• Home Page
• Computer Blog
• Chess Blog
• Exercise & Diet Blog
• Theology Blog
• Islamic Terrorism Blog
• Contact Us

CBN interview with Raymond Ibrahim and Peter Singer regarding the “Words Matter” debate

Regarding the whole "Words Matter" issue, and how U.S. governmental agencies are dropping theologically-laden words from the lexicon -- which the Danes are sadly emulating -- some time back, one Peter Singer wrote a NY Times piece arguing that dropping such words in favor of generics, such as "terrorists" or "extremists," is, in fact, a brilliant idea, to which I responded to in American Thinker. Soon thereafter, Erick Stakelbeck interviewed us both for CBN. The transcript follows; the video of the interview is at the CBN link. "Why Words Matter in The War on Terror," by Erick Stakelbeck, for CBN, August 14:

CBNNews.com - Terms like "radical Islamist" and "jihadist" have dominated headlines and speeches since 9/11, with the Bush administration using them frequently to describe America's enemies.

But that language may be about to change.

Although Al-Qaeda and other terrorists identify themselves as jihadists -- holy warriors -- some feel we make a mistake by calling them what they call themselves.

"It makes sense why they would want to be called it. It makes no sense why we would want to call them that," said Peter Singer, a national security expert with the Brookings Institution in Washington.

Singer co-wrote a recent New York Times op-ed that argues against the use of words like "jihadist" to describe Islamic terrorists.

"This feeds into their idea that this is a religious war, and it's not.," he said. "They want it to be a war of religions, but we have said very clearly that this is not a war on Islam, it's not Christianity vs. Islam in some way. It's about radicals, it's about extremists who are using violence."

U.S. government agencies agree with Singer's view.[...]

But one native Arabic speaker we talked with says the government has it all wrong.

Islam expert Raymond Ibrahim is author of The Al-Qaeda Reader. It translates previously undeciphered statements by the group's leadership into English.

"The fact is, the Muslim world isn't waiting around holding its breath to hear the U.S. Government -- an infidel entity -- define Islamic terms for them," Ibrahim said. "This seems to me unprecedented. When we fought the Japanese and we fought the Nazis, we called them what they called themselves."

"If Osama bin Laden calls himself a mujahid, we should understand what a mujahid is. And we should understand that that is, in English, a holy warrior who's fighting on behalf of Islam," he said.

"You want to know your enemy: how they think, what they call themselves, what those terms mean," he added.

Singer says Western governments and media should avoid using these theological terms because they could offend Muslims.

He suggests using "muharib" or "hirabist" to describe Al Qaeda. These terms mean "barbarians" or "pirates" in Arabic.

"A term like "hirabi" or "muharib" is a term that's inherently negative within the teachings of the Muslim world," Singer said.

But according to Ibrahim, these terms are not widely used or understood in the Muslim world, while the concept of jihad is well-known and historically prevalent.

"According to Islamic law, offensive jihad--offensive, not just to defend yourself, but offensive, to go out and invade--is as codified and is obilgatory," he said.

To understand this enemy, Ibrahim says, you can't separate its ideology from its theology.

"You trace it to Islamic doctrine and law, jihad is simply warfare to subjugate the infidel world to Islamic rule."

The debate over language has also reached Capitol Hill. Last month, the House passed an amendment to an intelligence bill that would deny funding for any government measure to ban words like jihadist.

Republican Congressman Peter Hoekstra, who introduced the amendment, says governnment agencies shouldn't be hampered by political correctness when fighting the War on Terror.

Iran successfully tests rocket capable of carrying satellites, among other things

As noted here, the same technology is involved in ballistic missile development, and close Iranian ally North Korea has set a strong precedent for using a "space" program as a cover for its missile projects.

"Iran successfully test launches rocket set to carry satellite," from the Associated Press, August 17:

Iran test launched a rocket it plans to use to carry a research satellite into orbit, state television reported Sunday.

Saturday's test of the two-stage rocket, called the Safir, or Ambassador, was successful, state TV said, as it broadcast images of the nighttime launch.

It said the Omid research satellite will gather atmospheric data from a low orbit but did not give a date for its launch.

Iran has long held the goal of developing a space program.

In 2005, it launched its first commercial satellite on a Russian rocket in a joint project with Moscow, which appears to be the main partner in transferring space technology to Iran.

Iran first tested a rocket it said was capable of delivering a satellite in February, saying that trial was also successful. It said then that it planned two more test launches before attempting to put its first domestically built satellite into orbit.

The country's fledgling space program, like its nuclear program, has provoked unease abroad. The same technology used to put satellites into space can also be used to deliver warheads.

The United States called the February 4 launch "just another troubling development," saying it was a cause for concern about Iran's continuing development of medium- and long-range missiles.

Meanwhile, Iran claimed Sunday it has increased the range of its warplanes, allowing them to fly as far as Israel and back without refueling.

State TV quoted air force chief Gen. Ahmad Mighani as saying Iranian warplanes can now fly 3,000 kilometers without refueling. He didn't specify the aircraft type or explain how the range was extended.

Israel is about 1,000 kilometers from Iran.

Such a range could be achieved by using external fuel tanks attached to the wings or fuselage that can be released when empty...

Modern, moderate Jordan restores relations with Hamas

While Jordan's Queen puts a pretty face on things, her husband's regime moves in the opposite direction. "Jordan restores relations with Hamas," by Ali Waked for Israel National News, August 15 (thanks to Jeffrey Imm):

The Hamas movement on Friday released a statement welcoming the restoration of its ties with Jordan, following a series of meetings held over the past weeks between a Hamas delegation and representatives of the Jordanian government.

The Hamas delegation, headed by member of the group's political bureau Mohammed Nazzal, met Thursday with Jordanian Intelligence Director Mohammed Zahabi in order to discuss the relations between the parties and the restrictions on the movement's activity in Jordan.

Jordanian newspapers reported that the meeting was positive and that the two sides managed to resolve many of the disagreements between them.

Zahabi demanded that the Palestinian movement refrain from taking sides in Jordan's political issues. Amman's main claims against Hamas are that Hamas is politically involved in Jordan, mostly by supporting the Jordanian Muslim Brothers and attempting to take control of the kingdom's trade unions....

Jihadists kill aid workers in Afghanistan

23 killed so far this year. "Brutal Taliban Killings Anger Aid Community," by Alison Raphael for OneWorld, August 15:

WASHINGTON, Aug 15 (OneWorld) - The fatal ambush of four humanitarian aid workers in Afghanistan Wednesday has provoked a sharp response from the international aid community, including strong condemnation of the Taliban.

The deaths of Canadians Jackie Kirk and Shirley Case, American Nicole Dial, and their Afghan driver Mohammad Aimal brought the total death toll of aid workers in Afghanistan to 23 for this year, eight more than died in all of 2007, UNICEF pointed out in a letter of condolence.

The three women, all with long experience in aid delivery in global hot-spots, were on their way back to Kabul from Paktia Province, where they had been planning a project to assist children with disabilities.

The four worked for the New York-based International Rescue Committee (IRC), which yesterday announced the suspension of its activities in Afghanistan, after 20 years of uninterrupted work in the country, while it "evaluates next steps."

A Taliban spokesman called news agencies to take credit for the attack, claiming: "We don't value their aid projects."

Of course. Islamic purity trumps national development.

Savage drops lawsuit against CAIR after death threats

"CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper said the Islamic organization had 'nothing whatsoever' to do with any threats and that any allegations to that effect would be 'scurrilous.'" Of course, Ibrahim. And you and your allies know all about scurrilous death threat allegations.

"Michael Savage Drops Suit Against Islamic Group," from CBS5.com, August 15 (thanks to all who sent this in):

SAN FRANCISCO (BCN) ― A lawsuit filed by conservative radio talk show host Michael Savage against a Muslim civil rights group came to an end Thursday when Savage's lawyer told a federal judge in San Francisco that he won't try to amend it.

Savage sued the Washington, D.C.-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, known as CAIR, last year after it posted on its Web site a four-minute excerpt of anti-Islamic comments by Savage along with a critique of his words.

Savage made the comments during an Oct. 29, 2007, broadcast of The Savage Nation, a nationally syndicated show based in San Francisco.

They included remarks that "you can take (CAIR) and throw them out of my country" and that Muslims were "screaming for the blood of Christians or Jews or anyone they hate."

Last month, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston dismissed the lawsuit. She permanently dismissed Savage's claim of copyright infringement, saying that CAIR's posting of the comments for the purposes of criticism was protected by the right of free speech.

But the judge said Savage could try to amend a second claim of racketeering by trying to show specific alleged financial harm by CAIR to his business. She gave Savage a deadline of Friday.

In a notice filed Thursday, attorney Daniel Horowitz said Savage decided not to file an amended racketeering claim.

In an unusual three-page filing, Horowitz told the judge that he had prepared a 116-page amended lawsuit, but that Savage decided not to file it because of "factors arising out of this litigation but taking place (or potentially have an effect) outside of this litigation."

The court filing gave no details, but in a telephone interview Horowitz said the factors included an alleged phone threat to Savage. Horowitz said he wasn't accusing the Islamic group of making threats, but said Savage didn't want to take the risk that the case could inspire a "lone nut" to try to harm his family.

CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper said the Islamic organization had "nothing whatsoever" to do with any threats and that any allegations to that effect would be "scurrilous."

Hooper said, "It's clear that this baseless and frivolous lawsuit wasn't going anywhere and he decided to cut his losses."...

Hooper knows frivolous lawsuits, too.

Jihadists plot fatal pies in the face

David Horowitz, pied in 2005: the next one could be fatal

Leftist pie-throwers are always a risk on campus, but the next pie could kill. "Jury told of cake-throwing terror tactic," by Margaret Scheikowski for AAP, August 15 (thanks to JE):

THE book at the centre of a terrorism related trial in Sydney lists assassination methods including smothering a target by throwing a "cake".

The book states "cake throwing" is well-known in the west, and suggests that instead of the sweets, an "adhesive substance could be used".

Another method listed is wrapping the target in "a strong plastic bag", which the book says hardly leaves a trace on the body and could leave the impression that it was suicide....

In the Crown's opening address on Wednesday, Peter Neil SC said Khazaal produced the 110 page book in September 2003 and soon after caused it to be posted on an internet website.

He said the book espoused a type of jihad which was "very violent" in order to advance the Muslim religion in the world....

The book is titled: Provisions on the rules of jihad - short judicial rulings and organisational instructions for fighters and mujahideen against infidels.

It is dedicated to various people including: "the prisoners languishing in the prisons of tyrants be it infidels, apostates or hypocrites, Christians or Jews or Infidels, Idolater and apostate".

Twelve methods of assassination are listed, including detonating a car from a distance, sniping, booby trapping a room, storming houses, poison, shooting down planes and striking motorcades.

The smothering section includes drowning and the cake throwing technique.

"A couple could pretend to be joking before attacking the target," the translation reads.

"This would lead to his eyes, nose and mouth being plugged and loses the ability to breathe.

"Few would suspect the fatal consequences."...

Diana West: Roars about Russia, Nary a Whisper about Islam

An extraordinarily perceptive and important observation. "Roars about Russia, Nary a Whisper about Islam," by Diana West, August 15:

[...] Historical memory somewhat refreshed, Western media were ready with the headlines -- "The evil empire is back"; "Welcome to the 19th century"; "The Russian bear's new teeth" -- to promote the main thrust of most stories: namely, that Russia is reverting to tsarist, expansionist, Soviet-style, empire-amassing type.

It's not that there's anything controversial in this journalistic approach, although I do tend to think there remain aspects of the Georgian story we haven't reconciled. What's noteworthy about this narrative consensus, however, is that the invocation of Russia's historical and cultural record is being made so frankly and without hedging. That is, no one's blaming "Russian extremists," "tsarismists," or "hijackers of a great history." On the contrary, the implication behind most Russia-versus-Georgia stories is that the Russians' world-stage behavior as they smash Georgia is something that this same historical and cultural record tells us that Russians do. [...]

And why is this important? When I started seeing these stories and statements -- even making some of them myself -- I realized there was something free-wheeling about the style of expression that made it different from what has been the norm. I first wondered if there was a somewhat perverse trace of nostalgia in dealing again with the Russians. And then it hit me. In the nearly seven years since Islam has wholly dominated current events, neither our media nor our leaders have ever, not even once, looked at similarly characteristic behavior from the Islamic world and labeled it accordingly.

In other words, no pattern of avowedly Islam-inspired violence in the world has ever earned a headline nearly as straightforward as "Islamic jihad is back." Not even the Islamic success of Motoon Rage, which has severely repressed Western modes of expression regarding Muhammad in particular and Islam in general, inspired anything as descriptive as, for example, "Sharia's new teeth."

Ask yourself: Would any British foreign secretary of the postmodern age look at, say, last year's trial of a British teacher in Sudan for "blasphemy" in naming a teddy bear "Muhammad," and conclude: "It's a reversion to not just post-colonial politics. It is a seventh century way of doing politics"? Hah.

And what American presidential candidate would ever explain the Islamic push, financial and otherwise, in the West for mosque construction, Islamic schools (madrassas), campus Islamic studies (apologetics) departments, Sharia law-inspired legal challenges, lobbying for Sharia-compliant banking and the like as a matter of Islamic imperialism?

I quoted McCain above discussing, matter-of-fact, what he considers to be catchall "Russian" ambitions to restore the "old Russian empire." Would he, or any other American politician, ever say the same regarding catchall "Islamic" ambitions? While both Russia and Islam claim similarly long histories and cultures of conquest for reference, it's mighty tough to imagine any U.S. politician ever saying the following: "I think it's very clear that Islamic ambitions are to restore the old caliphate." (And that's despite a growing body of statements, even polling data, reflecting the persistence of Islamic caliphate dreams.)

I'm afraid all the radical, fasco-Russian tsarismists will have to abandon their quest for world domination before we hear anything like that.

Baghdad: latest female suicide bomber kills 18, injures 75

Another miserable woman exploited by jihadis? "Female suicide bomber kills 18 Iraqi pilgrims ," from the China View, August 14:

BAGHDAD, Aug. 14 (Xinhua) -- A female suicide bomber on Thursday killed at least 18 Shiite pilgrims on their way to the holy city of Karbala, an Iraqi police source said.

The attack, near the town of Iskandariya, some 60 km south of Baghdad, also wounded 75 people, the source said on condition of anonymity.

Thousands of pilgrims were traveling to the holy city of Karbala, about 110 km south of the capital, to commemorate the birth in the 9th century of the Imam Muhammad al-Mahdi, last of 12most revered Shiites Imams.

The suicide blast was the most critical after three female attackers killed more than 24 and injured over 62 on July 28 during a Shiite pilgrimage gathering in Baghdad.

Violence has dramatically dropped in Iraq, the U.S. military said, hitting a four-year low.

But sporadic suicide or car bombing attacks are still haunting the Iraqis and creating remarkable casualties.

Meanwhile, suicide explosions staged by women have increased as they are less subject to check and suspicion.

Motoonist to Jordan: Go ahead, put me on trial

Worth a trial? Worth killing for?

He says they're misusing Islam. That's not enough for them. More on this story. "Danish cartoonist, editor: We're ready to face Jordan court," from DPA, August 14 (thanks to Block Ness):

Amman - The Danish cartoonist who drew caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed three years ago which sparked worldwide protests by Muslims and a boycott of Danish products said he was ready to defend himself in an Amman court, Jordanian media reported Thursday. "I would like to go to Amman to stand trial. However, what I fear is that I would be convicted in advance," Kurt Westergaard told the Jordan Times in an interview that was conducted in Copenhagen earlier this week.

On June 3, Amman Prosecutor Hassan Abdullat subpoenaed Westergaard and 20 other Danish journalists and editors involved in the republication of the 12 controversial images that were originally published in Denmark's Jyllands-Posten in September 2005.

The decision came in response to a lawsuit filed in April by a coalition of media outlets, professional syndicates and political parties.

The prosecutor's move was based on articles in the Jordanian penal code and the country's Press and Publication Law.

Westergaard said he had learnt that he had been subpoenaed by the Amman prosecutor, but that he had not been officially notified of the subpoena.

Asked about the rationale behind the pictures, the 73-year-old artist said, "I made the cartoons to highlight that there are some terrorists who misuse Islam and they take it as their spiritual ammunition."

"I wanted to depict the terrorists as if they were taking the Prophet Mohammed as a hostage. I have no problems with Islam but with the terrorists."

Westergaard described himself as an atheist and stressed his respect for Islam and all religions, but refused to apologize.

"I respect Islam and its followers and I have nothing against it. However, I will not apologize. We have freedom of the press and religion in Denmark," he said....

At least for now.

“The world Salafists’ ultimate wish is to see the two infidel superpowers at odds with each other again; and that is happening”

Walid Phares, a Senior Fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a visiting scholar with the European Foundation for Democracy, and the author of The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad, offers a unique and much-needed perspective on the war between Russia and Georgia, and its larger implication. "South Ossetia: The perfect wrong war," in The American Thinker, August 14:

The Kosovo factor

Since 1999, the outcome of the Western campaign in Kosovo brought about a parallel status quo to the one established in South Ossetia and in Abkhasia. In short, NATO had created an autonomous area for the ethnic Albanians inside a sovereign country, Serbia; while Russia and the CIS have insured autonomous status for South Ossetians and Abkhasians inside another sovereign state, Georgia.

From a Russian perspective the two cases were linked and would eventually be resolved via negotiations. From a Western perspective Kosovo was "unique" and was to be resolved differently, that is granted independence unilaterally. But as long as Russian-American relations especially under Presidents Bush and Putin were warm, the de facto enclaves in Kosovo and Ossetia lived in stability.

The challenge began when during winter 2008, the US and the European Union decided to unleash Kosovo's separation despite Serbia's opposition. In international jurisprudence, breaking away entities need validation by the country the partition is going to affect. In Canada for example, Quebec would always need the other provinces to agree on separation. Agreement of "both sides" is usually sought.

But in the case of Kosovo, for international political motivations, including a gesture to please the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in the midst of a campaign to win hearts and minds, Washington and Brussels went ahead swiftly and endorsed Pristina's declaration of separation from Belgrade. The Western powers argued that going back to Serbia was out of question for the Kosovars; therefore going forward was the only option, despite Serbian claims inside the province.

The underlying geopolitical reasoning was that no force including the Russians would be able to oppose the move. "They are too far" to intervene, assumed the diplomats. But Moscow made its intentions known the day of Kosovo's declaration of independence.

The Russian statement was poorly covered in the international media. The release said the Russian Federation will recognize the efforts by South Ossetia and Abkhazia to secede from Georgia. It was a clear eye for an eye declaration, but it went unnoticed in the West. In an article titled "Be Wise on Kosovo," published on December 13, 2007 in the American Thinker, I warned that a chain reaction may begin elsewhere. The confrontations taking place today in the Caucasus were triggered strategically in the Balkans few months before. Russia was ignored on the shores of the Mediterranean, it responded on the shores of the Black sea. To Moscow, Georgia's allies are also "too far" when the enclaves would move to separation.

[...]

But meanwhile, a growing number of observers in the West are connecting the dots from the South Ossetia drama to much wider and strategic horizons. How to look at the Caucasus crisis is the question. Do we want to bring back the Cold war and the Russo-Western struggle? Do we want to drop the War on Terror and swim back to the pre 1990s years? Or do we want to win the global confrontation with the forthcoming Jihadi Caliphate?

At the end of the day, it is a question of choices, and mostly the democracies' choice.

[...]

But for Russia to actively arm Iran and Syria, this is a feature of cold war, inconsistent with present the international consensus against Terrorism. The Tehran-Damascus "axis" is in an active campaign to support Jihadi terror forces in the region and armed groups involved in the killing of US and Coalition personnel. It would be the equivalent of having the US arming and providing technology to Wahabi Chechen Terrorists operating against Russian cities and military. Hence, while Americans are as anti-terrorist as Russia is when it comes to the al-Qaeda Salafi threat, Russians are still feeding anti-Western forces in the Middle East. Hence there is a difference between Russian discomfort with NATO growth around the CIS and US concerns about Russia's protection of Iranian-Syrian efforts in the region. Moscow is backing a party at war with the US Coalition while Americans aren't assisting parties at War with Russia.

So, if that is the case, what is the best strategic course of action that the US and NATO must follow to address this problem? Some advise Washington to press the encirclement of the Russian Federation and put pressure on its few allies in the Balkans, thinking that this would weaken the Kremlin resolve to fight back. I disagree. If Russia's leadership has moved to counter US efforts in the Middle East the right response is not to escalate against the Russians in Kosovo and along their borders, including in Ossetia. For by pursuing such policy -- while the US and its allies are engaged in massive confrontations against the Salafist movements and the Khomeinist power -- the West will find itself over stretched on two world fronts, one of them at least is unnecessary: Russia.

To be crude: Liberal democracies have no interest in over-pressuring Russia in the course of strategic gaming while they are at full war with the Global Jihadists. Such a move will push the Russians away from converging with the West against the "common enemy." Instead of consolidating a Western-Russian entente against both Salafists and Khomeinists, Russia and the US are confronting the Wahabis separately and in most cases unsuccessfully while the Russians have befriended the Khomeinists who are harassing the Americans. The Russo-American competition is not helping either side, but one other side does win: the Global Jihadists.

Jihadi Dual agenda

The world Salafists' ultimate wish is to see the two infidel superpowers at odds with each other again; and that is happening. The combat-Jihadists want bloodshed both in Moscow and in Washington now and in the future. The long-term Wahabis likes the idea of an American demobilization against Jihadism and a re-mobilization against Russia. Ending the War on Terror and reigniting the Cold war is the ultimate fantasy of the oil producing fundamentalist powers.

On the other hand, the Iranian regime and its allies in Syria and Lebanon have clearly opted for privileged strategic relations with Russia as a way to counterbalance the US and its allies in the region. The flow of petro cash from Iranian oil revenues can ensure a good business and military relationship with Moscow. Some in the latter city -- still recalling Cold War feelings -- like the idea of client states (or so they think) counterbalancing American presence in the Middle East.

In the final analysis, the two main trees of Jihadism are playing West against East to ensure the weakening and ultimately the collapse of their grand foes. The Wahabis wants to bring Russia down via the establishment of several Wahabi emirates in its midst --from Chechnya to Central Asia. And the Khomeinists want the US out of the region so that they can establish their own dominance instead.

Moscow and Washington (and Brussels as well) should not be manipulated by oil fundamentalist powers against each other. The Cold War should not be brought back at the expense of winning the conflict against Jihadi Terrorism. In clear terms: no wars should be waged outside the international campaign against the terrorists, should it be an ethnic or economic one. These, including the current Caucasus conflict, are wrong wars as they would profit the global Jihadi forces, both political and military....

Read it all.

Johann Hari: “There is now a pincer movement trying to silence critical discussion of Islam”

I have long maintained that the defense of the West against the global jihad is not a Left/Right issue -- but most of the Left has made common cause with the jihadists. Johann Hari has not. His article here is flawed, but fundamentally right.

"We need to stop being such cowards about Islam," by Johann Hari for The Independent, August 14 (thanks to all who sent this in):

{...] Muslims are secure enough to deal with some tough questions. It is condescending to treat Muslims like excitable children who cannot cope with the probing, mocking treatment we hand out to Christianity, Judaism and Buddhism. It is perfectly consistent to protect Muslims from bigotry while challenging the bigotries and absurdities within their holy texts.

There is now a pincer movement trying to silence critical discussion of Islam. To one side, fanatics threaten to kill you; to the other, critics call you "Islamophobic". But consistent atheism is not racism. On the contrary: it treats all people as mature adults who can cope with rational questions. When we pulp books out of fear of fundamentalism, we are decapitating the most precious freedom we have.

Read it all.

Michelle Malkin killed the Arkansas Democratic Party Chairman

Michelle Malkin notes that unhinged Leftists are blaming her "hate" for the murder of the Arkansas Democratic Party chairman, and that this isn't the first time they have done this sort of thing.

What does this have to do with jihad? Everything. Just as Leftists consistently try to portray conservatives as purveying "hate," so also do jihadists and their allies insist that any honest discussion of the jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism is "hateful." The advocates of the "Fairness Doctrine," which would restore the hegemony of the politically correct Left over the airwaves, are numerous. And so also are the Islamic advocates of restrictions on free speech in order to combat the chimera of "Islamophobia."

Michelle Malkin didn't kill the Arkansas Democratic Party Chairman any more than I am responsible for any actual attacks on innocent Muslims in the U.S. -- that is, aside from the ones CAIR trumps up. But if Americans aren't careful -- and most are fairly heedless of this at this point -- the Left and the jihadists will use these false charges to destroy the First Amendment and to make it impossible to speak honestly or fully about the jihad threat precisely at the time when it threatens us the most.

Jihadi spokesman makes clear the purpose of “cease-fires” with infidels

Deja vu? "Jihad: Gaza ceasefire fragile and it will end at any time," from China View, August 14:

GAZA, Aug. 14 (Xinhua) -- Islamic Jihad movement's armed wing on Thursday said the ceasefire with Israel in Gaza Strip was "fragile and was expected to end at any time."

"We are using the lull to prepare fighters for the coming phase of confrontation," a spokesman for al-Quds Brigades, the Islamic Jihad's armed wing, said.

In one short, honest sentence, a simple jihadi declares what all cease-fires and truces are in essence: time for the weakened jihadis to regroup and prepare "for the coming phase of confrontation" (which, of course, short of world domination, is perpetual, e.g., 'Umdat al-Salik, 9.16).

Another provocateur

We have seen in the past how CAIR has made use of comments left here -- with their eagle-eyed monitors picking up on a particularly incendiary one that was only up for about an hour before I saw it and took it down. We've also had reason to believe that comments have been planted here so that jihadists, their allies, and their dupes can make use of them.

In any case, another provocateur, "Globalist," has been commenting here and there over the last few days, advocating positions we have consistently opposed -- that "Mohammedans" should be "rounded up" -- and railing about "Satanic Arabs" and the choice between "Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour or the evil pagan Arab deity."

He was probably expecting, given the common caricature of Jihad Watch, to find lusty agreement from regular commenters here. He didn't. And now he is gone. But in any case, I thought I'd take the opportunity to remind you to be careful in what you say here, and how you say it. Please remember that you are not in your living room having a private discussion. Comments continue to be unmoderated, but please do not hand jihadists ammunition in what you say, and remember that genocidal, abusive, and racist comments are unwelcome here and will be removed when we see them.

“Western countries should not support (Israel) so much. The life of this regime has come to an end”

But the nuclear program is absolutely, positively, strictly "peaceful," mind you. "Ahmadinejad: West should not support Israel," from Reuters, August 13:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad launched a fresh verbal attack on Israel on Wednesday on the eve of a visit to Israel's close ally Turkey, saying Western countries should not support the Jewish state.

The comments highlight the difficult path which Turkey, a member of NATO, must follow during the two-day visit which reflects its desire to remain on good terms with its neighbor and secure future energy needs.

"Western countries should not support them (Israel) so much. The life of this regime has come to an end," Ahmadinejad said in comments translated into Turkish in a live interview broadcast by Turkey's NTV and CNN Turk channels.

"Our position is clear on this issue. A referendum should take place in Palestine. If they withdraw from invaded lands it would be a good step," he said.

Turkish President Abdullah Gul and Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan have come under criticism at home and abroad for inviting Ahmadinejad.

Ankara has said his visit was necessary given a standoff between Iran and the West over Tehran's disputed nuclear enrichment program, but analysts said the visit was more about ensuring centuries-old ties during a period of global tensions.

One might also suggest a certain shared affinity for Islamic government, in the aftermath of a close call for Erdogan's party.

Ahmadinejad said the talks on Iran's nuclear program were on a "good path."

A "good path" where the Iranian regime is concerned. Not anyone else.

Saudi man cuts daughter’s tongue, burns her to death

Her crime? Converting to Christianity. "Saudi man kills daughter for converting to Christianity," by Mariam Al Hakeem for Zawya, August 13:

Riyadh: A Saudi man working with the Commission for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice recently killed his daughter for converting to Christianity.

According to sources close to the victim, the religious police member had cut the tongue of the girl and burned her to death following a heated debate on religion.

The death of the girl sent shockwaves and websites where the victim used to write with various nick names have allocated special space to mourn her, while some others closed temporarily in protest.

According to the Saudi Al Ukhdoud news website, the victim wrote an article on the blog of which she was a member under the nickname "Rania" a few days before her murder.

"She wrote that her life became an ordeal after her family members grew suspicious about her after a religious discussion with them.

She said that her brother found some Christian articles written by her as well as a cross sign on her computer screen. Since then he started to insult her and blamed the internet for pushing her to change her religion.

The "Free Copts" website published a message which it received from a friend of the victim, revealing that the killer is in police custody and that he is being investigated for an honour related crime.

Saudi religious scholars have frequently warned against the dangers of Christian internet websites and satellite TV channels which attract Muslim youngsters to change their religion.

They decreed that watching these channels or browsing these websites which call for conversion to Christianity by various means is against the teachings of Islam.

True that. The Islamic prophet did decree, "Whoever leaves his religion, kill him."

Nigeria: Muslim mob kills 50-year-old man for “blasphemy”

Apparently what this poor man said about Muhammad is too terrible to repeat, but in any case, here is a story about the far end of Sharia accommodation -- this is the kind of thing to which it ultimately leads, unless a line is drawn somewhere.

What's that? It's unthinkable that Sharia blasphemy laws could ever come to the United States, or that sufficient numbers of Muslims in America would ever try to enforce those laws themselves? All right. But doesn't special accommodation given to Muslim practices award a special status to Sharia, and isn't Sharia as much about the death penalty for blasphemy as it is about washing your feet before prayers? How will the line be automatically drawn, if no one is willing to draw it?

"Nigeria: Mob Kills 50-Year-Old Man for 'Blasphemy,'" by Yusha'u A. Ibrahim in the Daily Trust (Abuja) via AllAfrica.com, August 11 (thanks to James):

A 50-year-old Muslim man, who allegedly made a blasphemous statement against Prophet Muhammad, was beaten to death in Kano on Saturday.

The man was killed at Sheka Aci Lafiya quarters when some angry Muslim youths besieged his house and beat him to a state of coma.

He died shortly after a team of police and Hisbah officials rescued him from the mob, the police said. The man died as he was being rushed to the Murtala Muhammad Specialist Hospital.

Witnesses told Daily Trust that the man, though a Muslim, made a statement residents considered as blasphemous against the Holy Prophet after his relatives denied him his share of the estate left by their deceased father.

He was beaten and left unconscious before the police intervened and dispersed the crowd.

But for the quick intervention of the police and Hisbah officials, a full-scale crisis would have erupted, residents said.

A witness said, "Many youths carrying various types of dangerous weapons have started grouping themselves for further action over the issue before the police and Hisbah men dispersed them."

He said the victim made the alleged blasphemous statement Friday night and repeated same on Saturday morning.

When the news spread to the neighborhood about the man's statement, a group of youths mobilized and attacked him.

A witness, Ali Muhammad, told our correspondent that the man was beaten with sticks and other local weapons and was left "in the pool of his own blood."...

Lebanon: bus blast kills 18

Just another jihadi bus bombing from "Dar al-Salam." "18 dead in Lebanon bomb blast," from the Associated Press, August 13:

A bomb has exploded near a bus carrying civilians and members of the military in the northern city of Tripoli, killing 18 people and wounding 46 others.

Officials say the dead included 10 off-duty soldiers.

The officials said the bomb was planted on the side of a road and went off when the bus passed by, causing the casualties. They said the explosion happened as the streets were filled with people heading to work, which contributed to the many injuries.[...]

There was no immediate word on who was behind the explosion.

Tripoli is Lebanon's second-largest city with a mostly Sunni Muslim population.

It has witnessed sectarian clashes between Sunni fighters and followers of the Alawite sect, an offshoot Shiite sect, in the past weeks that killed and wounded dozens of people.

The city is also close to the Palestinian refugee camp of Nahr el-Bared, which experienced deadly clashes last year between Lebanese troops and members of the al Qaida -inspired Fatah Islam group that left hundreds dead before the militants were defeated.

Fatah Islam group has claimed responsibility for a bomb blast that killed a soldier in Abdeh near Tripoli on May 31.

U.N. racism conference’s ulterior agenda: destruction of the freedom of speech

It is good to see this column about the Durban II conference in the San Francisco Chronicle. And note that the incident he recounts from the UN Human Rights Council was explained in full right here at Jihad Watch by the NGO representative whose report on human rights abuses in the Islamic world touched off the controversy, David Littman. "U.N. racism conference: The ulterior agenda," by Joel Brinkley in the San Francisco Chronicle, August 10 (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

[...] The conference's planning chairman invited Iran to join his inner circle - the "friends of the chair" - to add Iranian wisdom to the topics at hand: preventing racism and promoting human rights. Why Iran? Well, the answer will almost certainly leave you asking: What were they thinking?

The planning committee chairman is none other than Libya. The rapporteur ... Cuba. And the new vice chair, Iran. Several Western states are unranked members. But the leaders and their allies are running roughshod over everyone else. These countries have a clear agenda: to batter Israel and the United States and ram through proclamations decrying insults to Islam.

The European Union proposed to discuss freedom of expression. Speaking for the leadership, Egypt declared that freedom of expression is "political in nature and not grounded in objectivity." As a result, discussion of the subject is "not acceptable." The EU gave up.

In Cairo this summer, the Arab League began work on what it calls a "guidebook" on permissible "media terminology for Arab causes" to replace "false and defamed terms" - like, perhaps, freedom of expression?

Many Arab states, including Egypt, say they favor freedom of expression - except when it infringes on government prerogatives or Islamic doctrine or any other subject the government doesn't want to talk about. I have firsthand knowledge of that.

Working in Egypt in June, I visited Burullus, a small town on the northern coast. After interviewing a few people about recent riots over a price increase for bread, I set out to interview people in food stores. We stopped at one butcher shop and asked to speak to the owner. He looked over my shoulder, out to the street, then simply shook his head and turned away.

Heading back to the car, we spotted an Egyptian secret police officer - they are unmistakable - calling in our license plate number over a radio. Moments later, my translator got a phone call from a local friend. The police had issued an arrest warrant - for trying to talk to the butcher.

My driver turned off the road and hid on the beach behind some fishing boats. After awhile we took an eastern road, not the highway south to Cairo. We escaped. So much for freedom of expression in Egypt.

The United Nations' much-maligned Human Rights Council is organizing Durban II, so it's small wonder that the planning is proceeding as it has. In a recent council session, a speaker asked to bring up a particularly egregious human rights problem: genital mutilation of women. Egypt objected mightily, demanding: "We will not discuss issues related to Shariah law; this will not happen."

He thundered on, joined by a colleague from Pakistan, until the item was dropped.

Shariah, of course, is canonical law based on the teachings of the Quran and the traditions of Muhammad. I wasn't aware that it advocated genital mutilation....

“The Muslim religion is not on trial here, ladies and gentlemen”

So said Justice Megan Latham in the New South Wales Supreme Court. Why did it need to be said? Might some jurors have gotten the crazy idea from the contents of "Provisions on the Rules of Jihad - Short Judicial rulings and organisational instructions for fighters and Mujahideen against infidels" that there might be mainstream teachings in Islam that call for warfare against and the subjugation of infidels? And that in turn might start them wondering why the Islamic community in New South Wales is doing nothing to combat such teachings or call for their reform. And then that might start them wondering why the Australian government is doing next to nothing about the proliferation of such teachings.

Can't have all that. Better to advise the jurors that, contrary to what is as plain as the nose on their face, this has nothing to do with Islam.

"Islam not on trial, jury told," from The Australian, August 11 (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

A JUDGE has told a jury that the Muslim religion is not on trial, after a man pleaded not guilty to terrorism charges.

Bilal Saadallah Khazaal today pleaded not guilty to making a document connected with assistance in a terrorist act knowing of that connection, between September 20 and September 23, 2003 in Sydney.

The document is titled Provisions on the Rules of Jihad - Short Judicial rulings and organisational instructions for fighters and Mujahideen against infidels.

He also has pleaded not guilty to attempting to urge the commission by others of a terrorist offence, in Sydney and elsewhere in the world.

A jury of seven men and five women was empanelled at the start of Mr Khazaal's trial in the New South Wales Supreme Court today.

Justice Megan Latham told the jury: "The Muslim religion is not on trial here, ladies and gentlemen"....