Friday, February 04, 2005

Another Ignorant Judge--Joyce Hens Green

The Washington Times
Enemies in court
Published February 3, 2005

Do enemy combatants have due process rights under the Constitution? Do the detention of persons classified as such at Guantanamo Bay deny such rights? Should the courts be able to overrule the president and federal agencies when they classify persons as enemy combatants and deem them undeserving of protection? And are those persons entitled to see the intelligence information upon which U.S. authorities based their judgment? Those are some of the questions the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia addressed in a far-reaching opinion Monday. Though only the district court opinion on the subject, on all four questions, the court said yes.
On the first two, U.S. District Senior Judge Joyce Hens Green, a Carter appointee, said such aliens are indeed guaranteed due- process rights and that their rights are being violated at Guantanamo. On the third, Judge's Green's answer was that yes, a court may overrule even a president who determines on the basis of intelligence information that a suspect is an "enemy combatant" and should not enjoy rights under U.S. law. And on the fourth, Judge Green apparently thinks the Guantanamo detainees are entitled to access sensitive U.S. intelligence information.
That decision strikes us as wrong-headed, and directly contradicts District Judge Richard Leon's ruling last month which threw out similar suits by detainees. Judge Leon's decision is a long way from 1950, when the Supreme Court said no on all accounts. Back then, in Johnson v. Eisentrager, the court held that Nazi agents captured in China did not enjoy constitutional protections under U.S. law. The German nationals in question were captured in China and convicted by a U.S. military commission. They were in service to a foreign power hostile to the United States, the court reasoned, and therefore did not deserve protection under U.S. law.
It's not hard to see why the reasoning in Johnson v. Eisentrager is preferable to Judge Green's. As in the Nazi agent case, the president and the U.S. military have determined on the basis of intelligence information that the suspects at Guantanamo are enemy combatants and are therefore undeserving of protection by the U.S. Constitution. Judge Leon, for one, thinks it's not the court's prerogative to second-guess that judgment. As Judge Leon argued last month: "The petitioners are asking this court to do something no federal court has done before: evaluate the legality of the [president's] capture and detention of nonresident aliens, outside the United States, during a time of armed conflict. In the final analysis, the court's role in reviewing the military's decision to capture and detain a nonresident alien is, and must be, highly circumscribed."
The Bush administration said it respectfully disagrees with Judge Green's decision. The Justice Department will likely appeal the decision and an appellate court will take up the question anew. "There is no basis in the Constitution, or in history, for according aliens captured by the military outside the United States and classified as enemy combatants 'due process' rights under the Constitution, there is nothing in our historical tradition that would entitle those aliens to all classified intelligence information and sources used to classify them as enemy combatants or to demand a lawyer to assist them in claiming that they were erroneously classified," the department said.
For the sake of the war on terror, for the preservation of the president's and the military's ability to classify our enemies as enemies, to keep sensitive intelligence information secret and, fundamentally, to make it legally possible to fight and win our wars, we hope and expect Judge Green's decision to be overturned. If it is not, we would need a constitutional amendment to clarify the point made by the late Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson -- the Constitution is not a suicide pact.


Thursday, February 03, 2005

Saudi Hate Literature at a Mosque Near You

By Douglas J. Hagmann
Northeast Intelligence Network

In 1977, it is unlikely that many people ever heard of a the booklet The Facts That the Muslim Must Know About Christianity and Missionary Activity. The booklet bore the seal of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on its cover and was issued by the General Presidency for the Directoate of Religious Research, Islamic Legal Rulings, Islamic Propagation and Guidance, which is a branch of the Saudi government. It was distributed in Mosques throughout the world, including and especially those in the U.S. and Canada. The booklet contained anti-western, anti-Jewish and anti-Christian references, noting that Christianity had been converted into "paganism, polytheism and fables," inciting the Muslim against the West and religions other than Islam.

Fast forward 28 years and we find that the level of state-sponsored incitement has changed - for the worse. A recently released 89-page report by the Freedom House's Center for Religious Freedom exposes the exponential increase in the dissemination of hate propaganda in America by the government of Saudi Arabia. The report, "Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques," is based on a comprehensive study of over two hundred original documents collected from more than a dozen mosques within the United States. They all have one thing in common - they are either distributed, published or otherwise generated by the government of Saudi Arabia. An alleged ally with the United States in the war against terrorism is not only allowing the spread of the extremist ideology that incites hatred and violence, they are underwriting the effort. With 80% of the Mosques in the U.S. built or otherwise funded in some manner by Saudi Arabia, it should come as no surprise that this literature can be found inside the majority of mosques in the United States and Canada.

What is so bad about these documents that promote Islam, and aren't such documents protected under our laws affording religious freedom? Quite simply, they preach hate and violence, or "jihad" against the west. In a foreword to the report, James Woolsey, chairman of the board of Freedom House, correctly asserts that documents that "advocate an ideology of hatred have no place in a nation founded on religious freedom and toleration."

The offending documents actually state that it is a religious obligation for Muslims to hate Christians and Jews, and promote contempt for the United States because it is ruled by civil law rather than Wahhabi-style Islamic or Sharia law. It is unsettling that these documents advise Muslims living in the U.S. to "behave as if on a mission behind enemy lines." The documents instruct U.S. based Muslims that they must acquire knowledge and money to be ultimately used in the jihad against the infidels, or to witness their religion to the infidels until they convert to Islam. There is no other reason to live and work in the country of infidels and unless a Muslim leaves as quickly as possible, he is not a true Muslim and will be condemned.

We obviously paid little attention to the Saudi sponsored, hate filled publications being spread throughout mosques in the U.S. in 1977 - and paid dearly for it. Now that we are older and wiser, we can no longer afford such youthful indiscretions


Jersey jihadists

Joel Mowbray

When a family of Egyptian immigrants was murdered in Jersey City recently, the media’s response was to wring its hands about anti-Muslim bias. But the truth is more complicated, and reveals the media’s own bias--against America.

Anti-Muslim bias had nothing to do the killing of the Armanious family; they were Coptic Christians. It wasn’t the religion of the victims that concerned the press; it was the religion of the suspected murderers.

Over the weekend, the Associated Press wrote of the “dirty looks and shouted slurs” directed at Muslims in Jersey City following the slaughter of an Egyptian Christian man, his wife, and two young daughters, which many reports attribute to local radical Islamists upset about something the man wrote in an Internet chat room.

The AP followed in predictable fashion:

The strife is particularly distressing in light of efforts the area’s Muslim community made to reach out to other faiths and strengthen ties after the 9/11 attacks.

What the AP conveniently ignored, however, was known and suspected radical activity in northern New Jersey's Muslim community.

The former imam at the El Tawheed Islamic Center of Jersey City, Alaa Al-Sadawi, was convicted in July 2003 of attempting to smuggle more than $650,000 in cash to the terrorist Global Relief Fund in Egypt in April 2002.

One of Al-Sadawi’s former mosque-goers was convicted last March of murdering in the name of Islam. Alim Hassan, then 31, killed his pregnant wife, her mother, and her sister on July 30, 2002. He reportedly stabbed the women more than 20 times each because they refused to convert to Islam. According to reports, Hassan prayed regularly at El-Tawheed.

Al-Sadawi and Hassan were hardly the first Muslims in the area, though, to appear on authorities’ radar.

Mohamed El-Mezain , the former imam at the nearby Islamic Center of Passaic County, which has close relations with El-Tawheed, worked with the Paterson-based mosque to raise funds for Hamas in the mid-1990s, according to an FBI memo drafted in November 2001 by the FBI’s assistant director of counterterrorism Dale Watson. El-Mezain, who is no longer affiliated with the Islamic Center, was never charged or arrested.

The FBI document, which served as the basis for the U.S. government shutting down the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development in December 2001, cited a “reliable” source in noting that “during a speech at the Islamic Center of Passaic County (ICPC) in November, 1994, Mohammad El-Mezain, the HLFRD’s current Director of Endowments and former Chairman of the HLFRD Board, admitted that some of the money collected by the ICPC and the HLFRD goes to Hamas or Hamas activities in Israel. El-Mezain also defended Hamas and the activities carried out by Hamas.”

El-Mezain also openly raised funds for Hamas, according to the FBI memo. After a speech at a Muslim rally in Southern California in the mid-90’s in which the keynote speaker urged attendees to “exterminate” and “finish off the Israelis,” El-Mezain asked for contributions and told the crowd that $1.8 million had been raised for Hamas in 1994 alone, according to the memo.

Radicalism at ICPC hardly seems to have subsided. The mosque in February 2003 hosted a lecture by Abdelhaleem Ashqar, long after he was identified by the FBI memo as a prominent Hamas figure.

Investigators in Jersey City have yet to announce the motive for the murder of the Armanious family. But if it turns out that the murder or murders were religiously-motivated Muslims, with whom will the media sympathize: those grieving for the victims or those who attend the same hate-filled mosques as the murderers? Is there any doubt?


Wednesday, February 02, 2005

Terrorism in Our Midst: From the Airport to the Mall

Resa LaRu Kirkland

My dad was a Federal Parole and Probation officer in El Paso, Texas, 30 years ago. Because he dealt with Federal cases, it was his responsibility to handle illegal immigrants. I was only about 8 years old when I overheard him saying that 10,000 Mexicans a day crossed the border between America and Mexico. Of course, they didn’t all stay…much of it was just daily traffic back and forth.

But many of them did stay, and I knew why. We would often go into Juarez for fun—gorgeous pottery, inexpensive trinkets, another world to peruse and study. I grew to despise those trips, however, because I couldn’t bear the suffering I saw. Old people, children, crippled lying on the sidewalks begging for change, half-starved creatures barely resembling human beings, stripped of clothing, flesh, and dignity. Children sleeping under blankets on dusty sidewalks, an old woman with no legs or teeth, smiling sweetly at the offer of a quarter—such images plague me to this day, and eventually caused me to abandon our regular trips. I had taken to changing the money my parents would give me for the trip into quarters, and giving it to those who lined the sidewalks. It was never enough, and my helplessness in the face of such overwhelming need left me disheartened. I mentioned this to my dad one day, and to my utter surprise, this man—whose job it was to stop illegal immigration—looked at me and said, “It breaks my heart too. If I lived there under those conditions, I would do anything, break any law to get my family to America.”

This display of understanding touched me then, and still does. But my father would also caution that America could simply not take in the entire world, and that those who obeyed the laws could not and should not be made to pay for those who broke them. He taught me what illegal immigration was costing this nation, and what it would end up costing me and my children someday if it was allowed to go on, unchecked, unfettered, unregulated. The picture he painted was even more repugnant than the streets of Juarez, and I knew then and there that illegal immigration was wrong—evil, in fact, because it would destroy the life of the land it was seeking.

Let’s face it—our borders are Swiss cheese. Pretending we’re doing something about it is pointless. We need a new form of attack—offense, not defense. But the attack needs to be full force—that is, we need to watch the airports too, because America’s greatest threat comes not from the border on the border, but the border in our major metropolitan population centers.

Those who come to America from Mexico come here not to destroy us, but to better themselves. They come here and work hard for a piece of the American dream, and the warrior in me can’t help but respect that.

But now for the rest of the story…

Recently I was approached by a man who informed me of something far more alarming than the daily border crossings in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. There are groups of Middle Eastern men in this country who are determined to bring us down, but not by toppling buildings. These men are members of groups of organized criminals, and they are running companies in this country—companies that are not just defrauding customers, but are making millions of dollars used to support terrorism and destroy our land and those of our allies.

I have hard evidence, sent to me by one man who infiltrated one of their businesses. He has seen their arrogance, their dismissal of “Stupid Americans” and our inability—or lack of ambition—to stop them from their agenda. These people don’t claim the true dollars involved, leaving the rest of us to pick up the tax slack. They believe that anything they can do in business, in the courts, in the community, to divide and conquer is the right thing to do.

My “mole” friend has done all of this, on his own, at great personal risk, for one reason and one reason only: he loves this land, and loathes those who would destroy it. He has seen their wretchedness first hand, lived within a large nest of the monsters, and documented how wide-spread they are… all across the nation. These aren’t people desperate for a better way of life, working at any job, anywhere, just to have enough to eat, nor are they angry young militants taking flying lessons. No, these are young men, driving Mercedes and wearing expensive clothes, who take our money and laugh at our gullibility. They plan carefully, recruiting illegals in the Middle East and, exploiting “dual nationals” with hellish contemplation, and choose warily those they can use to abuse us here in America.

The companies they operate range from “Home Improvement,” “Moving” (very notorious), “Real Estate,” “Air Conditioning,” “Toys,” “Cosmetics,” and various Kiosks in major shopping malls across the United States. If caught, they close up shop, go back to the Middle East, and in a few months open up the same business under a different name. Their actions are deliberate, their motive is evil, and their success is horrifying. In addition to the fraudulent businesses they set up, their works include marriage scams and workers who don’t dare squeal for fear of being deported. It is madness, it is mind-boggling, and it is happening.

It is obvious that our government agencies have failed so far against this menace. This fact is what motivated my “mole” to do this on his own—that magnificent American method of finding a way to accomplish something: if you can’t find it, by God, you forge it. Like him, I feel someone has to stop this.

So I’m taking up the standard of my “mole,” and I’m going to do this myself. I call upon all of you who say “Enough” to join me. I am rallying those who will help me put together a documentary, articles, and a book about this shadowy enemy in our midst. Everything is ready, in hard format, even those on the inside who will be interviewed.

These are not men who love America so much they’ll do anything to be a part of it, who work away their youth and health to make a better life for their families. No, this is the vile face of the enemy, and he’s already here. Our worst “border” is the airport, where these men arrive from first class, and marvel at the “Stupid Americans” while they plan, execute, and evade. This is real, it is deadly, and it is now. Join me, fellow Americans…if we fail this, there is no future.

I think my dad would have approved.


Zarqawi and Other Islamists to the Iraqi People: Elections and Democracy are Heresy

As the elections in Iraq drew near, Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi addressed the Iraqi people in a speech that was posted on Islamist websites, in which he stated that democracy and the elections are heresy. This address was supported by similar calls from the Mufti of the Jihad warriors in Chechnya, Sheikh Abu Omar Al-Sayf, and by "Jaysh Ansar Al-Sunna" and other Islamist organizations in Iraq. The following are excerpts from their statements:

'Democracy Is the Very Essence of Heresy, Polytheism, and Error'

In a taped speech from January 23, Al-Qa'ida's leader in Iraq, Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi, raised seven arguments for why democracy equals heresy:

"What harvest has the American aggressors and their Shi'ite allies reaped from the invasion of and aggression against the peaceful lands of Islam? Their outrages and blatant lies have become apparent to the entire world, and their arguments and false claims of achieving security and safety for the apostate Iraqi government have all collapsed. Now they are completely preoccupied with making the big American lie called 'democracy' successful. Americans have been playing with the minds of many peoples with the lie of 'civilized democracy;' they have deluded them that their happiness and prosperity is conditional upon this inadequate human system, and subsequently the infidel American administration declared war on Iraq and Afghanistan because it is the primary protector and guardian of democracy in the world...

"Democracy has come to tell us that the people in a democratic regime constitute both the executive power and the source of authority and that it has the last say in all matters, and no one can appeal [the people's] decisions and no one can criticize [the people's] rulings, for it has full power and it is the source of authority. Its will is sacred, its choice is binding... That which the people permits is permitted, that which it forbids is forbidden, and that which it accepts as law and regime must be accepted as such. Anything else has not sanctity nor value nor weight, even if it is religion or divine law given by the Lord of the world.

"This principle - that is, government of the people [and] by the people - is the very core of the democratic system ... and it exists only through this [principle]. This, then, is the 'religion of democracy' which is being praised and glorified with much fanfare. This is what its theoreticians and thinkers and missionaries keep publicizing, and this in fact is what we see and experience in the reality from which we suffer. Democracy, in all its variations and interpretations, is based on principles and foundations, the most important of which may be summarized as follows:

"First: Democracy is based on the principle that the people are the source of all authority, including the legislative [authority]. This is carried out by choosing representatives who act as proxies for the people in the task of legislating and making laws. In other words, the legislator who must be obeyed in a democracy is man, and not Allah. That means that the one who is worshiped and obeyed and deified, from the point of view of legislating and prohibiting, is man, the created, and not Allah. That is the very essence of heresy and polytheism and error, as it contradicts the bases of the faith [of Islam] and monotheism, and because it makes the weak, ignorant man Allah's partner in His most central divine prerogative - namely, ruling and legislating. Allah said: 'Sovereignty is Allah's alone. He has commanded you to worship none but Him' [Koran 12:40]. 'He allows none to share His sovereignty' [Koran 18:26]...

"Second: Democracy is based on the principle of freedom of religion and belief. Under democracy, a man can believe anything he wants and choose any religion he wants and convert to any religion whenever he wants, even if this apostasy means abandoning the religion of Allah... This is a matter which is patently perverse and false and contradicts many specific [Muslim] legal texts, since according to Islam, if a Muslim apostatizes from Islam to heresy, he should be killed, as stated in the Hadith reported by Al-Bukhari and others: 'Whoever changes his religion, kill him.' It does not say 'leave him alone.'

"One may not make a [peace] treaty with an apostate, nor grant him safe passage or protection. According to Allah's religion, he has only one choice: 'Repent or be killed.'

"Third: Democracy is based on considering the people to be the sole sovereign, to whom all juridical matters and conflicts should be referred, and if there is any controversy or conflict between governor and governed, each of them threatens the other to refer to the will of the people and its choice, so that the people should decide on the matter on which is disagreed. This conflicts with and is contradictory to the principles of monotheism, which determines that the arbiter, deciding by His judgment in matters of discord, is Allah and none else. Allah said [Koran 42:10]: 'And in whatever thing you disagree, the judgment thereof belongs to Allah.' Democracy, on the other hand, says: 'And in whatever things you disagree, the judgment thereof belongs to the people and to none beside the people...'

"Fourth: Democracy is based on the principal of 'freedom of expression,' no matter what the expression might be, even if it means hurting and reviling the Divine Being [i.e. Allah] and the laws of Islam, because in democracy nothing is so sacred that one cannot be insolent or use vile language about it.

"Fifth: Democracy is based on the principle of separation between religion and state, politics, and life; what is Allah's is rendered unto Allah, which is just worship in the places designed for it. All other aspects of life - political, economic, social, etc. - are the people's prerogative...

"Sixth: Democracy is based on the principle of freedom of association and of forming political parties and the like, no matter what the creed, ideas, and ethics of these parties may be. This principle is null and void according to [Islamic] law for a number of reasons... One of them is that voluntary recognition of the legality of heretical parties implies acquiescence in heresy... Acquiescence in heresy is heresy...

"Seventh: Democracy is based on the principle of considering the position of the majority and adopting what is agreed upon by the majority, even if they agree upon falsehood, error, and blatant heresy... This principle is totally wrong and void because truth according to Islam is that which is in accordance with the Koran and the Sunna [i.e., the tradition of the Prophet], whether its supporters are few or many; and that which contradicts the Koran and the Sunna is false even if all the people of the world agree on it..."

"It is both noteworthy and surprising that despite the fact that democratic experiments have had damaging consequences for the Muslims, causing weakness, controversy, division, and conflict ... despite all this, many people continue to admire democracy and defend it as though they were its owners and creators; their hearts are imbued with the love of democracy as the Children of Israel were imbued with the love of the [golden] calf... Allah has decided this matter: 'I do not worship what you worship, nor do you worship what I worship' [Koran 109:1], and at the end of the same chapter [He says]: 'You have your religion and I have mine' [109:6]. The matter, then, is a matter of principle; it is non-negotiable, and there can be no concession regarding it whatsoever... It is a matter relating to the principles of our creed - nay, it is the very essence of our creed." (1)

Al-Zarqawi's Organization Warns Against Going to Vote

A statement published on January 26, 2005, by the "Al-Qa'ida Organization in Iraq," headed by Al-Zarqawi, reads as follows:

"Your brothers in the military wing of the Al-Qa'ida organization in Iraq announce:

"1. Oh enemies of Islam, prepare yourselves and fortify whatever you like, wear as much armor as you can. We have men who love death as you love life. Our fallen [go to] heaven, and yours - to hell. While your reinforcements come from the Jews and the Christians, our reinforcements come from the Blessed and Lofty Allah.

"2. Take care not to go near the centers of heresy and abomination, that is, the election [booths.] He who has warned has carried out his duty; [if something happens] do not blame us, but yourselves.

"3. Oh the gardens [of Eden], prepare yourselves; oh black-eyed [virgins], approach; oh brigade of martyrs, say, 'There is no God but Allah,' and 'Allah Akbar.' The martyrs' wedding is at hand."(2)

Al-Zarqawi's Mentor, Abu Muhammad Al-Maqdisi: 'Democracy Is a Religion of Heresy'

The claim that democracy is heresy is already evident in writings by Al-Zarqawi's mentor, Issam Muhammad Taher Al-Burqawi, who goes by the pseudonym Sheikh Abu Muhammad Al-Maqdisi. A Palestinian Salafi, who is currently incarcerated in Jordan, Al-Maqdisi became Al-Zarqawi's mentor in 1989. In his book, 'Democracy is a Religion,' Al-Maqdisi wrote:

"[Democracy is] denying Allah the Almighty, attributing [to other deities] partnership with [Allah,] the Lord of heaven and earth, and [it] contradicts the religion of monotheism [i.e., Islam] and the religion of the prophets, for many reasons. Among them:

"First, [democracy] is legislated by the masses or the regime of tyrants, and it is not the rule of Allah the Exalted. Allah commanded his Prophet to act according to the law that He sent down to him, and forbade him from following the desires of the nation or the masses and warned him that they would divert him from some of the [precepts] sent down by Allah: 'Judge between them by that which Allah has sent down, and do not follow their wishes to deviate from it' [Koran 5:49]...

"As for the religion of democracy and polytheism, those who worship it say: 'Judge between them by that which the people wish; be wary of deviating from what they want, desire, and legislate...' This is what they say, and this is what democracy instructs, therefore, democracy is heresy and partnership [with Allah] if it is implemented...

"Second, the rule of the masses or the tyrant is in accordance with the constitution, and not in accordance with the law of Allah. This is what is stated in their constitutions and their books, which they sanctify over the Koran. Evidence of this is that the law [of the constitutions and books] is preferred to the law [of the Koran], and the law [of the constitutions and books] is higher [to them] than [the Koran's] laws... According to the religion of democracy, the masses do not accept the judgments and laws ... unless they are based on the precepts and articles of the constitution, because they see it as the father of the laws and the holy book. In the religion of democracy, there is no consideration of the Koranic verses or the Hadiths of the Prophet, and laws cannot be legislated in accordance with them unless they are compatible with the precepts of their holy book, the constitution...

"Third, democracy is the vile fruit and illegitimate daughter of secularism, because secularism is a heretical school of thought that aspires to isolate religion from life or separate religion from state and law, and democracy is the rule of the people or the rule of the tyrant. But in any event, it is not the rule of Allah the Exalted, and it does not take the unswerving legislation of Allah into account at all unless it is first compatible with all the articles of the constitution, and then with the desires of the people, and even before that with the desires of the tyrant or the masses.

"Therefore, if the entire people was to tell the tyrant or the lords of democracy: 'We want to act according to the law sent down by Allah, and then no one - not the people, not the MPs, and not the ruler - will have the right to legislate laws. We want to implement the law of Allah regarding the apostate [Murtadd], the adulterer, the thief, the wine-drinker. We want to require the woman to wear a veil [Hijab], to act modestly, and [we want] to prevent [her] from adorning herself. [We want to prevent] obscenity, corruption, adultery, sodomy, and other abominations.' [If the entire people was to tell the tyrant this,] the tyrant would immediately tell [those demanding it] that these demands are against the religion of democracy and democratic freedoms." (3)

'Democracy is a Farce' to Grant 'Legitimacy' to the New Government, Which 'Serves the Crusaders'

On December 30, 2004, the Army of the Supporters of the Sunna [Jaysh Ansar Al-Sunna], the Jihad Warriors Army [Jaysh Al-Mujahideen], and the Islamic Army in Iraq [Al-Jaysh Al-Islami] published a joint statement titled 'The Farce of Democracy and Elections,' in which they said:

"The origin of the term 'democracy' is Greek. It is an abbreviation of two words, whose meaning is 'rule by the people' or 'the people's legislation,' that is, that the people are the ones who legislate for themselves laws that suit their aspirations and goals.

"This concept is denying Allah the Almighty, attributing [to other deities] partnership with the Lord of heaven and earth, and [it] contradicts monotheism, the Muslims' religion. According to democracy, if the majority of the public votes in favor of a given law, such as legalization of marriage between [two] men or between [two] women, as is accepted among them [in the West], then this law becomes legislation which obligates everyone, even if it contradicts Allah's religion and His law...

"According to democracy, members of parliament and national assemblies become gods and lords aside from Allah. They have the right to legislate together with Allah...

"Appealing to laws which were established by men and which contradict Allah's law is polytheism and the diversion of worship to one other than Allah... Anyone who appeals to a [law] other than that of Allah, even in a single matter - he has apostatized, has attributed [to other deities] partnership with Allah, and has left the fold of Islam...

"This issue, then, is a farce which [our] enemies have created in order to grant what they call legitimacy to the new government, which serves the Crusaders and carries out their designs. To strive to make these elections successful and to participate in them is the greatest gift [that could be] given to America, the enemy of Islam and the tyrant of this era.

"At the same time as the Jihad groups are ardent about the people's interests ... they call upon all Muslims zealous for their religion not to participate in this act of heresy, whose aim is to permit heresy and to permit behaving according to the heretical laws drawn up by the Crusaders, and to remove the great religion from the reality of our lives and to propose secularism as a substitute for it.

"In addition, we call for support of the Jihad warriors who offer up their souls and their blood in order to help this religion and to make it triumph." (4)

The Mufti of the Jihad Fighters in Chechnya: 'Democracy [in Iraq] is a Victory for the Crusaders'

The first issue of Al-Fath online magazine, which was published in December 2004, posted an open letter by the Mufti of the Jihad fighters in Chechnya, Sheikh Abu Omar Al-Sayf "to the Jihad warriors in Iraq regarding democracy and the elections," which read:

"Your Jihad against the Crusaders is defense of Islam, whose enemies are aiming to remove it from the hearts and lives of the Muslims. In this crime of democracy, the ones aiding them [the Allied forces] are members of our people and those who speak in their name, who call their apostasy and corruption 'reform'...

"Democracy [in Iraq] is a victory for the Crusaders, even if they retreat from Iraq and leave their agents to guard the idol of democracy that has become the god worshipped besides Allah.

"Accordingly, the Jihad warriors must wage Jihad against the soldiers of the idol of democracy, whether these [soldiers] be Crusaders or their democratic agents who are apostates from Islam [Murtaddoun]...

"The enemies of Allah, the Crusaders, and the apostate groups have closed ranks and agreed to establish an infidel democratic government in Iraq, despite differences in their schools of thought and trends. In contrast, the Jihad warriors have no united leadership, and no general imam to whom they have sworn allegiance...

"The arrival of democracy to the Muslim countries will constitute great corruption. Therefore, the Jihad warriors in Iraq must close ranks and swear allegiance to a general imam of the Muslims in Iraq to whom the rules of the Imama [imamate] apply, and who will be chosen by the Shura members, the Jihad warrior commanders, and the Ulema of the Muslims.

"But it is forbidden to hold general elections to choose the general imam or [to choose] members of the Shura council even in a country ruled by the laws of Islam, because these are the methods and ways of the infidel democratic regime, and [these methods] must not be associated with Islam.

"The evidence for the ban on holding general elections is:

"1. The regime, according to Islam, [must] be Allah's, not the people's or anyone else's. The people must obey the order of Allah and his laws...

"2. Annulling the Shari'a conditions that must be met by the imam or the Shura members, and also annulling the Shari'a method for choosing the imam, and replacing [the Shari'a method with] democratic elections means accepting the rule of the idols instead of the rule of Allah...

"3. The aim of the Imama is to apply Allah's Shari'a in all areas of life, to impose justice, and to promote virtue and prohibit vice. In order to realize the goal of the Imama, Shari'a has set conditions that must be found in the imam, such as justice and honesty, [religious] knowledge, courage, and other conditions.

"But general elections rely on the caprices and impulses of people, and most people vote for whoever meets their desires, regardless of the conditions of the Imama...

"4. Allah created Djinns and people so that they would worship Him... The conditions of the Imama, according to Shari'a, are aimed at realizing this goal. But general democratic elections annul these conditions, since electing [a leader] is done according to the caprices and desires of people. This contradicts the acceptance of His command and submission to Him.

"5. Allah showed that most people do not obey Him, and are not interested in His Shari'a and in His rule, but are interested in Jahiliyya [pre-Islamic] law... How, then, can the fate of the establishment of the rule of Allah on earth be dependent on this majority that desires Jahiliyya law and distances itself from the law of Allah?

"6. Islam does not treat equally - either in this world or in the world to come - the wise and the ignorant, the Muslim and the infidel, the pious and the sinner. But the elected democratic regime treats all these as equal in the elections...

"7. The principle of general elections is perceived by many to be legitimate. Many think that legitimacy is obtained by a majority of people, and not from the Book of Allah [i.e., the Koran] and the Sunna of His Messenger..."(5)

(1) , January 23, 2005.
(2) , January 26, 2005.
(3) The link is currently not active.
(4) , December 30, 2004.

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is an independent, non-profit organization that translates and analyzes the media of the Middle East. Copies of articles
and documents cited, as well as background information, are available on request.


Columnist in Turkish Islamic Daily: 'USA - the God-Damned Country'; 'Murdering is Genetically Ingrained in American Culture'

In an article titled "Partners in Murder" in the Turkish Islamic daily Yeni Safak, known for its unofficial connections to the Turkish government,(1) columnist Dr. Husnu Mahalli, of Syrian origin, described in detail America's purported murderous activities as emanating from a genetically ingrained tendency to murder. The following is the article (ellipses in the original):(2)

'Murdering is Genetically Ingrained in American Culture'

"During the [U.S.] invasion [of Iraq], when I said that the Iraqi people would resist, some said, 'You are wrong - see, no one resisted...' When the resistance did begin they said, 'They are only packs of murderers'...

"It is obvious that in both cases, some want to blame the Iraqis, not America...

"I wonder: If America had invaded Turkey ... what would the Turks be doing? Would they prefer to kneel in front of Bush and his gang and surrender? Could proud patriots accept that?

"If there is anyone who says 'yes' to all this, I have nothing to say to 'them'... And if there still remain any who look at the developments in Iraq through American lenses, I have nothing to say to them either...

"Since 9/11 I have been saying...: "America invaded Iraq with 'packs of murderers'... America went to Iraq solely to satisfy its murderous instincts.

"Murdering is genetically ingrained in American culture.

"The second term of Bush's administration will prove this more clearly and concretely. A mere look at Fallujah will suffice: The American military is murdering thousands by destroying the city, on the pretext of eliminating the resistance in Fallujah.

"The Americans say they killed 1200 insurgents... about 20 of them foreigners! Let's assume this is true...

"If it is true, we should rejoice... It means people from other countries believe in the just struggle of the Iraqi people and are going there to fight alongside them... It means they are not tourists, or interested in making 'blood money'...

"Let us not forget that some 40 countries have sent troops to Iraq in support of the American occupation... Why is it that becoming an accomplice to America's murders is 'good,' but supporting and participating in the resistance of the Iraqi people is 'bad?' Or do some still see the resistance fighters as 'packs of murderers' or extremist radical Islamists...?"

'The Americans are Lying, as They Always Do'

"The Americans are lying, as they always do... Television [stations] around the world showed yesterday how American soldiers enter mosques and execute the unarmed civilian wounded. They say the American military will investigate ... just like they investigated the Abu Ghraib prison tortures... Anyhow, the world has already forgotten those disgusting images [of Abu Ghraib]...

"Soon they will also forget the destruction of the mosques, and the murder of unarmed wounded civilians who sought refuge in those mosques...

"For heaven's sake, what's happening to us?...

"We look at images of Fallujah as if watching American films - with no emotion or reaction, in undefined anger...

"For God's sake, when will we see the realities?... When will we understand that this is a new Crusader war?... When will we realize that American aggression targets - and will continue to target - all Muslim countries and peoples?... When will we stop this admiration for America?... When will we [i.e. Turkish trucks] stop carrying fuel to the American airplanes that kill the Iraqi people?... When will we be ashamed of 'welcoming' the murderer soldiers of America when they reach the shores of Adana [a city in southern Turkey near U.S. military bases]?...

"If our humanity does not hold us accountable for all this, certainly one day history will..."

'U.S.A. - the God-Damned Country'

"Let's return to Fallujah... Mere words cannot describe the murders being committed there... A friend I spoke to yesterday told me that Americans are using Iraqi civilians as human shields to protect themselves against the insurgents. One can expect no less from the faithless, treacherous, murderous Americans... Despite their superiority of arms, both in the air and on the ground, American soldiers are scared of the resistance fighters.

"After bombing the mosques of Fallujah, the American soldiers desecrate them by urinating on and soiling their walls.

"After raiding homes, American soldiers strip the women and girls naked and molest them.

"Fear not ... soon these images too will be posted on American websites ... just like the images of the Abu Ghraib prison tortures...

"American soldiers are being helped by some Kurds and some Iranian militants too... Soon this too will be revealed... Americans are preventing Iraqi Red Crescent emergency convoys from entering the city [of Fallujah]...

"For Heaven's sake, enough already!... [We] must all see reality...

"Americans do not and will never intend to bring liberty, democracy or human rights to Iraq or any other place...

"The Americans want to obliterate the human values of all peoples of the region. Just like Sharon, the Americans want to denigrate and humiliate us, and defile our honor. The Americans, together with Sharon, want to drag us into hopelessness and despair in order to enslave us.

"The Americans gave this a name in the aftermath of 9/11...

"The New Crusade ... and this is why 59 million Americans voted for Bush...

"In the words of our ninth president [Suleyman] Demirel: 'Americans are acting in Iraq by the principle of 'better you die than I'... This is the U.S.A. that some among us still love and admire...

"In the words of [Turkish TV personality and actor] Levent Kirca: 'U.S.A. - the God-damned country'..."(3)

(1) The paper's owner and Turkey's prime minister have recently become related via their children's marriage.
(2) Yeni Safak (Turkey), November 17, 2004.
(3) A play on words. The writer gives the acronym for "U.S.A." in Turkish, "A.B.D" - which is also an acronym for the Turkish phrase meaning "God-damned country."

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is an independent, non-profit organization that translates and analyzes the media of the Middle East. Copies of articles
and documents cited, as well as background information, are available on request.


Tuesday, February 01, 2005


Maybe it's time to wake up?


A radical Islamic Web site systematically tracks Christians on, an Internet chat service on which a New Jersey man received a death threat two months before he and his family were murdered. The password protected Arabic Web site, at the address, features pictures and information about Christians who have been particularly active in debating Muslims on PalTalk.

One page from features a group of photographs of a Syrian Christian, "Joseph," who now lives in Canada.'s users have posted personal information about Joseph, including his brother's parole status, and make clear that they are actively trying to track down his current address.

Subscribers also post explicit warnings to Joseph. One comment states, "Know, oh Christian, that you are not far from us and you are under our watchful eyes!" Another user remarks, "Laugh, oh Christian, and soon you will see a big hit."

Ahmed Paul, an Egyptian Christian and a theology student in America, said he believes Joseph was targeted because he frequently engaged in debates with Muslims on PalTalk. The Internet chat service attracts up to 3 million users a month, and subjects range from movies to music to religion to adult topics - and some Arabic-speaking users of PalTalk have reported that contentious debates between Christians and Muslims are common in certain chat rooms.

Hossam Armanious, a Coptic Christian from Jersey City, N.J., who was found murdered earlier this month, frequently debated with Muslims on PalTalk. Two months before Armanious's murder, authorities said he received a death threat from a Muslim PalTalk user: "You'd better stop this bull ... or we are going to track you down like a chicken and kill you." On January 14, Armanious and his family - including two daughters, ages 15 and 8 - were found killed in their Jersey City home, bound and gagged with their throats slashed.

Authorities have not determined whether Islamic extremists are to blame for the Armanious family's murder, nor is there any apparent link between the murder and's tracking of Christians on PalTalk. However, many users expressed jubilation at the deaths.

One user posted a photograph of Hossam Armanious and wrote, "This is a picture of the filthy dog, curser of Muhammad, and a photo of his filthy wife, curser of Muhammad. They got what they deserved for their actions in America."

In all, about 40 different discussion threads on berate the Christians of PalTalk, and there are at least seven collections of photographs of PalTalk Christians. The discussion threads seem to focus on Arabic-speaking Christians rather than those who speak English. features not only photographs of the targeted Christians, but also attempts to track down their addresses. A post about a Christian man whose computer was apparently hacked to obtain his photograph includes the man's PalTalk name, his real name, and the city where he resides in Lebanon.

Another entry outlines the relations (both blood and marital) between four Christians who are apparently PalTalk users, posts photographs of them, and then states, "We have postponed publishing this information because there is a lot more to be revealed when the time is right."

Even's banner displays its hatred of Christians. The banner displays a crucifix crossed out by a violent red "X," and the main heading reads in Arabic, "Christians: Revealing the Truth Behind Our Belief."

Judging by the posts, almost all of's users are Middle Eastern, and they are predominantly Egyptian. Mr. Paul said that's significant because the extremists on live in societies where people simply do not challenge Islam and would never dream of insulting Prophet Muhammad.

Mr. Paul, who is an Islamic convert to Christianity, said when Islamic radicals from such societies participate in Internet debates with Christians who live in societies that promote free speech, they are often shocked by the Christians' arguments and view their debating opponents as blasphemers. And in the eyes of Islamic extremists, blasphemers are worthy of death.

Author Robert Spencer, who has been following the Armanious case for his Web site Jihad Watch, described as "extremely important" after it was shown to him.

"I have never seen anything like this before," Mr. Spencer said. "It's chilling to see photographs of people who probably have no idea that they're on the Web site. Hamas's Web site would post self-congratulatory accounts of their attacks on civilians, but's users are telegraphing their intended victims in advance."

Mr. Spencer added that is a "prime example" of how some Islamic extremists can utilize technology to attempt to bring Islamic religious law to the West.

"We saw in the Theo van Gogh murders that some Muslims will take these kinds of matters into their own hands," Mr. Spencer said. "The Internet makes it easier for them to do so by disseminating this kind of information. You could imagine 15 years ago how hard it would be for people to get this much information on people who they believe should be killed." is registered to Viza-Web Inc., a Web hosting company based in Woodbury, Minn.


Saudi Venom in U.S. Mosques

by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun

Those of us following the development of Islam in America have for years worried about the unhealthy influence of Saudi money and ideas on American Muslims.

We watched apprehensively as the Saudi government boasted of funding mosques and research centers; as it announced its support for Islamist organizations such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations; as it trained the imams who became radicalized chaplains in American prisons, and as it introduced Wahhabism to university campuses via the Muslim Student Association.

But through the years, we lacked information on the content of Saudi materials. Do they water down or otherwise change the raw, inflammatory message that dominates religious and political life in Saudi Arabia? Or do they replicate the same outlook?

Now, thanks to excellent research by Freedom House (a New York-headquartered organization founded in 1941 that calls itself "a clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world"), we finally have specifics on the Saudi project. A just-published study, "Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques," provides a wealth of detail on the subject.

(Two points about it bear noting: This important study was written anonymously, for security reasons, and it was issued by a think tank, and not by university-based researchers. Once again, an off-campus organization does the most creative and timely work, and Middle East specialists find themselves sidelined.)

The picture of Saudi activities in the United States is not a pretty one.

Freedom House's Muslim volunteers went to 15 prominent mosques from New York to San Diego and collected more than 200 books and other publications disseminated by Saudi Arabia (some 90% in Arabic) in mosque libraries, publication racks, and bookstores.

What they found can only be described as horrifying. These writings - each and every one of them sponsored by the kingdom - espouse an anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, misogynist, jihadist, and supremacist outlook. For example, they:

Reject Christianity as a valid faith: Any Muslim who believes "that churches are houses of God and that God is worshiped therein is an infidel."

Insist that Islamic law be applied: On a range of issues, from women (who must be veiled) to apostates from Islam ("should be killed"), the Saudi publications insist on full enforcement of Shariah in America.

See non-Muslims as the enemy: "Be dissociated from the infidels, hate them for their religion, leave them, never rely on them for support, do not admire them, and always oppose them in every way according to Islamic law.

See America as hostile territory: "It is forbidden for a Muslim to become a citizen of a country governed by infidels because this is a means of acquiescing to their infidelity and accepting all their erroneous ways.

Prepare for war against America: "To be true Muslims, we must prepare and be ready for jihad in Allah's way. It is the duty of the citizen and the government."

The report's authors correctly find that the publications under review "pose a grave threat to non-Muslims and to the Muslim community itself." The materials instill a doctrine of religious hatred inimical to American culture and serve to produce new recruits to the enemy forces in the war on terrorism.

To provide just one example of the latter: Adam Yahiye Gadahn, thought to be the masked person in a 2004 videotape threatening that American streets would "run with blood," became a jihadi in the course of spending time at the Islamic Society of Orange County, a Saudi-funded institution.

Freedom House urges that the American government "not delay" a protest at the highest levels to the Saudi government about its venomous publications lining the shelves of some of America's most important mosques. That's unobjectionable, but it strikes this observer of Saudi-American relations as inadequate. The protest will be accepted, then filed away.

Instead, the insidious Saudi assault on America must be made central to the (misnamed) war on terror. The Bush administration needs to confront the domestic menace that the Wahhabi kingdom presents to America. That means junking the fantasy of Saudi friendship and seeing the country, like China, as a formidable rival whose ambitions for a very different world order must be repulsed and contained.


Monday, January 31, 2005

Conservative View of the War in Iraq

I offer apologies to the extent that copying the following article may be copyright infringement--I admit that I do not have permission to "reprint" this article. On the other hand, it was posted on the Internet and readily available merely by entering the correct URL in a browser. So, perhaps there is no violation. However, the article itself is from The American Conservative. I ask any and all of you who stand with Bush and Cheney on Iraq two questions: 1) in what ways is the following article wrong or misleading; and 2) why do you think articles such as this are appearing in prominent conservative publications?

Walking Wounded

Old soldiers don’t fade away

by Fred Reed

The observant will have noticed that we hear little from the troops in Iraq and see almost nothing of the wounded. Why, one might wonder, does not CNN put an enlisted Marine before a camera and, for 15 minutes without editing, let him say what he thinks? Is he not an adult and a citizen? Is he not engaged in important events on our behalf?

Sound political reasons exist. Soldiers are a risk PR-wise, the wounded a liability. No one can tell what they might say, and conspicuous dismemberment is bad for recruiting. An enlisted man in front of a camera is dangerous. He could wreck the governmental spin apparatus in five minutes. It is better to keep soldiers discreetly out of sight.

So we do not see much of the casualties, ours or theirs. Yet they are there, somewhere, with missing legs, blind, becoming accustomed to groping at things in their new darkness, learning to use the wheelchairs that will be theirs for 50 years. Some face worse fates than others. Quadriplegics will be warehoused in VA hospitals where nurses will turn them at intervals, like hamburgers, to prevent bedsores. Friends and relatives will soon forget them. Suicide will be a frequent thought. The less damaged will get around.

For a brief moment perhaps the casualties will believe, then try desperately to keep believing, that they did something brave and worthy and terribly important for that abstraction, country. Some will expect thanks. But there will be no thanks, or few, and those quickly forgotten. It will be worse. People will ask how they lost the leg. In Iraq, they will say, hoping for sympathy, or respect, or understanding. The response, often unvoiced but unmistakable, will be, “What did you do that for?” The wounded will realize that they are not only crippled, but freaks.

The years will go by. Iraq will fade into the mist. Wars always do. A generation will rise for whom it will be just history. The dismembered veterans will find first that almost nobody appreciates what they did, then that few even remember it. If—when, many would say—the United States is driven out of Iraq, the soldiers will look back and realize that the whole affair was a fraud. Wars are just wars. They seem important at the time. At any rate, we are told that they are important.

Yet the wounds will remain. Arms do not grow back. For the paralyzed there will never be girlfriends, dancing, rolling in the grass with children. The blind will adapt as best they can. Those with merely a missing leg will count themselves lucky. They will hobble about, managing to lead semi-normal lives, and people will say, “How well he handles it.” An admirable freak. For others it will be less good. A colostomy bag is a sorry companion on a wedding night.

These men will come to hate. It will not be the Iraqis they hate. This we do not talk about.

It is hard to admit that one has been used. Some of the crippled will forever insist that the war was needed, that they were protecting their sisters from an Islamic invasion, or Vietnamese, or Chinese. Others will keep quiet and drink too much. Still others will read, grow older and wiser—and bitter. They will remember that their vice president, a man named Cheney, said that during his war, the one in Asia, he “had other priorities.” The veterans will remember this when everyone else has long since forgotten Cheney.

I once watched the first meeting between a young Marine from the South, blind, much of his face shot away, and his high-school sweetheart, who had come from Tennessee to Bethesda Naval Hospital to see him.

Hatred comes easily. There are wounds and there are wounds. A friend of mine spent two tours in Asia in that war now little remembered. He killed many people, not all of them soldiers. It is what happens in wars. The memory haunts him. Jack is a hard man from a tough neighborhood, quick with his fists, intelligent but uneducated—not a liberal flower vain over his sensitivity. He lives in Mexican bars few would enter and has no politics beyond an anger toward government. He was not a joyous killer. He remembers what he did, knows now that he was had. It gnaws at him. One is wise to stay away from him when he is drinking.

People say that this war isn’t like Vietnam. They are correct. Washington fights its war in Iraq with no better understanding of Iraq than it had of Vietnam, but with much better understanding of the United States. The Pentagon learned from Asia. This time around it has controlled the press well. Here is the great lesson of Southeast Asia: the press is dangerous, not because it is inaccurate, which it often is, but because it often isn’t. So we don’t much see the caskets —for reasons of privacy, you understand.

The war in Iraq is fought by volunteers, which means people that no one in power cares about. No one in the mysteriously named “elite” gives a damn about some kid from a town in Tennessee that has one gas station and a beer hall with a stuffed buck’s head. Such a kid is a redneck at best, pretty much from another planet, and certainly not someone you would let your daughter date. If conscription came back, and college students with rich parents learned to live in fear of The Envelope, riots would blossom as before. Now Yale can rest easy. Thank God for throwaway people.

The nearly perfect separation between the military and the rest of the country, or at least the influential in the country, is wonderful for the war effort. It prevents concern. How many people with a college degree even know a soldier? Yes, some, and I will get e-mail from them, but they are a minority. How many Americans have been on a military base? Or, to be truly absurd, how many men in combat arms went to, say, Harvard? Ah, but they have other priorities.

In 15 years in Washington, I knew many, many reporters and intellectuals and educated people. Almost none had worn boots. So it is. Those who count do not have to go, and do not know anyone who has gone, and don’t interest themselves. There is a price for this, though not one Washington cares about. Across America, in places where you might not expect it—in Legion halls and VFW posts, among those who carry membership cards from the Disabled American Veterans—there are men who hate. They don’t hate America. They hate those who sent them. Talk to the wounded from Iraq in five years.

Fred Reed’s writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Harper’s, and National Review, among other places.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?