[ Homepage ] [ Deism ] [ Christianity in America ] [ Debunking Islam ]
[ Article List ] [ Sullivan County, TN ] [ Bristol VA/TN ]

Weblog

Can Infidels be Innocents? Two so-called fatwas (even a novice in Islam knows they do not fulfill the definition of a fatwa, which has to be in response to a query) came out in July condemning the 7/7 attacks in London.

  • British Muslim Forum: "Islam strictly, strongly and severely condemns the use of violence and the destruction of innocent lives." (July 18, 2005)
  • Fiqh Council of North America: "Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives." (July 28, 2005)

Non-Muslims can be forgiven if they assume the reference to "innocent lives" includes those traveling on the Underground and bus lines in London three weeks earlier. But the term "innocent lives" can be much more restricted in application, as a fascinating article in today's Sunday Times (London) makes clear.

Titled "Undercover in the academy of hatred," it is based on the undercover research by Ali Hussain of the newspaper's Insight team. Ali joined the Saviour Sect in June, a few weeks before the 7/7 bombings and took along his tape recorder. What he heard is hair-raising – it is imperative for Muslims to "instil terror into the hearts of the kuffar," "I am a terrorist. As a Muslim, of course I am a terrorist," "They will build tall buildings and we will bring them down," the bombings were "a good start" and Allah should "bless those involved"

He also heard two speakers discuss whom they consider to be innocent.

  • Zachariah, referring to the London passengers: "They're kuffar [infidels]. They're not people who are innocent. The people who are innocent are the people who are with us or those who are living under the Islamic state."
  • Omar Bakri Mohammed, the sect's leader, who publicly condemned the deaths of "innocents," but at the Selby Centre in Wood Green, north London, on July 22 referred to the 7/7 bombers as the "fantastic four" and explained that his grief for the "innocent" applied only to Muslims. "Yes I condemn killing any innocent people, but not any kuffar."

Comments: (1) Muslim statements condemning the killing of "innocents" cannot be taken at face value but must be probed to find out who exactly are considered innocent and who not. In brief, Can infidels be innocents?

(2) For other assessments of this "fatwa," see the critiques of Abul Kasem, Yehudit Barsky, Steven Emerson, Christopher Orlet, Steven Stalinsky, and the United American Committee, as well as the interesting quotations in an Associated Press report. (August 7, 2005) Permalink

Hizbullah Teaches Terrorism to the Palestinians It's long been known that Hizbullah's expulsion of Israeli forces from Lebanon in May 2000 had a major impact on the Palestinians. Here is how I summarized the matter a year later:

That impact is partly practical, with Hizbullah providing instruction and arms to the Palestinian Authority. For example, Hizbullah reached an agreement with the PA "to train fighters and provide weapons against tanks and aircraft," reports the Middle East Newsline. Palestinians took up Hizbullah's distinctive tactics and tools - suicide bombings on the one hand, roadside bombs detonated by mobile phones on the other. They even adopted the Hizbullah technique of filming themselves carrying out attacks on Israelis, then making the film available to the Arab and Muslim media.

The impact is also psychological. Palestinians watched Hizbullah impose every last one of its demands on Israel, without having to sit around a table with Israeli diplomats; this served as an object lesson. Palestinians concluded that if they used enough violence, they too could get all they wanted from Israel without having to compromise.

This "Lebanonization" of the Palestinian approach then had major consequences.

Hizbullah's success first inspired the Palestinians to turn down even the amazingly generous terms that prime minister Ehud Barak subsequently offered them, confident that they could do better on the battlefield. It prompted the Palestinians to abandon the bargaining table and revert to violence against Israel. It helps account for the escalation in that violence, which started with rocks and now includes long-distance mortar shellings.

In the most direct confirmation I have yet seen of this point, Khaled Abu Toameh in the Jerusalem Post today tells about Hizbullah's impact on the Gaza-based Popular Resistance Committees, as explained by its commander, Jamal Abu Samhadaneh:

The Popular Resistance Committees was established in the Gaza Strip shortly after the beginning of the intifada in [September] 2000. Its founders said then that they had been deeply influenced by the "great victory" achieved by Hizbullah following Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon [about five months earlier]. According to Abu Samhadaneh, the Israeli pullout from Lebanon "enhanced our belief that the option of resistance can succeed, especially through qualitative operations against the occupation."

The "qualitative operations" are a reference to suicide bombings, rocket attacks and drive-by shootings used by Hizbullah against IDF troops. "This was our model," Abu Samhadaneh explained. "We learned from Hizbullah and started establishing armed cells that have carried out special operations against settlements and the Israeli army together with other Palestinian groups."

Comment: One can only wonder at who in turn will be inspired by the evil example of the Popular Resistance Committees' success this month. (August 7, 2005)

Permalink

"Some Congressional Leaders Worry Gaza Pullout Amounts to Appeasement" That's the eye-catching title of an article in www.geostrategy-direct.com (available by subscription only). The text is no less interesting:

Nobody in the Republican-controlled Congress wants to be seen as opposing the wishes of both Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and the Bush administration. But quietly, the unilateral Israeli pullout from the Gaza Strip is making some prominent House and Senate members nervous.

The article goes on to give one specific quote, from Rep. Dan Burton, (Republican-Indiana) in a speech on the House floor on June 20.

Personally, I will not second guess the prime minister [of Israel]'s wisdom. I very much hope that he is right. But again, my experience tells me that if you take steps to appease an enemy you only give him a green light to put more pressure on you. In my opinion, it is imperative and critical to U.S. national security that we as policymakers understand the consequences should the Israeli disengagement plan fail to live up to expectations.

Comment: This cautious demurral follows in the tradition of other American politicians who worry that the Israeli government is not taking its own or American security enough into account. Here is how I summed up the views of two prominent senators in a December 2000 Commentary article:

Senator Charles Schumer of New York, a Democrat, has said that he would, for the Israeli's own protection, "put more pressure on them to do more to go after Hamas and the terrorist groups," while Jesse Helms of North Carolina, a Republican, responded to last summer's Camp David summit by saying that in his opinion, Barak's concessions there "went too far" and that the borders contemplated at the summit "leave Israel vulnerable."

My conclusion to that article, written at the tail end of the Oslo process, is worth hauling out again as the Gaza withdrawal looms large: "Israel's acute demoralization thus places upon the United States an urgent and unusual burden: the need to firm up a democratic ally's will to resist. One can only hope, for the sake of both countries' interests, that Americans rise to this challenge." (August 2, 2005) Permalink

Jordan to the West Bank, Egypt to Gaza In retrospect, it appears like but a blink that Jordanian and Egyptian forces ruled, respectively, the West Bank and Gaza in from 1948-49 until their expulsion by Israeli forces in 1967. Amman annexed the West Bank in 1950 but finally in 1988 gave up its claim to this land. Cairo never did claim Gaza. For decades now, it has appeared that their presence in those two regions was an accident of history and that Palestinian nationalism had permanently replaced it.

Well, not quite. As the Israeli government gives up on the Palestinians keeping things quiet in the West Bank and Gaza, it is turning to – guess who? – the Jordanians and Egyptians to fill in.

  • "West Bank plan eyes Jordanians on patrol": Joshua Mitnick reported in the Washington Times on July 5, 2005 that "Palestinian security chiefs and Jordanian officials are discussing sending a unit of the Jordanian military to the West Bank to boost stability after Israel's withdrawal." The troops in question would be approximately 1,500 soldiers of the Bader Brigade, which is composed of Jordanian citizens of Palestinian origin. They would most likely be deployed near Jenin. The Palestinian Authority claims they would be under its authority.
  • "Mofaz: IDF plans to leave Philadelphi route in October": Amos Harel reports in Ha'aretz that "The Israel Defense Forces is planning to withdraw from the Philadelphi route along the Gaza-Egypt border in October, according to Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz. Mofaz told Channel 1 Tuesday that Israel has already decided to leave the area." Talks with the Egyptian government should lead to agreement on the final details of a deal, "whereby 750 Egyptian police officers will be deployed on the western side of the Philadelphi route."

Comment: The return of Jordan and Egypt expose the hollowness of Palestinian nationalism, an ideology still well under a century old. (July 27, 2005) Permalink

More Survey Research on British Muslim Attitudes I summarized two surveys of British Muslim attitudes yesterday at "British Opinion Surveys from an Islamist Hell." Wouldn't you know it, but a third one came out today, commissioned by the Guardian newspaper and carried out by ICM. Its results basically confirm the prior two. Some highlights:

  • Muslims who believe that "foreign Muslims who incite hatred should be … allowed to live in the UK": 38 percent.
  • Who agree that "ordinary Muslims … should not do more work with the police to root out extremists from the Muslim community": 8 percent.
  • Find it acceptable "for religious or political groups to use violence for political ends": 4 percent.
  • Support the July 7 attacks and say more such attacks are justified: 5 percent.

But the question in this poll that rightly received the most attention was this one: "In light of recent events, have you considered whether or not you want to remain in the UK?" To this, 63 percent of respondents said yes, 34 percent no, and 3 percent did not know. Those 35 or over are slightly more negative than those under 35, with 67 percent of the former contemplating an exodus and only 61 percent of the latter.

Comment: While the idea that close to two-thirds of British Muslim have thought about emigrating certainly makes for a dramatic headline, I don't believe that even 1 percent would do so unless their circumstances change dramatically for the worse. (July 26, 2005) Permalink

Downing Street's Favorite – The Muslim Council of Britain "I welcome the statement put out by the Muslim Council." Not only did the Queen of England recently knight Iqbal Sacranie of the Muslim Council of Britain, but Prime Minister Tony Blair today, in his first major speech following the four explosions in London, gave the MCB this very high-visibility praise. What did the MCB say to deserve this extraordinary endorsement from the head of government? Its full statement can be found at the Muslim Council of Britain website, but I proffer an abridged version:

Deepest sympathy is expressed … victims of this terrible atrocity … condemned in the strongest possible terms … repudiate the use of such violence. … completely contrary to our teaching and practice … minority who claim falsely to represent us … affirm our common humanity … strengthen our determination … to grow together in mutual understanding … pursuit of peace, justice and respect for difference.

In other words, it's yada, yada without a single specific condemnation of the forces of radical Islam. Unless that is mentioned, the condemnation is just empty words. That the British prime minister saw fit to celebrate this package of the usual banalities in the aftermath of the day's assault shows just how far he and his government have to go to deal with the problem on their hands. (July 7, 2005)

July 14, 2005 update: With the rarest of exceptions, the MCB has for years enjoyed a free pass in the media. In a stunning change, BBC Radio 4's Today programme interviewed John Ware, a critic of the organization, and then put tough questions to MCB spokesman Inayat Bunglawala. Interestingly, the main topic of the interviews was the MCB's positive attitude toward suicide bombing in Israel.

July 16, 2005 update: The MCB convened yesterday a special meeting of imams and ulama at the Islamic Cultural Centre in Regents Park, London, and they endorsed a declaration. It contains the usual boilerplate ("deeply shocked and saddened … utterly criminal, totally reprehensible, and absolutely un-Islamic … heartfelt sorrow") but, that out of the way, it gets down to business:

The tragedy of 7th July 2005 demands that all of us, both in public life and in civil and religious society, confront together the problems of Islamophobia, racism, unemployment, economic deprivation and social exclusion – factors that may be alienating some of our children and driving them towards the path of anger and desperation. … There is, therefore, a great deal of positive work to be done together with everyone in our own and wider community in order to channel the energy and talent of our youth particularly into constructive avenues, serving God and society for the common good. The youth need understanding, not bashing. … We also urge the media to refrain from character assassinations of our reputable scholars and denigration of the community. …

We also call on the international community to work towards just and lasting peace settlements in the world's areas of conflict and help eliminate the grievances that seem to nurture a spiral of violence.

Summarized, the good imams and ulama are announcing that Muslims in Great Britain (first paragraph) and around the world (second paragraph) are victims and that the implication of 7/7 is that they should be treated better. What a travesty. Worse is that barely anyone in the UK is willing to point this out.

July 19, 2005 update: The Blair government's fawning attachment to the MCB has spurred one good thing, MCB Watch, which finds there are "grave problems with the MCB" and promises to cast light on these.

Aug. 6, 2005 update: Beila Rabinowitz of MilitantIslamMonitor.org points out some other interesting facts about the MCB.

  • During the height of the controversy over The Satanic Verses in 1989, Iqbal Sacranie announced about its author, Salman Rushdie, that "death, perhaps, is a bit too easy for him . . . his mind must be tormented for the rest of his life unless he asks for forgiveness to Almighty Allah." (This statement appeared originally in The Guardian, February 15, 1989; I quote it on p. 183 of The Rushdie Affair.)
  • When Omar Bakri Mohammed of Al-Muhajiroun made plans to hold a "Rally for Revival" on Sept. 8, 1996, he invited (among other Islamist terrorist leaders) Osama bin Laden and Muhammad Fadlallah (leader of Hizbullah),as well as (by video) Omar Abdel-Rahman (the blind sheikh). To this news, the Board of Deputies of British Jews requested the Home Secretary not to allow them into Britain. Sacranie responded with a threat: "The Board of Deputies of British Jews should seriously consider what action they take on this matter because of the detrimental effect on community relations which could result. Taking a hostile view towards scholars who wish to come to this country to present their points of view at a conference will not serve good community relations."
  • The Department of Trade and Industry, a branch of the British government, awarded the MCB £250,000, apparently in February 2004, to raise

awareness and understanding within the Muslim Community, with employers and advisory organisations about the provisions of the Employment Equality (Religion of Belief) Regulations. This is being done through a variety of means including: briefing of Imams to help spread the message to the Muslim Community through mosques –and during key religious festivals such as Ramadan; good practice guidance for mainstream agencies and large employers on Muslim issues and cultural awareness; enhancement of the MCB website to include employment FAQs; working with advisory organisations so they have a better understanding of the employment equality regulations and the Muslim faith.

  • Melanie Phillips, in an article on a proposed new British law against incitement to religious hatred, recounts her asking Sacranie in January 2005 "whether he thought that any public statements about Islamic terrorism, or any speculation about the number of Muslims in Britain who might support Islamic terrorism, would constitute incitement to religious hatred." To these, he responded: "There is no such thing as an Islamic terrorist. This is deeply offensive. Saying Muslims are terrorists would be covered by this provision." Phillips concludes from this statement: "So now we know what the MCB wants to prosecute under this proposed new law."

Aug. 7, 2005 update:: Salman Rushdie also remembers Sacranie's statement and argues in the Washington Post today against seeing Sacranie as a moderate. "Tony Blair's decision to knight him and treat him as the acceptable face of "moderate," "traditional" Islam is either a sign of his government's penchant for religious appeasement or a demonstration of how limited Blair's options really are."

Aug. 14, 2005 update: Hold on to your chair before you start reading this update, otherwise you might keel over.

The Observer, Sunday version of the Guardian, Great Britain's left-most quality newspaper, has published two critical articles by Martin Bright today on the MCB. "Muslim leaders in feud with the BBC" reports of its nasty row with the BBC; "Radical links of UK's ‘moderate' Muslim group" is the Observer's own investigation into the MCB.

The first article was prompted by what the Observer calls "an extraordinary letter," dated August 11, from the Muslim Council of Britain to the BBC's director general Mark Thompson, and posted on the MCB website. In it, the MCB claims that the BBC's "Panorama" program has a "pro-Israel agenda" (now, that's a new thought!) and raises strenuous objections to a feature coming up soon looking at Muslim organizations in Britain, where it sees the Panorama team seemingly intent "on creating mistrust by serving the interests of the pro-Israel lobby and undermining community relations in the UK." The Observer adds that the feature is expected to be "highly critical" of some MCB affiliates for their links to extremist Islamic ideology. The reporter of this segment, John Ware already tipped his hand in a BBC interview last month (see the June 14, 2005 update, above).

A BBC spokeswoman officially responded: "The BBC rejects completely any allegation of institutional or programme bias and is confident the Panorama programme will be fair and impartial." Unofficially, a senior BBC source called the MCB accusation "plain wrong," "insulting," and "frankly preposterous."

As Bright points out, the BBC is hardly known for its pro-Israel orientation. For one, the head of the Israeli government's press office, Danny Seaman, accused it in July 2003, of "demonising and vilifying" the State of Israel.

The second article consists of a look at some of the individuals (Iqbal Sacranie, Inayat Bunglawala, Khurshid Ahmad) and some of the over 400 organizations (Islamic Foundation, Jamiat Ahl-i-Hadith) making up the MCB, showing their intimate links to Pakistan's leading Islamist, Abul A'la Al-Mawdudi, and his Jamaat-i-Islami party. It notes that the MCB originated in the Islamist opposition to The Satanic Verses in 1988 and it came into formal existence in November 1997 . From the first, it has had a close relationship with the Blair government, especially the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its little-known outreach department to British Muslims. The FCO pamphlet Muslims in Britain, writes Bright, "is essentially an MCB publication and the official ministerial celebration of the Muslim festival of Eid is organised jointly with the MCB." The MCB "used its influence in Whitehall" to make sure that the Festival of Muslim Cultures, planned for 2006, funded by the British Council, with Prince Charles as its patron, will be compliant with the Shari‘a.

The second article concludes that the MCB's "claims to represent a moderate or progressive tendency in Islam are becoming increasingly difficult to sustain. … far from being moderate, the Muslim Council of Britain has its origins in the extreme orthodox politics in Pakistan. And as its influence increases through Whitehall, many within the Muslim community are growing concerned that this self-appointed organisation is crowding out other, genuinely moderate, voices of Muslim Britain."

Comments: (1) This is precisely the sort of investigation that no mainstream media in the United States has ever done for CAIR, MPAC, ISNA, MAS, or the other local Islamist institutions, even after 9/11. Will it take domestic Muslims killing dozens to precipitate dozens for that to happen? I suspect so – another case of education by murder.

(2) In the meantime, the best Americans can muster was a tepid but informative article yesterday on CAIR in a small-town newspaper.Permalink

"Muslims Only!" at the Six Flags Adventure Park The New Jersey branch of the Islamic Circle of North America ("The organization of Islamic Workers!") announces that Sept. 17 will be "The Great Muslim Adventure Day" at the local Six Flags Great Adventure Park. Not only is "This event is designed to provide entertainment for the entire family!" not only will Imam Zaid Shakir lead the Friday prayers at 2 p.m., and not only will the comedy routine "Allah Made Me Funny" show twice, but "Alhamdulillah, the entire park is reserved for Muslims only!" If that message is not clear enough, the advertisement also states "First Time Ever! Entire park exclusively for Muslims!" One wonders how the organizers know who is a Muslim or not. Need one recite the shahada to enter the fairgrounds? It is scandalous that Six Flags – a publicly held corporation whose stock trades on the NYSE – allows such a restriction for access to its property. Oh, and will the employees also have to be Muslim? (September 10, 2004)

Sept. 15, 2004 update: Aaron Klein wrote about the "Muslims only!" policy at Six Flags Great Adventure on Sept. 13 and included a statement from a Six Flags executive stating that the park would be reserved for "Muslims and their friends" (a very different and quite acceptable formulation); Klein also quotes comments by Beila Rabinowitz (who first raised alarms about this issue) and myself disapproving of the ICNA statement. Within hours of his article appearing, Klein today reports, "the ICNA website removed all references to exclusive use of the park," and indeed that is what one finds at its overhauled website. So, good news: entrants to the park will not have to establish their Muslim identities to enter the property.

Sept. 18, 2004 update: Not surprisingly, ICNA misstated what had happened at Six Flags. Here is the New York Times account:

Earlier this week, the words "for Muslims only" were removed from the sponsor's Internet advertisement for the event. Adem Carroll, a relief coordinator and spokesman for Islamic Circle of North America, said the event was never intended to exclude others, particularly because many of its members are in mixed families, with Muslims and non-Muslims. The intent instead was to provide a protected environment for those seeking to relax.

This is obviously self-contradictory. More dismaying yet is that Kristin Siebeneicher, Six Flags' spokeswoman, also distorted what happened. Here again is the Times account: Siebeneicher

said she spent the week in interviews with radio performers from New Jersey, California, Colorado, Texas and Oklahoma who wanted to know why the park was turning its rides over to Muslims and shutting everyone else out for the day. "The concerns are that they believe the event is exclusionary," Ms. Siebeneicher said. "I don't think most people understood it was a day we're closed anyway, and we were not taking something away from the public to give to a private group."

This misstates the issue. It was not that the general public was excluded but that ICNA was imposing a "Muslims only!" policy. Why does a publicly held corporation dissemble like this? Surely, that cannot help a company already losing attendance and in financial trouble.

July 22, 2005 update: Here we go again. The Islamic Circle of North America's New Jersey branch announces:

Insha Allah, on September 16, 2005, the New Jersey theme park, Six Flags Great Adventure, is set to be transformed as ‘The Great Muslim Adventure Day', an event organized by ICNA. This event is designed to provide entertainment for the entire family! Alhamdulillah, the entire park is reserved for Muslims!

I also have in my possession a paper flyer that uses similar words: "ALL DAY! ENTIRE PARK! RESERVED FOR MUSLIMS!"

Comment: When this formulation was exposed a year ago (see above entries), ICNA cancelled the "Muslims only" restriction and its spokesman reassuringly stated that the event was never intended to exclude others. So, why is it again "reserved for Muslims!" and what does Six Flags, Inc.have to say about this illegal restriction? Permalink

 


This is a hate crime???

[ Grundy VA Fraud ] [ Social Apartheid ] [ Guestbook Archive

[ Killing Children ] [ George Bush Defends Saudi Terrorism ] [ Islamic Fascism ]
[ Palestine Myth ] [ Arlene Peck on Arabs ] [ Muslim Immigration Must be Halted ]

Visitors since
March 2002