fiction – just read his book (that he didn’t write.)


A ‘jihad of self-examination’ is long overdue for Islamists

January 27, 2009

Other Voices: A ‘jihad of self-examination’ is long overdue for Islamists

Posted by Steve Pastner January 22, 2009 12:43PM

By Steve Pastner

Other Voices

Steve Pastner
The writer is a retired anthropology professor and sculptor who specialized in the tribal regions of the Islamic world, conducting fieldwork in southwest Pakistan and the Horn of Africa, among other places.

Sigmund Freud jokingly noted that the Irish are the only group impervious to psychoanalysis. If by that he meant “resistant to constructive self analysis and criticism,” it’s obvious Freud never met Islamists or their supporters, both within and beyond the Muslim community. This is indicated by the spate of demonstrations locally and globally in support of Hamas extremists and associated calls for the abolition of the state of Israel – not just cessation of its Gaza operation.

If pro-Hamas Muslims truly possessed honor, you’d think that to protest the dishonorable horrors perpetrated in the name of Islam by the terrorist likes of Hamas, they’d practice either mass apostasy or a major internal “jihad al aql”- an Arabic term I coined for a thus-far-hypothetical “struggle for rational self-improvement” along the lines of the western “age of reason.”

After all, Jihadi misdeeds not only target “infidels” (in Israel, Mumbai, Beslan, London, Madrid, the Twin Towers, etc.) but also co-religionists in Darfur, Iraq, Afghanistan and indeed Palestinian areas, among others, where they constitute a good chunk of the undeniable misery of many Muslims.

Yet rather than self-criticize, even when they are victims, the most vocal/visible Muslim spokesmen continue to disproportionately blame others for largely self-generated problems.

Numerous factors internal to the Islamic world are behind such problems. Start with endless violent and shifting intra-Muslim ethnic, sectarian and other conflicts down to the level of clans and even families, all as acute in Palestinian areas as anywhere. These make reliable treaties difficult, if not impossible, to achieve and maintain.

Add to this patterns of graft and corruption in many Muslim settings that would shame even the Illinois governor and you’re incubating a homegrown petri dish of problems, quite apart from “zionist” and “western imperialist” whipping boys. The latter scapegoating is particularly hypocritical given Islam’s own history of imperialism that is far older than the West’s, while Israel has no such history at all, beyond U.N.-legitimated ancient claims to a Vermont-sized scrap of real estate. Sadly for all concerned this scrap includes strategic border areas reluctantly occupied in wars Israel won (but didn’t start), about which there is enormous agonizing and debate within the Israeli and wider Jewish communities and which its genocidal, uncompromising enemies won’t even let it return without a fight.

Then throw in an unhealthy dash of religiously sanctioned “taqiyyah” or “say anything if it’ll forward the cause of Islam” on the propaganda and diplomatic fronts. Toss in a generous pinch of children weaponized into homicidal and suicidal “martyrs” via toxic madrassah indoctrination and you’ve got messes that spill into others’ backyards, from the World Trade Center, to Hamas rockets into Israel and a possible war between India and Pakistan over the latter’s stonewalling about its links to the Mumbai massacre.

To contribute essays to Other Voices, contact Bob Needham, opinion editor, at 734-994-6825 or

When that happens it’s not surprising that Muslims, many innocent, suffer. While this is tragic, it’s not a morally equivalent “cycle of violence” at all but instead often has a genesis – and also, importantly, remedies – within the “umma” (Muslim community of believers) itself.

The ineffectiveness of moderate Muslims in reining in extremists should also be a source of embarrassed self-criticism. But this much cliched “vast majority” may, in fact, be numerically overstated, as witnessed by large violent turnouts that can be mobilized for nonsensical cartoon protests and to demonize Jews while few show up to decry, say, the recent Mumbai carnage, or the indiscriminate suicide and rocket attacks on civilians in Israel which are at the root of the current Gaza crisis. In any case, a constructive internal Islamic critique has not materialized in any significant public (a key word!) measure, thereby minimizing opportunities for real peace.

In his “Murder in Amsterdam,” author Ian Buruma addresses the killing by a Dutch Muslim of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, who was rightly concerned about the dramatic increase in Islamic radicalism in Europe. This book raises the unhappy need to explore “limits to tolerance” when dealing with such extremism in western countries, where liberal values have become a shield protecting grossly illiberal acts and aspirations. Much of the anti-Semitic postering and vocalizing in recent Dearborn and Ann Arbor anti-Israel protests, and elsewhere in the U.S. and Europe, raises just such a troubling specter, as does recent Gaza-related vandalism against Jewish schools in Chicago.

In contrast to well-documented neo-Nazi links to radical Islamists (see George Michaels’ “The Enemy of My Enemy”), many non-Muslim groupies of Hamas and other jihadis, such as Ann Arbor’s longtime synagogue harassers, describe themselves as of the “left.” Frequently they are part of the “International Solidarity,” Green Party (once respectable before its environmentalism was trumped by boosterism for Islamic extremists) and “boycott Israel” movements (a version of which was, happily, trounced at the local food co-op last year). They too, a la Freud’s observation, could profit from cognitive readjustment therapy. This might reconcile the huge “disconnect” between their sanctimonious self-proclaimed status as “peace-loving progressives” and “human rights activists” and their strident, unambiguous support for some of the most repressive, aggressive and bigoted ideologies since Hitler.

News readers should check out the blog site “” affiliated with the local synagogue picketers and boycott advocates. It is a disgrace that local Muslims have not forcefully repudiated these views.

As a former, once-sympathetic professional student of the Muslim world, I hope an internal reformation of Islam, based on more Muslims publicly engaging in constructive self-criticism (a la the brave Somali activist Hirsi Ali, currently under death threats for her criticisms of her own religion, and my friend Akbar Ahmed, the Pakistani scholar-diplomat in exile) makes possible my renewed respect and affection for a rich but currently deeply flawed religious culture (the essence of any religion being what it motivates believers to do in its name).

Until that happens, the growing domination of extremists, both extra-governmental and elected, as in Iran and Gaza , supported by western apologists (whose motives range along a spectrum from well-meaning gullibility through opportunism to anti-Semitic malice) makes Islam hazardous not just to others but to itself.


Geert Wilders

January 26, 2009

Interview with Geert Wilders at The Hague


Weapons in Gaza Mosque

January 14, 2009