July 2, 2008
The Man Who Would Reform Islam
Every now and then we need reminding that there are Muslims who see the need to truly reform their faith. Dr Zuhdi Jasser of Phoenix Arizona is one such man. Dr Jasser is the son of Syrian immigrants, and his medical specialty is internal medicine and nuclear cardiology. He served as a Lieutenant Commander in the United States Navy, receiving an Honorable Discharge 1999. In March of 2003 he founded the American Islamic Forum for Democracy.
Dr Jasser fully supports the U.S. Constitution and Western concepts of liberty. He is opposed to sharia law. Unlike most moderates who say that they are against violence but do not see the need for an Islamic reformation, Dr. Jasser clearly sees that Islam is at a crossroads.
Here is Dr. Jasser being interviewed by Pat McMahon, host of "The Pat McMahon Show" on AZ-TV on Wed. June 25, 2008
Part I
And here is Part II
Good profile of Dr Jasser and his AIFD in this news report
If you're still not sure about AIFD read this interview of Dr Jasser by Katheryn Jean Lopez of National Review.
Free Muslims Coalition
Another strong reform-minded organization is the href="http://www.freemuslims.org/">Free Muslims Coalition. From their mission statement
The Free Muslims Coalition is a nonprofit organization made up of American Muslims and Arabs of all backgrounds who feel that religious violence and terrorism have not been fully rejected by the Muslim community in the post 9-11 era.The Free Muslims was created to eliminate broad base support for Islamic extremism and terrorism and to strengthen secular democratic institutions in the Middle East and the Muslim World by supporting Islamic reformation efforts.
The Free Muslims promotes a modern secular interpretation of Islam which is peace-loving, democracy-loving and compatible with other faiths and beliefs. The Free Muslims' efforts are unique; it is the only mainstream American-Muslim organization willing to attack extremism and terrorism unambiguously. . Unfortunately most other Muslim leaders believe that in terrorist organizations, the end justifies the means.
Their founder, Kamal Nawash, had a rough start in life but all that changed when his parents came to America. Best of all, Nawash appreciates what this country has to offer.
Kamal Nawash began life as a Palestinian refugee. One of six children born in Bethlehem, Kamal was nine years old when his family arrived in New Orleans in 1979.Upon completing his education in 1997, he became the Legal Director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), Today Kamal is a successful attorney with degrees in business and law and international legal studies. An active member in his community, as well as in his voting district, Kamal ran as a Republican candidate for Virginia State Senate in 2003.
After 9-11 Kamal was dismayed to see the nearly mute reaction of American Muslims to the tragedy waged by Islamic extremists. As time progressed and President Bush launched the War on Terrorism, American Muslims did very little to show their support for the President's initiative and often actually criticized his efforts to fight Islamic terror. Kamal saw the need for Muslims to speak out against terror and he founded the Free Muslims Coalition.
International Quranic Center
On their advisory board is is Exiled Egyptian cleric Sheikh Dr. Ahmed Subhy Mansour. Sheikh Dr Mansour has his own organization, the International Quranic Center. A true reformer, his studies have led him to form his own branch of Islam which is neither Sunni nor Shia, which he calls Quranist. From their mission statement
The IQC is committed to spreading a vision of Islam that is true to the letter and spirit of the Quran and that focuses on the consistency between the word of God and democracy and human rights. Our goals are to:
- To advocate peaceful reform in the Muslim world based on democracy and human rights and to offer practical strategies for such change;
- To mobilize on the web and convene in person open-minded scholars of the Quran to share research demonstrating the consistency of Islam with democracy;
- To communicate the value of ecumenical democracy to Muslims of all denominations;
- To initiate a real inter-religious dialogue among Muslims, Christians, Jews, and members of all religions who believe in creating societies based upon tolerance and justice.
- To educate Muslims in America to understand and interpret Islam as consistent with American democracy.
Irshad Manji
No discussion of Muslim reformers would be complete without Irshad Manji. Her 2004 book The Trouble with Islam Today, A Muslim's Call for Reform in Her Faith earned her the hatred of radicals and no doubt many death threats. From her website
Irshad is Director of the Moral Courage Project at New York University. It aims to develop leaders who will challenge political correctness, intellectual conformity and self-censorship. In the best spirit of liberal education, the Moral Courage Project teaches that rights come with responsibilities, that we are citizens rather than members of mere tribes, and that meaningful diversity embraces different ideas and not just identities. ...Born in 1968, Irshad is a refugee from Idi Amin's Uganda. In 1972, she and her family fled to Vancouver, where Irshad grew up attending public schools as well as the Islamic madressa. In 1990, she graduated with honors from the University of British Columbia, winning the Governor-General's medal for top academic achievement in the humanities.
From her description of the book
The Trouble with Islam Today shatters our silence. It shows Muslims how we can re-discover Islam's lost tradition of independent thinking -- known as "ijtihad" -- and re-discover it precisely to update Islamic practices for the 21st century. The opportunity to update is especially available to Muslims in the West, because it's there that we enjoy precious freedoms to think, express, challenge and be challenged without fear of state reprisal. In that sense, the Muslim reformation begins in the West.It doesn't, however, end there. Not by a long shot. People throughout the Islamic world need to know of their God-given right to think for themselves. So The Trouble with Islam Today outlines a global campaign to promote pluralistic and progressive approaches to Islam. I call this non-military campaign "Operation Ijtihad." In turn, the West's support of this campaign will fortify national security, making Operation Ijtihad a priority for all of us who wish to live fatwa-free lives.
Muslims Agrainst Sharia: Islamic Reform Movement
Lastly, the other day I ran across a group called Muslims Agrainst Sharia: Islamic Reform Movement. In checking out the bona fides of this organization I found a link on their website to an interview of their president, Khalim Massoud, by Jamie Glazov on FrontPage Magazine. It's a very positive interview, and given that the founder and editor of FrontPage Magazine is none other than David Horowitz, we can add this group to our list of genuine reform-minded Muslims.
In the interview Massoud lists the goals of his organization as being
- To educate Muslims about dangers presented by Islamic religious texts and why Islam must be reformed.
- To educate non-Muslims about the differences between moderate Muslims and Islamists (a.k.a. Islamic Religious Fanatics, Radical Muslims, Muslim Fundamentalists, Islamic Extremists or Islamofascists).
- To educate both Muslims and non-Muslims alike that Moderate Muslims are also targets of Islamic Terror.
We need groups and individuals like these to help us win the War on Jihadism. Bombs and bullets, propaganda and economic aid are not enough. Diplomacy is a means to and end, but not an end in itself. Islam must be reformed, and we need to support and encourage reform-minded Muslims.
Posted by Tom at 9:00 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
November 28, 2007
Jihadi Terminology
This is only a list of terms that are useful in understanding the jihadist threat. It is not meant to be a comprehensive list of Islamic terminology. Terms will be added periodically. If readers have other jihadist terms they think should be listed, or have alternate definitions, please be so kind as to leave them in the comments.
Most of these definitions are taken from Walid Phares' The War of Ideas and/or Future Jihad. All quotes are from one of these works. Where I have gone elsewhere for additional information, you'll find a link. Note that because there is no single accepted system for transliteration, spellings vary.
al harb ala al islam - "War on Islam". This is the slogan of the Salafists. To them, all of history since Muhammed is seen as a war of Muslims versus everyone else, and that Islam is constantly under seige as it is being attacked by people of other faiths. This slogan is a primary theme in jihadist propaganda.
Dar el harb - "house of war"; that part of the world not ruled by Muslims. Ideologically it is best translated as "zones of the enemies", with "enemies" being defined not only as infidels, but as anyone who does not subscribe to the jihadi version of Islam.
Dar el Islam - "House of Islam". Not simply that part of the world where Muslims live or are in the majority, but "it is the the Islamic state rules or where the jihadists are struggling for it."
Dhimmi - "people under custody". Historically, the harshness of dhimmi status has varied considerably, but it is accurate to say that the milder forms were only practiced where the Muslim authorities did not have the power to impliment the harsher versions. Dhimmis must comply with the "Omarian Conditions", which include paying the Jizya (tax, or penalty), dressing differently, wear signs on their clothing, and are barred from most public offices. Jihadists have made it clear that they will impose dhimmi status on Christians and Jews in areas that come under their control.
Deobandi - Globalsecurity: Started in Deoband, a city in northern India, in the 1860s and 70s as a reaction to British colonial rule. Deobandis believe "that the reason Islamic societies have fallen behind the West in all spheres of endeavor is because they have been seduced by the amoral and material accoutrements of Westernization, and have deviated from the original pristine teachings of the Prophet." "The Deobandi interpretation of Islamic teachings is widely practiced in Pakistan." Wikipedia: "a Sunni Islamic revivalist movement." "Deobandi purport to be characterised by a strict adherence to the Sunnah and an emphasis on Sharia". Deobandism has also spread to the UK. The Taliban practice Deobandi Islam.
Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood or Brothers) - one of the three branches of the jihad, the other two being the Wahabbis and the Khumeinists. Founded in Egypt in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna. The Brotherhood arose out of urban areas, and is a true "grass roots organization, having no state sponsor. It's objective is the resurrection of the caliphate and world domination. The method it uses to achive this is the infiltration of societies in the Middle East in an attempt to take over key institutions, such as the military, press, industry, and government. It will form outright terrorist organization to achieve regional goals, Hamas and Islamic Jihad being the primary examples.
Istishaad - usually translated as "martyrdom". "Istishaad includes dying for one's belief, but it also includes taking other people's lives. Dying for religion is martyrdom; killing as well as being killed is the jihadi concept. The philosophical difference is enormous."
Jihad - "constant effort on behalf of Allah" to spread the faith. "Historically, jihad was a state tool for war mobilization under Arab and Ottoman caliphates and various Muslim dynasties." Although "spiritual jihad" is "theoretically and philisophically possible, jihad throughout history was a state public policy on war and peace, and it was sanctioned by religious edicts." The three main branches of the jihad today are the Wahabbis, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Khumeinists.
Khilafa - "caliphate" This is one of the three main objectives of the modern-day jihadists.
Khumeinist/Khomeinist - the ideology of the Shiite jihadists as dictated by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Not a nationalist ideology but a theocratic one, the objective of the Khumeinists is to establish a regional Imamate uniting all Shiites centered in Iran. They will also establish terrorist organizations to achieve regional goals, with Hezbollah being the main example. Syria, although ruled by a Ba'athist party, is increasingly allied with Iran, partially because the Alawite sect, a branch of Shia Islam, controls their Ba'athist party.
Kuffar/Kafir/Kufr/kafir - kuffar/kufr = infidels, kufr = infidelism, kafir = infidel. The root is kufr, which doesn't have an exact translation. An approximation would be "agression against the divine", or "sinning against Allah". From a Western philosophical perspective it relates to "the 'other'". The term can also simply mean Muslims who are not "pure" enough, from the perspective of the jihadists. The mechanism for demonizing the "other" is the takfir.
Murtad Answers.com: "A person born of Muslim parents that rejects Islam is called a "murtad fitri" (natural apostate), and a person that converted to Islam and later rejects the religion is called a "murtad milli" (apostate from the community)."
Qadiya to Qadiya - "cause to cause", as in "The jihadist media move from qadiya to qadiya to keep their viewers constantly inflamed and angry at their enemies." Each qadiya is a "hot button issue" designed to inflame viewers. It adds up to a "series of carefully staged psychological operations", the result of which is to manipulate public opinion. It is important to understand, then, that the "outrage" of Muslims is not the "natural relations people in the West imagined."
al Riddah/ridda - "reconversion" of Muslims to back another faith. Wikipedia: "the rejection of Islam in word or deed by a person who has been a Muslim." Ridda is the process, a murtad is the person.
Salaf - "return to the path of the predecessors". Started by Ibn Taymiya (1263 -1328). Taymiya saw the Abbasid dynasty collapse in the wake of invasion by the Crusaders and later the sack of Bagdad by Mongol invaders in 1258. He reasoned these events occured because Allah was unhappy with Muslims. To remedy the situation, he "developed the doctrines of jihadtakfirjihadi and SalafiSalafi is someone who has adopted this version of Islam. The two main jihadist branches of Salafist Islam are the Wahabbis and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Takfir - "rendering (Muslim) opponents infidels", the purpose of which is to purify Islam against those who, in this view, have corrupted it. A Takfiri is someone who has adopted this version of Islam.
Tahrir - "liberation" of Muslim lands from non-Muslim rulers. This is one of the three main objectives of the modern-day jihadists.
TaqiyyaWikipedia: "Within Shi'ite Islamic tradition,[1] the concept of Taqiyya (التقية - 'fear, guard against')[2] refers to a controversial dispensation allowing believers to conceal their faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion.[3]
The word "al-Taqiyya" literally means: "Concealing or disguising one's beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of imminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury." A one-word translation would be "Dissimulation."
More on taqiyya at Jihad Watch
Tawheed - "unification" of all Muslims within common borders under one ruler. Existing national boundaries are to be dismantled. This is one of the three main objectives of the modern-day jihadists.
Tikbar - world infidel powers, or countries ruled by infidels.
Wahhabism/wahabism - started by Mohammed Abdel Wahab/Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab (1703–1792). Along with the Muslim Brotherhood, it is one of two main branches of Salafist Islam.
Posted by Tom at 8:00 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
November 27, 2007
Some Questions for Muslim Schools
The Islamic Saudi Acadamy, located in the Virginia suburbs of Washington DC, should be closed simply because it is operated and funded by the Wahabist government of Saudi Arabia, which is a totalitarian nightmare. But what about Muslim schools where we cannot find a direct link to a jihadist government or organization? How do we determine if the school has a jihadist or Islamist curriculum, or whether it is simply a religious school that happens to be Islamic?
M. Zuhdi Jasser, a Muslim American and former Lieutenant Commander in the United States Navy, answers these questions in an article posted at Family Security Matters. Mr. Jasser is the founder and Chairman of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, a Phoenix based organization. That Family Security Matters is a pretty conservative outfit vouches for the AIFD by itself, but please visit his website if you'd like to be reassured. These days, it's understandable.
In the article, Mr. Jasser pulls no punches in his description of the Saudis, who's "Wahabism is arguably the primary cancer cell in global militant Islamist ideology." But we shouldn't just stop with the Islamic Saudi Academy, he says, but rather we should use this as a "first step" in bringing accountability to other Islamic schools in the U.S. It's not a small issue, either, for his article cites a 2004 National Center for Education Statistics study which determined that there were 182 Islamic private schools in the United States. This may seem a small number, but these schools can graduate a lot of students. History shows that determined minorites can make a disproportionate impace.
Harboring no illusions, he warns that
The (Islamist) schools around the country are all relatively new and wasting no time in creating a generation of students which are more likely than not to be defenders of Islamism over anti-Islamist systems based in universal liberty. While only a minority of Muslims send their children to these schools, they are a growing and significant minority countered only by a silent majority of Muslims.
What we need to do is "discuss in a comprehensive public manner, the context in which Islamic parochial schools teach Islamic history." This means examining their curriculum. Mr. Jasser has a series of questions that we need answered by Islamic schools:
1. How does the school teach American history and the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights? What is taught about the struggle of our founding fathers against theocracy? Is European Enlightenment ideology taught? Are students encouraged to learn from non-Muslim philosophers especially those who influenced our founding fathers and taught liberty and freedom?2. Are students taught that sharia is only personal or that it also specifically guides governmental law? Does their answer change whether Muslims are a minority or a majority?
3. Do they view non-Islamic private and public schools as part of a culture of ‘immorality’ and decadence since they are not Islamicized or can non-Islamic schools be morally and equally virtuous?
4. Do they teach their children that ‘being American’ and being ‘free’ is about moral corruption or is being American and free about loving the nation in which they live and sharing equal status before the law regardless of faith tradition?
5. Is complete religious freedom a central part of faith and the practice of religion? In the Islamic school, how are children treated who refuse to participate in school faith practices?
6. Are the children taught Muslim exclusivism with regards to the attainment of paradise in the Hereafter? From that, are the children also taught that government and public institutions must thus be ‘Islamic’ in order for the community as a whole to be able to enter the gates of Heaven?
7. How are student discussions, debate, and intellectual discourses approached regarding American domestic and foreign policy? Do the teachers have a political agenda? Does that agenda demonstrate a dichotomy between Islamist interests and American interests?
8. Is the historical period of Muslim rule of Spain (Andalusia) taught in the context of the history of the world during the Middle Ages or is it looked upon as superior to current day American ideology even after the advances of the Enlightenment?
9. Is the pledge of allegiance administered every day at the beginning of the school day?
Mr. Jasser gets it. He is a true reformer, not one of those "moderates" we are told about who end up holding views antithetical to Western ideas about liberty.
I've blogged about Muslim reformers before, and how we need to support them. Mr Jasser and others like him should be invited to the White House and Congress should invite them to testify. While I can't prove neither has happened, I rather doubt it.
We are in a worldwide war against the forces of jihadism. While part of it will be fought on the battlefield by military forces, in the final analysis it is a War of Ideas. The way you win a War of Ideas is to prevent older believers from passing their ideas into the next generation. I'm going to post a lot more on this shortly, but an obvious first step is to scrutinize Islamic schools, and to do so boldly but fairly. Those that pass muster are more than welcome to particulate fully in our great nation, but those that don't must change or be sent packing.
Posted by Tom at 7:58 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
October 20, 2007
Why We Fight
Via StrategyPage, two instructional videos on why it's ok to beat your wife if you are a Muslim.
Any questions?
Posted by Tom at 9:31 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
October 9, 2007
Book Review - Infidel
Few people on this planet have criticized the way Islam is practiced as harshly as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and few can speak with her authority. She is a hero to conservatives, hated intensely by mamy or most Muslims, and not embraced by enough on the left.
Infidel is her autobiography, published just earlier this year. In 353 pages she tells her story, and is not at all shy about discussing "intimate" matters. Indeed, these "intimate matters" are some of the most important and revealing parts of her book.
Hirsi Ali does not directly discuss political matters other than those that relate to Islam in her book. She doesn't get into whether we should have invaded Iraq, and does not make clear whether she would be a social liberal or conservative. She never mentions Israel, nor does she give her opinion on economic affairs. She is a single-issue person, and that issue is Islam. She very much belives that Islam must undergo a fundamental reform, and has no patience with those who say that "moderate Muslims" are the answer. Having seen and experienced the brutal way in which women are treated in most of the Muslim world, she has made their plight central to her cause.
Infidel is at once moving and informative. It is an easy yet intense read. It certainly falls into the "you can't put it down" category. Despite all that she has been through, this is not an "angry" book, as Because They Hate arguably was.
Born in Somalia in 1969, she was brought up mostly by her mother and grandmother, he r father having been imprisoned by the dicatator Said Barre when she was five. While her mother tended towards more modern ways of doing things, grandmother was intensely traditional, and intent of maintainly the old ways. As such, she made sure that Hirsi Ali and her sister underwent "excism" (or "female circumcision") when they were young. This procedure is described in just enough detail for the reader to cringe. Essentially, with no anesthesia the inner labia and clitoris are cut off with a pair of scissors. She was then sewn shut, with just enough of an opening left for her to urinate and later for menstrual blood to escape.
To make a long story short, she and her family moved several times around the region to escape Barre's wrath, and the civil war raging against him in Somalia. Her family, lived at times in Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia and Kenya. In these places she learned English and Arabic. She also met and interacted with Christians and agnostics, mostly in Ethiopia and Kenya. As such, she was exposed to other ideas and ways of doing things. Hirsi Ali
Her father was away for much of the time, sometimes in prison but mostly just off on various adventures, all of which designed to overthrow the hated Barre. She was mostly raised by her mother and grandmother. Hirsi Ali's life family life was very hard, although she didn't really know it at the time. . She describes daily beatings by her mother, which continued almost until adulthood.
Although she was a Muslim, she was also a voracious reader, devouring all books that came her way. As it was these were mostly Western romance novels. While young she did not see the contradiction, but this would soon change.
Hirsi Ali experienced the Muslim Brotherhood firsthand while living in Kenya. She describes how they sent money and preachers, took over the local mosques, and made it their mission to change the way Islam was practiced. In large part they succeeded. Their brand of Islam is very harsh, and they convinced a lot of people that their more moderate practices were not in accordance with what the prophet wanted. Brotherhood preachers insisted on ABSOLUTE OBEDIENCE to the various parts of the Quran that justify a husband's dictatorial rule over his wife, wife beating, female circumcision, and the like. No questioning or even discussion was allowed.
The plight of women under Islam is indirectly the subject of much of the book, if only because Hirsi Ali is a woman herself, and saw and experienced many of the horrors that Islamic culture visits upon them.
Despite the presence of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, she grew up reading western romance novels, and dreamed of falling in love Western-style. She was shocked to learn of the way marriages really worked in Islam. On her marriage night, and apparengly thereafter, if the woman shows any interest in forplay she is by definition a whore. Muslim men have a fixation on female virginity that borders on the pathological. Hirsi Ali goes into some detail on this, and some of it bears repeating herSex is not only joyless but mechanical. Afterwards the man immediately goes into the bathroom afterward to wash and thus "purify" himself (the Muslim fixation on purification is nothing short of bizarre). Also, if the woman bleeds on her wedding night (and she better, or else she's a not a virgin and can be killed by her family), the man takes the stained bedsheets and shows them to his family, friends, sometimes the entire neighborhood, and all the men congratulate him.
Hirsi Ali had female friend after female friend tell her these things while she was growing up (she was ner shy about asking questions), and of course she was horrified. That is was not what she thought marriage should or would be like. Worse, she experienced it herself the night of her first marriage (she subsequently ran away from this marriage, getting it annuled some eyars later).
All marriages are arranged ones. Girls barly past puberty were married off to older men on a regular basis. She describes how girls would disappear from school, and then a few years later she would see them with one or two children in tow. In circumstances where she found beforhand that a girlfrend was about to be married, the girl was always petrified. The wedding was joyless and so was their life. As often as not they ended up hateing their husbands. They went from a carefree childhood straight into a life of misery.
Some will object that things like female circumcision, wife beating, arranged marriages and the like are not part of Islam but are cultural holdovers from old times. Hirsi Ali makes the point that while it is true that these predated Islam, today their proponents use Islam to justify them. So it's a distinction without a difference, the point being that it is Islam that needs to be reformed.
Muslim families may appear tightly nit, but it's all with a condition; that each member absolutely obey the various dictates. If anyone, especially a woman, strays, she is at the very least disowned (even by "loving" parents), or even killed by family members.
Wife beatings were (are) at epidemic levels in the Muslim world. At night it was a regular occurance to hear the husband next door (or farther away) beat his wife. Later, in Holland, Hirsi Ali discovered that it was also widespread among Muslim immigrants.
We only know Ayaan Hirsi Ali because she chose to escape from an arranged marriage. In 1992, while in Somalia, a man approached her father while they were at a local Mosque and asked to marry his eldest daugher, Hirsi Ali. After a brief conversation with him her father immediately agreed, and Hirsi Ali was given no say in the matter. Upon meeting him she took an immediate dislike to him. After a brief ceremony in Somalia, she was supposed to travel to Canada to live with him, but fled during a stopover in Germany. She made her way to Holland, and applied for refugee status.
She admits that she invented a story on her application to gain asylum, which she said was a common practice. She also changed her name somewhat, from Ayaan Hirsi Magan to Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She also changed her age, saying she was born in 1967 instead of 1969. She did this to escape detection by her Somali clan, who were trying to track her down. She has never hidden this fact, and even while running for parliament was open about these things.
While in the refugee camps in Holland she met people of other cultures, particularly Ethiopians and Bosnians. She was also exposed to the openness of Western society. As a Muslim she had been taught that if a woman simply went outside with any part of her body uncovered, men would go wild with sexual lust. She saw that this was completely false, which led her to question the basis for so many Muslim restrictions.
She also saw the Somali refugees develop a "culture of entitlement". They learned that if you cry "racism" you get what you want, Hirs Ali relates how some even bragged about this to her. Most of them sat around the camps complaining about their situation, rather than doing anything about it.
Hirsi Ali was not one to sit around, however. She got a job as translator, and eventually put herself through Leiden University, graduating with a Masters in Political Science. After this she took a position as a researcher with Wiardi Beckman Foundation, a Dutch think tank.
During this time she came to observe the effects of Dutch multiculturalism, and concluded that it's effects were harmful on both the immigrants and to Holland.
As she tells it, theDutch think they're doing good by letting Muslim minorities like the Somalis live in their own communities, maintaining their own way of life, and attend their own schools. In reality this perpetuates the complaining, the culture of entitlement, and the wife beatings. Female circumcision is widely practiced by these Muslims while in Holland. In sum, multiculturalism breads extremism because Muslim immigrants never integrate, and thus never accept Western values.
Unable to reconcile Islam with the brutal way in which it is practiced in much of the world, Hirsi Ali rejected it and became an apostate. She has not adopted any other religion, and describes herself now as an athiest. She also became quite estranged from her family, and although at times her father would warm up to her, in general ties with family and clan have been cut.
It was Dutch response the terrorist attacks of Sept 11, 2001, that shocked her into the realization that most people in the West had no idea of what Islam was about. She heard one politically correct homily after another that Islam was a "religion of peace" and that how "only a small minority were violent". Finally she had to act. She made it her mission to educate the Dutch, and eventually the world, on the realities of Islam; that whatever it was in theory, it was anything but peaceful in practice.
She was approached by the Liberal (VVD (People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy, a conservative party) Party to run for parliament. She was elected in 2002, although as it turned out they were not part of the government that was formed. She had three goals as a parlamentarian: to make Holland wake up and stop tolerating the oppression of Muslim women, two, to start a debate among Muslims about reforming their faith, and lastly for Muslim women to stop tolerating their abuse and realize that no, they don't have to accept beatings because "it's the will of Allah".
While in Holland she met Theo van Gogh (a descendent of you-know-who) and in 2004 they made Submission Part I, a 10 minute film about the plight of women under Islam. "Submission" is Arabic for "Islam". The writing on the woman's body are passages from the Quran. Here it is
A part II was never made because in November of 2004 Theo van Gogh was murdered by radical Islamist Mohammed Bouyeri in broad daylight on an Amsterdam street. Bouyere ambushed van Gogh as the latter rode to work on his bicycle, shooting him several times, nearly sawing off his head with a butcher knife, then pinning to his chest a 5 page letter. The letter was addressed to Ayaan Hirsi Ali and was a threat that she would be next.
Hirsi Ali was already under police protection for threats made against her, but at this point it went to an altogether different level. Security details took her out of the country, and for the next several months she was effectively in hiding.
In 2006 she found her Dutch citizenship revoked when the government ruled that she had lied about her age and name on her application in 1997 when coming into Holland. While true, the entire affair was as much a result of political pressure as anything.
The whole thing was very controversial, and she resigned from parliament over the issue. As it turned out, however, the government fell over the issue. In the end the decision was overturned and she was allowed to keep her citizenship. Despite this trauma, she explains in the book that in the end she holds no grudge.
In 2006 she accepted a position with the American Enterprise Institute. Her role there "will be researching the relationship between the West and Islam; women’s rights in Islam; violence against women propagated by religious and cultural arguments; and Islam in Europe." She maintains her Dutch citizenship, and the government of Holland still pays for her protection.
There was some recent controversy over this, and October 5 Holland announced that they would't pay for her protection while abroad. This forced her to go back to Holland. However, just yesterday it was revealed that she was back in the US, where her protection is now privately funded. The Dutch parliament is due to take up the issue again this week. As Anne Applebaum points out, given that many of the threats against her are from groups based in Holland, and she is essentially defending Dutch values, the least they could do is protect her from assassination.
Hirsi Ali has little patience with those who talk about "moderate" versus violent Islam. To her, the "moderates" are simply those who keep their heads down. She thinks that Islam must truely be reformed, and that Muslims are going to have to "enter into a conversation with Allah" if they are to be successful. As Islam is practiced now, a "conversation with Allah" is inconceivable. To her, this is the crux of the matter.
She also has no patience with those who insist that 90% (or whatever figure) of Muslims are peaceful and it is only a tiny minority who are a problem. Hirsi Ali is not talking about bombings or hijackings. She is talking about the horrors visited upon women in the name of Islam; beatings, honor killings, circumcision, complete denial of rights and total second class citizenship. She also has no patience for those who try and counter her criticism with attacks on Christianity. There is simply no comparison, for example, between the sex scandals rocking the Catholic Church in the US and what goes on under Islam. The former is a crime not approved of by the Bible or officialy by any Christian. On the other hand, it is quite common throughout the Muslim world for Imams to teach that men should beat their wives and kill their daughters if they do not obey ("honor killings"). In fact, one of Hirsi Ali's accomplishments as parliamentarian was make the police gather data on honor killings. They found it was more widespread than anyone had dared imagine.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is one of the bravest women on the planet, and deserves the support of all freedom loving men and women. Whether you agree with all that she says is irrelevant. At the very least, Islam must learn to accept criticism without widespread resort to threats and violence. And she is right; there is no comparison between how Islam and other religions are practiced, for the moral equivalence crowd is simply wrong. I wish Hirsi Ali would adopt Christianity, but given all that she has been through can understand why she is an athiest. It is wrong and bad to say that "Islam is evil". It is also wrong to say that there is no problem with Islam except for a few extremists. Hirsi Ali asks Muslims to speak with Allah and ask the hard questions, for their religion needs to be reformed. She asks the rest of us not to ignore a problem in our midst, as we must not be blinded by multiculturalism or political correctness. In the end, everyone should listen to her.
More
There is, of course, much out there about Hirsi Ali, but in recent months these two articles struck me as worth posting:
She's No Fundamentalist: What People Get Wrong About Ayaan Hirsi Ali by Christopher Hitchens. Here's Hitch on Western intellectuals who essentially say she ought to shut up.
In ACLU circles, we often refer to ourselves as "First Amendment absolutists." By this we mean, ironically enough, that we prefer to interpret the words of the Founders, if you insist, literally. The literal meaning in this case seems (to us) to be that Congress cannot inhibit any speech or establish any state religion. This means that we defend all expressions of opinion including those that revolt us, and that we say that nobody can be forced to practice, or forced to foreswear, any faith. I suppose I would say that this is an inflexible principle, or even a dogma, with me. But who dares to say that's the same as the belief that criticism of religion should be censored or the belief that faith should be imposed? To flirt with this equivalence is to give in to the demagogues and to hear, underneath their yells of triumph, the dismal moan of the trahison des clercs and "the enlightenment driven away." Perhaps, though, if I said that my principles were a matter of unalterable divine revelation and that I was prepared to use random violence in order to get "respect" for them, I could hope for a more sympathetic audience from some of our intellectuals.
Jihadwatch excerpts an interview with her published in Reason magazine (but not available online). Here's a section of the interview
Hirsi Ali: ...There is no moderate Islam. There are Muslims who are passive, who don't all follow the rules of Islam, but there's really only one Islam, defined as submission to the will of God. There's nothing moderate about it.Reason: So when even a hard-line critic of Islam such as Daniel Pipes says, "Radical Islam is the problem, but moderate Islam is the solution," he's wrong?
Hirsi Ali: He's wrong. Sorry about that.
And most importantly, regarding the current mainstream Western policy of appeasement and multiculturalism
The problem (of Islam) is not going to go away. Confront it, or it's only going to get bigger
Ditto that.
Posted by Tom at 9:04 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
October 7, 2007
How to Cure "Islamophobia"
(hat tip USS Neverdock)
Posted by Tom at 8:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 27, 2007
From Muslim Foot-Baths to Muslim Smoking Rooms
This post by Mark Steyn over at The Corner highlights a situation that is sadly becoming all too typical
Okay, Muslim foot-baths in Kansas City airport, gender-segregated swimming sessions at French municipal pools, banning pork from Aussie hospital menus, no eating donuts for Belgian cops during Ramadan, no seeing-eye dogs or alcohol in Minneapolis taxi cabs, fine, fine, fine. Must be sensitive and all that.But this is an amazing victory. In Vancouver, infidels can't smoke but Muslims can:
Vancouver's hookah-parlour owners are celebrating after winning an exemption Thursday from a proposed new bylaw that will ban smoking on most sidewalks in commercial districts, in bus shelters and even in taxis passing through Vancouver.In giving the bylaw unanimous approval-in-principle, Vancouver city council members bowed to arguments that hookah lounges provide an important cultural space for the city's Muslims and granted them a temporary exemption...
[Emad Yacoub] said hookah lounges are essential for immigrants from hookah-smoking cultures, because it helps them deal with the depression common for newcomers and gives them places like they have at home.
Where do the rest of us go to deal with depression? As Jay Currie asks, "What about my culture?"By creating a special exemption for Muslims - who do seem to be the only immigrant group actively demanding these sorts of “cultural accommodations” we are basically declaring our Muslim citizens worthy of special treatment and, at the same time, unworthy of the health concerns which are purported to be the basis of general smoking bans.The state, in other words, is prepared to treat Muslims as free-born adults who can weigh the "cultural value" (ie, the pleasures) of smoking against the health risks. But not the rest of us.
Posted by Tom at 8:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 26, 2007
An Anti-Salafist We Need
If we are to win the War on Jihadism we need to enlist and encourage as many reform-minded Muslims as possible. Right now it seems that the jihadists have the upper hand, but there are some Muslims trying to change all that. One was profiled by the Washington Times today
Exiled Egyptian cleric Ahmed Subhy Mansour, whose teachings have earned him dozens of death "fatwas" from fellow Muslim clerics, uses the English translation for al Qaeda — meaning "the base" — to describe a plan to defeat Osama bin Laden and other terrorists, who he says have seized control of Islam."Suppose you have here [in the United States] a base to counter al Qaeda in the war of ideas?" Sheik Mansour asked during a recent luncheon at The Washington Times.
"You could convince a large number — millions of silent Muslims. We can convince them very easily that the real enemy is not the United States. It is not Israel. The real enemy is the dictators in the Muslim world and the culture of the Wahhabis and Muslim Brotherhood," he said, referring to the dominant arbiters of Islamic orthodoxy in Saudi Arabia and Egypt respectively.
Sounds like my kind of guy.
He certainly says all the right things. First, he he properly identified the enemy as Wahhanism and the Muslim Brotherhood. They make up the first two branches of the jihad, the third being the Khumeinists. Either way, he isn't like so many who only see the enemy as being al Qaeda.
Most interestingly, Dr. Mansour has founded his own branch of Islam
Sheik Mansour is the founder of a small Egyptian sect that is neither Sunni nor Shi"ite. They call themselves Quranists because they believe that the Koran represents the single authentic scripture of Islam. They especially anger Sunni Muslims by rejecting the Hadith and Sunna, purported sayings and traditions of the prophet Muhammad.
Before you laugh and dismiss him as a nut who won't get anywhere, recall that not too many centuries ago they said the same thing about Martin Luther and John Calvin. Recall also that they did not succeed overnight, but that their efforts took tens of years, even centuries, to pay off. If they and others could reform Christianity, I see no reason why men like Dr. Mansour can't reform Islam.
Long story short, Dr. Mansour was a former professor of Islamic history at Al-Azhar University in Cairo. He was dismissed in 1987 on charges of being a heretic, and eventually fled to the U.S. in late 2001 where he was granted political asylum.
His organization is called the International Quranic Center. From their website, their goals are to
1) To advocate peaceful reform in the Muslim world based on democracy and human rights and to offer practical strategies for such change;2) To mobilize on the web and convene in person open-minded scholars of the Quran to share research demonstrating the consistency of Islam with democracy;
3) To communicate the value of ecumenical democracy to Muslims of all denominations;
4) To initiate a real inter-religious dialogue among Muslims, Christians, Jews, and members of all religions who believe in creating societies based upon tolerance and justice.
5) To educate Muslims in America to understand and interpret Islam as consistent with American democracy.
Works for me.
No Moderates Wanted
I am not interested in Muslims who claim to be moderates.
I am interested in Muslims who want to reform their religion.
If you're not clear on the difference between Muslim moderates and Muslim reformers, here it is, and why the former are part of the problem:
An act of terror is committed by a group which says it is acting in the name of Islam- The moderate Muslim condemns the act in no uncertain terms but then says that Islam has nothing do do with it. He says that the terrorist group hijacked Islam or misinterpreted it.
- The reformist Muslim condemns the act in no uncertain terms but then says that Islam as it is interpreted and practiced today is part of the problem. He says that Islam needs to undergo a reform in the same way Christianity was reformed by Martin Luther et all 500 years ago.
This is a tough thing to say but the fact is that Islam has a problem with violence and the theory of the jihad and needs to be reformed. Christianity underwent this reformation hundreds of years ago, but Islam never did. Until this occurs we will have problems.
It is also why I champion people like Irshad Manji and Dr Mansour.
Where In The World...
So why did I find out about Dr Mansour and his organization from the Washington Times? Why are he and others not like him like Irshad Manji not invited to the White House every week?
For that matter, why do I not see any other politicians from either party inviting him to their events? If they were I think I would have heard about it by now.
Part of the reason why such reformers are ignored is that the Saudi govnerment tells soothing lies that too many in our government, and especially in the State Department, believe. They urge us to shun true reformers and insist that Wahhabism is peaceful. The purpose of the Saudi government is to act as a "cover" for their Wahhabists, to pull the wool over our eyes, as it were. They are all to successful.
One of the biggest failures of the Bush Administration has been it's utter failure to use our country's vast reservour of "soft power" to influence world events. As part of this, one of the things they should have is a program to encourage reformers like Dr Mansour. Instead, President Bush is locked into only dealing with traditional Muslim groups, many of which end up having suspicious links to the radicals.
For that matter, where are groups like the National Organization of Women (NOW)? From what I can tell their excuse is that they're only concerned with women in the US, hence the "National". Ok, but can't they help a little bit?
To be sure, it would be nice of someone at the White House or in the Democrat party would think to try and enlist them. Sure, I'm miles apart from NOW on just about every domestic issue, but surely they would be great allies in fighing the horrible abuse of women in most of the Muslim world.
I was listening to Glenn Beck today and one of his ideas was to hae Dianne Sawyer and Oprah Winfrey highlight the plight of women under Islam in most of the Muslim world. I've long thought that one way to undermine the Salafists is to highlight their abuse of women through a human rights campaign.
I'm straying from my topic a bit, but it's really all part of the "soft power" I mentioned earlier. Islam needs to be reformed, and the reformers need our help. Some of it can come from the government, and some from private individuals and institutions.
Can we please get started?
Posted by Tom at 8:12 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
June 21, 2007
About What I Think Too
A view of Islam from the UK (hat tip NRO)
"Londonistan", indeed.
Posted by Tom at 9:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 20, 2007
"Journey Into Islam"
Tony Blankley today hits on an important aspect of our current War on Jihadism and the current state of Islam:
Writing in the Washington Times, Blankley describes his debate with his friend, Professor Akbar Ahmed. Dr Ahmed is "former Pakistani High Commissioner to Britain and member of the faculties of Harvard, Princeton and Cambridge, current chair of Islamic Studies at American University." He is further described by Blankley as a moderate, and coming from Tony such a description has a lot of credibility.
Blankley is, after all, no starry-eyed liberal. His most recent book, The West's Last Chance: Will We Win the Clash of Civilizations? would warm the heart of any one who thinks that we are threatened by jihadists.
Dr Ahmed's new book is Journey into Islam: The crisis of globalization. It is the result of a 6-month investigation of attitudes in the Muslim world that he conducted, assisted by 3 of his students.
His conclusion: Due to both misjudgments by the United States and regrettable developments in Muslim attitudes "[t]he poisons are spreading so rapidly that without immediate remedial action, no antidote may ever be found." And Dr. Ahmed has always been an optimist.He divides Muslim attitudes into three categories named after Indian Muslim cities that have historically championed them: Ajmer, Aligarh and Deoband. Ajmers represent peaceful, Sufi mysticism. Aligarh represents the instinct to modernize without corrupting Islam. Deoband represents non-fatalistic, practical action oriented orthodox Islam. It traces to Ibn Taymiyya, a 14th-century thinker who lived when Islam was reeling from the Mongol invasions.
The name "Ibn Taymiyya" will be familiar to readers of this blog who followed my 6 part review of Walid Phares' Future Jihad. Taymiya (spellings vary) (1263-1328) developed the doctrine of takfir, essentially the Muslim equivalent of the inquisition. This would later develop into the Salafi movement which would in turn spawn Wahabism and the Muslim Brotherhood, two branches of the worldwide jihad (the third being the Khomeinists).
Dr. Ahmed himself is an Aligarh. As described by Blankley, the Aligarth's "hoped to build a modern democracy, overcome tribalism and the more obscurantist aspects of Islam while still being "good Muslims."" Works for me.
The Deobands are the ones to worry about. Osama bin Laden and similar groups are part of this group.
The bottom line is that according to Dr. Ahmed, the bad guys are winning.
Meeting with people from presidents to cab drivers, from elite professors to students from modest schools (Dr. Ahmed holds a respected place in the Muslim firmament around the globe), he reports that 50 percent want Shariah law, support the Bali terrorist bombing, oppose women in politics, support stoning adulterers too death. Indonesia's secular legal system and tolerant pluralist society is being "infiltrated by Deoband thinking... Dwindling moderates and growing extremists are a dangerous challenging development." Although I dissent from several of Dr. Ahmed's characterizations of the Bush administration, Washington policy-makers and journalists should read this book because it delivers a terrible message of warning both to those who say things aren't as bad as Mr. Bush says, and we can rely on the moderate voices of Islam with a little assist from the West — winning; and for those who argue for aggressive American action to show our strength to the Muslims (because, in bin Laden's words, they follow the strong horse).
Unfortunately our president seems to have lost his way, and the left is to mired in Bush-hatred to get much out of analysis of this sort. The president now seems to want to make nicey-nice with those who hate him, making noises about joining the global warming crusaders, and now virtually allied with Ted Kennedy on immigration. The left argues that "they all hate us now because of Iraq", and that "there is no jihadist threat, it's all an invention of the neo-cons". They believe that if only we'd pressure Israel more and "work with our allies and the UN" everything will be fine. The president at one time wanted us to be the "strong horse", the left abhors the thought.
We need to be that strong horse. Part of being the strong horse is military power, not quitting in Iraq, and redoubling our efforts in Afghanistan. Part of it is also using "soft power", something we haven't done very well. Either way, the first step towards solving a problem is recognizing that it exists.
Posted by Tom at 8:49 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
May 31, 2007
The Doctrine of Mahdism
This latest from MEMRI fits in well with many of my postings regarding the Hojjatieh Society and the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (see links at bottom). While some of what follows might seem esoteric or irrelevant, that fact is that in order to formulate a proper policy towards Iran we need to understand what motivates their leaders. We need to understand that the Iranians (more accurately "Khumenists") do not follow the dictates of Western geopolitical thinking. Following are some excerpts from the MEMRI report:
The Doctrine of Mahdism: In the Ideological and Political Philosophy of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Mesbah-e YazdiAccording to Shi’ite tradition, the Twelve Imams, descendants of the Prophet Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law Ali Ibn Abi Talib, were endowed with divine qualities that enabled them to lead the Shi’ite believers and to function as Allah’s emissaries on earth. However, when the Twelfth Imam Muhammad Al-Mahdi [1] disappeared in 941 CE, his connection with the Shi’ite believers was severed, and since then, the Shi’ites are commanded to await his return at any time.
In the meantime, Shi’ite senior clerics are considered to be the representatives of the Imams, and thus have the authority to handle the affairs of the Shi’ite community, mainly in the religious and judicial spheres, until the Hidden Imam returns to lead the Shi’ite community and deliver it from its suffering.
According to Shi’ite belief, during the period of the Mahdi’s absence (termed ghaibat or “occultation”), no one but God knows the hour of the Mahdi’s return, and no man can presume to foresee when this hour will come. Upon the Mahdi’s reappearance, all wrongs will be righted, divine justice will be instated, and the truth of Shi’ite Islam will be acknowledged by the entire world. (Mahdism) [2]
Mahdism and the Islamic Regime in IranFrom the establishment of the Islamic Regime in 1979 to Ahmadinejad’s rise to power in August 2005, Mahdism had been a religious doctrine and a tradition that had no political manifestation. The political system operated independently of this messianic belief and of the anticipation of the return of the Mahdi. It was only with Ahmadinejad’s presidency that this religious doctrine has become a political philosophy and taken a central place in politics.
...Ahmadinejad’s Messianic Policy - Main Characteristics
Immediately upon assuming the presidency, Ahmadinejad began to assert his belief in the imminent return of the Mahdi as the basis for his political activities. Despite the traditional belief that no one can foresee the hour of the Mahdi’s return, Ahmadinejad frequently stated that his coming was nigh, and even gave a more specific prediction. During a meeting with the foreign minister of an Islamic country, he said that the crisis in Iran “presaged the coming of the Hidden Imam, who would appear within the next two years.” [4] In a December 2006 speech in Kermanshah, Ahmadinejad wished the Christians a merry Christmas and said: “I hereby announce that, with God’s help, the day is not far off when Jesus will return at the side of the Hidden Imam.” [5]
Not only has Ahmadinejad wished to proclaim the imminent coming of the Mahdi, and thereby to legitimize his policy and actions by associating them with Hidden Imam - but he has also presented himself as being directly connected to God.
...Ahmadinejad has also presented himself as being privy to God’s intentions and actions, as reflected in his statement that “God has appointed the Hidden Imam to be our supporter.” [8] His claim of having a direct relationship with God was also evident in the speech he made upon his return to Iran after addressing the U.N. General Assembly in 2005. Ahmadinejad claimed that, as he was delivering his U.N. address, he felt himself “surrounded by a halo of light” symbolizing the messianic nature of his message to the nations of the world. [9]
Messianism in Iranian Foreign Policy
The messianic doctrine of Mahdism is also manifest in Iranian foreign policy, especially in its attitude towards the Western superpowers and towards the nuclear program. Ayatollah Mesbah-e Yazdi, mentor to Ahmadinejad, expressed this approach in an October 11, 2006 speech: “The greatest obligation of those awaiting the appearance of the Mahdi is fighting heresy and global arrogance [i.e. the West, primarily the U.S.].” [18]
...These characteristics are also evident in Ahmadinejad’s nuclear policy: In contrast to Khatami’s government, which endeavored to soften the position of the West on the nuclear issue via ongoing dialogue, Ahmadinejad and his close circle do not avoid confronting the West, since they consider this struggle to be one of the ways to prepare the ground for the return of the Mahdi.
According to the Internet daily Rooz, “Some of those close to Ahmadinejad, who frequently speak [of the need] to prepare the ground for the Mahdi’s return, explicitly link the [fate of] the Iranian nuclear dossier to this need... According to reliable information, they stressed, in various private meetings, that the [Iranian] opposition to global pressure [on the Iranian nuclear program] and its insistence on the right to utilize nuclear power are among the ways to prepare the ground for the return of the [Hidden] Imam.” [20]
Mahdism in the Ideology of Ayatollah Mohammad Taqi Mesbah-e YazdiThe address given at this year’s International Seminar on the Doctrine of Mahdism by Ayatollah Mohammad Taqi Mesbah-e Yazdi shows that he too regards belief in the Mahdi as a concept that transcends the religious or theoretical realm. Ayatollah Yazdi gave this belief a tangible political-ideological dimension when he explained that the Mahdi’s return would lead to the establishment of a single rule over the entire world, and that the present battle against the infidels and against “the global arrogance” is preparing the ground for, and hastening, the coming of the Mahdi: [21]
Clerics Criticize Ahmadinejad’s Messianic Policies
Ahmadinejad’s messianic policies have drawn growing criticism from ayatollahs and senior religious figures in the religious seminaries in Qom who oppose the politicization of the messianic doctrine.
...Reformist Intellectuals Criticize the Politicization of Mahdism
Intellectual Mohsen Kadivar: “Hasn’t the Time Come for [the Ayatollahs] and the Clerics to Clarify Their Position on These Claims?”
The intellectual and cleric Mohsen Kadivar pointed to the danger posed to Islam by Ahmadinejad’s messianic leanings. In a speech on the occasion of Eid Al-Fitr, Kadivar criticized the incorporation of the Mahdist doctrine in Ahmadinejad’s political platform. The report was originally published by the ILNA news agency, and is cited on Kadivar’s website:
Sources of footnotes can be found on the MEMRI article linked to at top. I don't have time to set them all up here.
Unfortunately we in the West have a bad habit of "mirror imaging" our concept of reason and logic and how international relations should work onto other countries, regardless of their internal idiology or religion. If we insist on using policies appropriate for 19th or 20th century Europe, we will fail in our approach to Iran.
As bad as the Soviets were, at the end of the day they wanted to live. In retrospect there was a saving grace in the communist idiology in that it's adherents had to be alive in order to implement it. The Soviets didn't want millions of their citizens to die.
The Khumeinists are another matter. Their radical version of Islam tells them that if a Muslim "innocent bystander" is killed during a jihad, then he goes to heaven, so what's the problem? The doctrine of Mahdism outlined above only complicates matters, but if we understand them we can at least begin to formulate a policy that takes their motivations into account.
You can also download the report from MEMRI as a pdf document
Previous
Motivations and The Mahdi
The Hojjatieh and "Professor Crocodile"
The Hojjatieh Society
Posted by Tom at 10:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 19, 2007
April 19 is Islamo-Fascism Awareness Day
Today, the Terrorism Awareness Project is holding it's first Islamo-Fascism Awareness Day at colleges and universities across the country.
The Terrorism Awareness Project is the brainchild of the indefatigable David Horowitz, who also runs FrontPage Magazine and Discover The Networks.
The main event is the showing of the film Obsession: Radical Islam's War against the West at participating college campuses.
From the Terrorism Awareness Project website
The Terrorism Awareness Project is a new program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center dedicated to waking up Americans—and particularly American college students--to the threat of militant Islam. ...
Obsession is a wake up call. It offers a direct and chilling profile of what is brewing in the world of jihad right now—the plans for the mass murder of Americans and other Westerners and the justification that rationalizes radical Islam’s blueprints for genocide.We anticipate a great deal of opposition from the radical left that refuses to recognize that the War on Terror was not started by Washington, but has been declared on us by a global confederacy of Islamists dedicated to the subjugation and murder of us and other "infidels".
...Campuses Participating in Islamo-Fascism Awareness Day
Drew University
Arizona State University
Azusa Pacific
Ball State
Bates University
Bloomsburg
Boise State University
Boston College
Bowdoin College
Bradley University
Bryant University
BYU-Idaho
Clemson University
Colby College
Columbia University
Columbus State Community College
Dartmouth College
Dickinson College
Drexel University
Drury University
Duke
Evangel University
Florida State University
Franciscan University of Steubenville
Furman University
Gardner-Webb University
George Mason University
Georgia Tech
Hanover College
Hillsdale College
Holloman Air Force Base
Huntington University
Indiana State University
Indiana University Southeast
Ithaca College
Johnson and Wales University
Kansas Wesleyan University
Kansas Wesleyan University
Kingwood College
Lawrence University
Liberty
Loras College
Messiah College
Minneapolis Community and Technical College
Minnesota State University, Mankato
Missouri State University
Missouri Western State University
Mountain Home AFB
New Mexico State
North Carolina State
Northeastern University
Northern Arizona University
Pace University
Palisades Charter High School
Purdue University
Regent University
Rhodes State College
Rice University
Roger Williams University
Rollins College
Saint Anselm College
Saint Francis University
Santa Ana College
Santa Barbara City College
Shippensburg University
SUNY New Paltz
Temple University
The College of New Jersey
The Ohio State University
The Ohio State University
The University of Arizona
U of Alabama
U of Maryland, Baltimore County
U of Wisconsin - La Crosse
UC Davis
UC Irvine
UC Riverside
UNC - Chapel Hill
UNC Charlotte
UNC Wilmington
Unity College
University of Alabama
University of Colorado
University of Delaware
University of Florida
University of Iowa
University of Memphis
University of Miami
University of New Haven
University of North Carolina Greensboro
University of Notre Dame
University of Rhode Island
University of South Florida Sarasota-Manatee
University of Texas Austin
University of Toledo
University of Washington - Tacoma
University of Wisconsin - Madison
Washington University in St. Louis
Westmont College
Horowitz is an amazing guy and I had the pleasure of meeting him briefly when he signed his latest book (Indoctrination U)for me at CPAC 2007. I've read several of his books over the years, and never cease to be impressed with his energy and dedication. He correctly recognizes that a key to winning the ideological struggle against Islamo-Fascism will be fought at our universities.
Horowitz is fighting the good fight, and deserves our support.
Posted by Tom at 7:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 18, 2007
Irshad Manji - A Type of Muslim We Need
Last week at the end of my last book review I mentioned that I was now reading Robert Spencer's The Truth About Muhammed, and that when I was finished I'd review it here on Redhunter.
Last weekend I heard Irshad Manji interviewed by Monika Crowley on her radio show. I'd heard of Manji before, but didn't know much about her.
Irshad Manji is a Muslim woman who has decided that her religion needs serious reform. The title of her book says it all: The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim's Call for Reform in Her Faith . The title of her website is also revealing: "Muslim Refusenik"
What impressed me most about Manji during the interview was when she said that moderates were part of the problem with Islam. Wow, I thought, you won't find that said out loud at any Washington DC dinner parties. But it's true. And we're at the point where the truth needs to be spoken about Islam, and spoken with all the PC restrictions gone.
The reason I'm posting this is that with all that's been said about Islam on the right these days it's important not to demonize the religion. Yes the religion is in serious need of reform. No it's not an "evil religion" or anything like that (Note: As a Christian, I believe Islam is a false religion. I could hardly think otherwise and call myself a Christian. But that does not mean it is evil or should be otherwise demonized).
I haven't read Manji's book yet, and don't know any details about her call for reform. But I will put her book on my "to read" list and at some point will pick it up and post a review.
Btw, here's the difference between a Muslim moderate and a reformer, and why the former are part of the problem:
An act of terror is committed by a group which says it is acting in the name of Islam
- The moderate Muslim condemns the act in no uncertain terms but then says that Islam has nothing do do with it. He says that the terrorist group hijacked Islam or misinterpreted it.
- The reformist Muslim condemns the act in no uncertain terms but then says that Islam as it is interpreted and practiced today is part of the problem. He says that Islam needs to undergo a reform in the same way Christianity was reformed by Martin Luther et all 500 years ago.
Like Manji, I'm not interested in moderate Muslims anymore. I'm only interested in reformers.
Posted by Tom at 10:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 15, 2006
The Latest from the Religion of Perpetual Outrage
Via Little Green Footballs, we learn that Muslims in Britain are Outraged! What are some of them so upset about this time? The Olympics.
You see, the 2012 Olympics are to be held in London. Some Muslim got out his calendar and discovered that they will take place during their month of Ramadan, which as everyone now is considered a holy month. From the Daily Mail, a London paper
The 2012 London Olympics have been plunged into controversy by the discovery that the Games will clash with Ramadan, the most holy month in the Islamic calendar.The clash will put Muslim athletes at a disadvantage as they will be expected to fast from sunrise to sunset for the entire duration of the Games.
In 2012, Ramadan will take place from July 21 to August 20, while the Olympics run from July 27 to August 12.
An anticipated 3,000 Muslim competitors are expected to be affected.
About a quarter of the 11,099 athletes who took part in the 2004 Athens Olympics came from countries with predominantly Muslim populations.
Because the Muslim calendar is based on a lunar cycle, the ninth month of Ramadan - which runs from the appearance of one new crescent moon to the next - gets earlier by around 11 days each year.
The clash will be a huge embarrassment for Lord Coe, Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell, and London Mayor Ken Livingstone, who have been keen to ensure the Games involve all Britain's ethnic communities.
If they cave on this I'll scream.
Who is agitating for a change of dates? From the Sun article, none other than Massoud Shadjareh, chairman of the London-based Islamic Human Rights Commission. Shadjareh, it turns out, is an open supporter of Hizbollah. Big surprise. They don't call the place Londonistan for nothing.
Shadjareh tried to jusify his position by saying that the Olympics would not have been scheduled for Christmas.
Several problems with that analogy. First, I dont' think a whole lot of people would object if the Olympics were scheduled over Christmas. After all, American football games are regularly played on Thanksgiving, and occasionally on Christmas Day itself. Second, Christmas is a day, Ramadan a month. Half of the cities in the Muslim world seem to be "holy cities", now they need an entire month where we can't schedule anything important? Forget it. Third, they use a lunar calendar, which means that the date shifts every year. Sorry, but we're not shifting our dates too.
Lastly, and to the Sun's credit, a more sane Muslim is quoted who essentially says that Massoud Shadjareh is all wet
Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra, an imam on the Muslim Council of Great Britain, said: "I'm sure the athletes will seek advice from their scholars."They are obviously going to be at a disadvantage because other competitors will be drinking and keeping up their energy levels.
"But they are athletes and I am sure they will train their bodies to cope with this.
"A Muslim might feel it would have been nice to avoid this month but life doesn't stop for Muslims during Ramadan even though they are fasting.
Let's hope that they listen to people like Mogra. Unfortunately, Britain is the home of political correctness, and my guess is that the Olympic committee will bend to the pressures of the extremists and change the date.
And I'll scream.
Posted by Tom at 8:40 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
October 12, 2006
The Intifada in France
Five days ago in a book review of Melanie Phillips must-read Londonistan, I mentioned a story in one of the London papers, The Telegraph, in which a French police union official was quoted as saying that the country was "in a state of civil war" with the inhabitants of Muslim neighborhoods.
Today the Washington Times finally got around to reporting on the story, simply reprinting the Telegraph story. The original date on the story was October 5, so it was 2 days old when I wrote about it. Now it is a week old.
I have not done much of a search of US papers, but a quick look at the European section of the Washington Post didn't reveal anything. It is possible they've carried stories on it but I missed it. I also browse other news sites during the day and have not seen anything there either. Again, I might have missed it, but nothing jumped out at me.
Two lessons: Most of the US media is blissfully unaware of how bad the situation has gotten in Europe, and two, without the Internet I'd be blissfully unaware also.
In case you're not up on the situation, here are the essential parts of the story from the Telegraph
Radical Muslims in France's housing estates are waging an undeclared "intifada" against the police, with violent clashes injuring an average of 14 officers each day.
As the interior ministry said that nearly 2,500 officers had been wounded this year, a police union declared that its members were "in a state of civil war" with Muslims in the most depressed "banlieue" estates which are heavily populated by unemployed youths of north African origin.It said the situation was so grave that it had asked the government to provide police with armoured cars to protect officers in the estates, which are becoming no-go zones.
...
Michel Thoomis, the secretary general of the hardline Action Police trade union, has written to Mr Sarkozy warning of an "intifada" on the estates and demanding that officers be given armoured cars in the most dangerous areas.He said yesterday: "We are in a state of civil war, orchestrated by radical Islamists. This is not a question of urban violence any more, it is an intifada, with stones and Molotov cocktails. You no longer see two or three youths confronting police, you see whole tower blocks emptying into the streets to set their 'comrades' free when they are arrested."
He added: "We need armoured vehicles and water cannon. They are the only things that can disperse crowds of hundreds of people who are trying to kill police and burn their vehicles."
However, Gerard Demarcq, of the largest police unions, Alliance, dismissed talk of an "intifada" as representing the views of only a minority.
Minority view or no, the fact that an average of 14 police officers per day are being hurt, and that they need armored vehicles and water cannon is alarming.
If it weren't for the widespread riots by Muslim "youths" in France last October and November, in which some 10,000 cars were burned and thousands arrested, it might be tempting to think that the Telegraph was exaggerating. As it is, we should take it seriously and be very worried about the future of Europe.
In Denial
As this post at RealClearPolitics makes clear, the foreign policy elite are deeply in denial.
The post cites an article in Foreign Affairs, titled "France and its Muslims", by Stéphanie Giry
According to Giry
Some French and foreign observers have interpreted last November's riots in poor, largely Muslim neighborhoods throughout the country as a skirmish in a broader clash of civilizations. Yet the strife had little to do with yearnings for a worldwide caliphate and much to do with domestic socioeconomic problems. ...The status of Muslims in France is at once much healthier and more problematic than most recent commentary lets on.
According to RealClearPolitics, Foreign Affairs summarized the article thusly
"The recent panic over the rise of Islamic extremism in Europe has overlooked a key fact: the majority of European Muslims are trying hard to fit in, not opt out. This is especially clear in France, where the picture is much brighter than often acknowledged. Unfortunately, cynical politicians and the clumsy elite are now making matters much worse."
In other words, if we ignore the problem of Muslim extremism it will go away. This is just what Melanie Phillips warns against in Londonistan and on her blog every day.
The author of the post on RealClearPolitics, David Warren, sums up the contradition between the Telegraph and Foreign Affairs articles
There are two ways to reconcile these two articles. One is to assume that the Telegraph dispatch, confirmed by several sources in France, was made up from whole cloth. The other is to assume that the Foreign Affairs writer, even though she has a law degree from Yale, is writing nonsense.
She's writing nonsense.
The Difference with Muslims
There are going to be those, especially in the United States, who will dismiss me as a nativist. "People are always afraid of immigrants", "You just don't like them because they're different", "You're blowing this out of proportion. I'm sure there were disturbances by Italians/Irish/German/Chinese/Japanese immigrants in the United States in the 19th century and early 20th" and of course, the comparison to our problem with illegal aliens ("undocumented immigrants" as the left calls them).
As a student of history I am reasonably well informed about my country's history with immigrants. But there are two big difference with these immigrants and the Muslims
1) The Muslims come from cultures that have not gone through or been influenced by the Renaissance, Reformation, or Enlightenment. The Muslims have a largely Medieval mindset and there is no getting around it.
2) There are far too many Muslim extremists among the immigrants. You simply did not have this with the Italians/Irish/German/Chinese/Japanese immigrants of past. There is no getting around this, either.
Yes I know that in the past some countries in Europe, notably France, have absorbed Muslim immigrants with no problems. But back then everyone expected the immigrants to assimilate to some degree, and you did not have the current problem of extremism that you have today. Leftist multiculturalism has made a bad situation worse.
The problem with Muslim extremism in Europe is serious and getting worse. I hate to sound like an alarmist, but it's true. Ignoring it won't make it go away.
Update
Threatswatch has more on the French Intifada, which, they conclude, is growing.
Posted by Tom at 10:02 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
October 11, 2006
A Case of Taqiyya?
An Associated Press article printed in today's Washington Times caught my attention this morning. It was titled "Defender of 'liberal Islam' shunned"
LONDON -- Tariq Ramadan's call for modernizing Islam has earned him the hatred of Muslim traditionalists. The Bush administration sees him as a threat and has banned him from the United States. France banned him from the country in 1995, linking him to Algerian terrorists, but leftist organizations successfully campaigned to overturn the measure, and he is now welcome there.But underscoring the conflicting reactions provoked by this soft-spoken Muslim from Switzerland, British Prime Minister Tony Blair sees Mr. Ramadan as one of the best hopes for bridging the divide between the West and Islam, and has put him on a task force to tackle extremism.
Tariq Ramadan? Haven't I heard that somewhere? Reading on
To his admirers, the 44-year-old Oxford University scholar is the conscience of Western Europe's Muslims -- the man who can articulate what it means to play an active part in secular society while remaining true to the Koran ...Two years ago -- and days before he was to arrive in the United States to become a professor of religion at the University of Notre Dame, the United States canceled his visa. The State Department said he was barred for actions "which constituted providing material support to a terrorist organization." Mr. Ramadan said the charge stems from his donation, then worth about $750, to a Palestinian charity.
I went to Melanie Phillips Londonistan, which I recently finished, and sure enough, there on pages 174-175. Widely thought to be close to the Muslim Brotherhood, he has made statements defending terrorists in Iraq, "Palestine", and Chechnya.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, Ramadan is on a special Muslim "task force" which advises Prime Minister Tony Blair on Muslim matters.
Looks like we might have a case of Taqiyya here.
From Wikipedia, Taqiyya "is the dispensation allowing believers to conceal their faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion." and "according to many Shia, Taqiyya can only be legally used by a Muslim verbally when he or she is being wrongly persecuted. "
Of course, should all know by this point that "wrongly persecuted" to Muslims means any and all criticism of the way the practice their religion. We haven't come to call it"The Religion of Perpetual Outrage" for nothing.
Again from Wikipedia, here's the brief on Tariq Ramadan
In February 2004, he accepted the tenured position of Luce professor of religion at the Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana, USA. However, in late July 2004, his visa was revoked by the State Department, and he was forced to resign the position. [3]. Though the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) declined to provide a specific reason for denying the visa, they explained that the Patriot Act allows the government to ban foreigners who “espouse terrorist activity.” ...In September 2006, a State Department statement said: "A U.S. consular officer has denied Dr. Tariq Ramadan's visa application. The consular officer concluded that Dr. Ramadan was inadmissible based solely on his actions, which constituted providing material support to a terrorist organization."[4][5]
Tariq Ramadan advocates that Muslims living in the West should not view themselves as foreigners or temporary residents of their countries, but rather as full citizens with full rights and responsibilities. In some respects, he argues for integration and not alienation from the surrounding society. Indeed, the main theme of his book, To Be a European Muslim attempts to bridge the gap between being a Muslim and being European.
..Ramadan argues that there need be no conflict between being a Muslim and being a full citizen in Western countries, active in the community and caring about it. He criticizes what he sees as an 'us vs. them' mentality in Muslim discourse on the West.
...Tariq Ramadan is criticised for his sometimes contradictory opinions, and for his refusal to accept the priority of civil law over religious law, as is the rule in all democracies. Many French intellectuals also accuse Ramadan of being "The Master of Doubletalk," of saying one thing to the non-Muslim public and the opposite to his Muslim audience. Perhaps most seriously, author Jean-Charles Brisard of the Terror Finance Blog has listed a number of alleged links between Ramadan and terrorism. [11]
Caroline Fourest analysed Tariq Ramadan's 15 books, 1,500 pages of interviews, and approximately 100 recordings, [12] and concludes "Ramadan is a war leader,"
Quite contradictory indeed. His defenders portray as an Islamic Martin Luther, his detractors a master of doubletalk. Ramadan has written several books which you can find on Amazon, the most important ones of which seem to be Western Muslims and the Future of Islam, and Islam, the West, and the Challenges of Modernity
On the other side we have articles like this one on Jihad Watch and this one at the Middle East Forum, tell an entirely different story about Ramadan.
I haven't studied the matter myself,but it does seem that Ramadan is indeed engaged in Taqiyya, presenting himself as the voice of reason to gullible Westerners, but in reality "wants to see the islamization of Europe" (Jihad Watch article cited above). Anyway, since the ACLU is defending him, I'm all the more inclined to think he's guilty as charged.
Posted by Tom at 9:36 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
October 10, 2006
Religion of Perpetual Outrage Update
These sorts of stories are becoming easier and easier to find. Either that or I'm just starting to become more aware of them.
Apple's "Mecca Project" Provokes Muslim Reaction
On October 10, 2006, an Islamic website posted a message alerting Muslims to what it claims is a new insult to Islam. According to the message, the cube-shaped building which is being constructed in New York City, on Fifth Avenue between 58th and 59th Streets in midtown Manhattan, is clearly meant to provoke Muslims. The fact that the building resembles the Ka'ba (see picture below), is called "Apple Mecca," is intended to be open 24 hours a day like the Ka'ba, and moreover, contains bars selling alcoholic beverages, constitutes a blatant insult to Islam. The message urges Muslims to spread this alert, in hope that "Muslims will be able to stop the project.
The story here is a bit complicated, and you'll want to follow the link to read the entire account, but essentially there have been some disturbances around a Muslim-owned dairy in Winsor, England. The dairy expanded a few years ago, and the increasioimg truck ("lorry") traffic disturbed the neighborhood. After a permit to build a mosque nearby was refused, the Muslims simply used the dairy for that purpose. There were a few street confrontations, with non-Muslims getting the worst of it. White youths smashed windows at the dairy, and Muslim gangs retaliated. Melanie Phillips concludes that
Windsor offers a foretaste of an extremely alarming scenario. Muslims behave aggressively, either physically or by refusing to accept decisions that go against them. No-one does anything. Tensions rise, Islamic extremist reinforcements arrive and then the neo-fascists start mixing it to foment much greater violence and disorder. Muslims and non-Muslims come under attack. The media then decide that white racists are to blame and look nowhere else. The real cause of the problem is concealed, and the problem replicates itself elsewhere with exactly the same response.The wider silence is the worst of it.
Tonight there were power shortages all over Sweden’s second largest city, Gothenburg. “Youth gangs” took the opportunity, spreading the European tradition of “Ramadan Riots.” Within an hour most schools and commercial centers in the north eastern suburbs were vandalized.- It’s complete chaos in north eastern Gothenburg. “We’ve sent all available police units but there’s no way we can stop the vandalisation,” police spokesman Frank Karlsson tells gp.se.
- Several youth gangs are wandering about smashing windows and breaking into schools, malls, banks and a retirement center.
Towards the bottom of Saturday's post I reported on several similar events in the UK and across Europe. Lest you think these things occur only in Europe, consider this story
Cab Controversy at Twin Cities International Airport
Muslim cab drivers at the Twin Cities International Airport are not only refusing to carry blind people with seeing eye dogs and people with alcohol—they also won’t serve transsexuals, according to Fox 9 News (select link above for video clip)
Where is all this leading?
Today Islamic Banks in Europe, Tomorrow Islamic Law?
Last week the Swiss authorities granted a banking licence to Faisal Private Bank. The Geneva based bank will be the first in Switzerland to operate according to Islamic law (Sharia) principles. The latter prohibit usury, the collection and payment of interest, trading in financial risk, women opening bank accounts without their husband’s approval, etc....Yesterday Ruud Peters, a law professor in Amsterdam and a Sharia expert, said at a conference in Amsterdam that Islamic law is gaining influence in Europe. This is not the case in penal law, he said, but in financial, contractual and inheritance law. He said that Muslims who want to borrow money in order to start a business can do so without having to pay interest. Dutch notaries are also registering a growing number of “Sharia wills” in which Muslims parents bequeath to their daughters only half of what their sons get.
British Muslim "activist" Anjem Choudary goes on TV to explain what he wants. Follow the link above and watch the video. Oh yeah, and he's also called for the Pope to be assassinated.
Posted by Tom at 9:11 PM | Comments (4) |