Loweâ€™s Pulls Ad from Learning Channel All-American Muslim Program
The Los Angeles Times (LA Times) reports that national home improvement retailer Lowe’s has pulled its advertising from the cable TV Learning Channel’s“All-American Muslim” program, prompting a California State Senator to issue calls to boycott the North Carolina-based company. This is the latest advertiser to pull out of the controversial program, an eight part series, about the quotidian activities of five Muslim Arab-American families, residents of the largest Muslim community in America, Dearborn, Michigan, and site of several protests by Christian evangelical and counter-Jihad groups and at least one alleged honor Killing.
The spur for Lowe’s, Home Depot and the more than five dozen companies who have dropped their advertising from All- American Muslim, has been an email writing campaign instigated by the Florida Family Association (FFA) of Tampa, Florida headed by executive director David Caton, which has accused the Learning Channel production of: "propaganda that riskily hides the Islamic agenda's clear and present danger to American liberties and traditional values."
FFA had been at the forefront of an investigation into possible police cover up of an alleged honor killing of a divorced Pakistani woman, Fatima Abddallah, under peculiar circumstances in a gated community in Tampa earlier this year-see our post from last May, here.
Watch this CNN report on the controversial “All-American Muslim” Learning Channel program with Erin Burnett:
The LA Times report notes:
A decision by retail giant Lowe's Cos. to pull ads from a reality show about American Muslims after protests from an evangelical Christian group has sparked criticism and calls for a boycott against the chain of home-improvement stores.
The retailer stopped advertising on TLC's "All-American Muslim" after a conservative group known as the Florida Family Assn. complained, saying the program was "propaganda that riskily hides the Islamic agenda's clear and present danger to American liberties and traditional values."
The show, which premiered last month, chronicles the lives of five families in Dearborn, Mich., a Detroit suburb with a large Muslim and Arab American population.
California Sen. Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) said he was considering a boycott.
Calling Lowe's decision "un-American" and "naked religious bigotry," Lieu said he may seek legislative action if Lowe's doesn't apologize to Muslims and reinstate its ads. The senator sent a letter outlining his complaints to Lowe's Chief Executive Robert A. Niblock.
"The show is about what it's like to be a Muslim in America, and it touches on the discrimination they sometimes face. And that kind of discrimination is exactly what's happening here with Lowe's," Lieu said.
The Florida group sent three emails to its members, asking them to petition Lowe's to pull its advertising. Its website was updated to say that "supporters' emails to advertisers make a difference."
Suehaila Amen, whose family is featured on "All-American Muslim," said she was disappointed by Lowe's decision.
"I'm saddened that any place of business would succumb to bigots and people trying to perpetuate their negative views on an entire community," Amen, 32, told the Detroit News on Sunday.
Lowe's issued a statement Sunday apologizing for having "managed to make some people very unhappy."
"Individuals and groups have strong political and societal views on this topic, and this program became a lightning rod for many of those views," the statement said. "As a result we did pull our advertising on this program. We believe it is best to respectfully defer to communities, individuals and groups to discuss and consider such issues of importance."
The North Carolina company did not say whether it would reinstate advertising on the show.
The apology doesn't go far enough, Lieu said. He vowed to look into whether Lowe's violated California laws and said he would consider drafting a senate resolution condemning the company's actions.
"We want to raise awareness so that consumers will know during this holiday shopping season that Lowe's is engaging in religious discrimination," Lieu said.
Lowe's issued another statement later Sunday, saying company officials want to talk to Lieu and clarify their position.
Lieu's office said a decision was expected Wednesday or Thursday on whether to proceed with the boycott.
The FFA website notes its objections to the Learning Channel All-American Muslim program:
The Learning Channel's new show All-American Muslim is propaganda clearly designed to counter legitimate and present-day concerns about many Muslims who are advancing Islamic fundamentalism and Sharia law. The show profiles only Muslims that appear to be ordinary folks while excluding many Islamic believers whose agenda poses a clear and present danger to liberties and traditional values that the majority of Americans cherish.
One of the most troubling scenes occurred at the introduction of the program when a Muslim police officer stated "I really am American. No ifs and or buts about it." This scene would appear to be damage control for the Dearborn Police who have arrested numerous Christians including several former Muslims for peacefully preaching Christianity. Dearborn Police falsely arrested Nabeel Qureshi and Paul Rezkalla in 2010 and Sudanese Christian Pastor George Saieg in 2009 for preaching Christianity at the Annual Arab International Festival. Information on these two arrests is posted below.
The first two episodes start off with Muslim youth complaining about non-Muslim Americans’ perception of them as extremists after 911. The show then reports on these youths’ daily, weekly and monthly prayer rituals. Many Imams who are at the head of these prayer rituals believe strongly in Islam and Sharia law. This TLC show clearly failed to connect the dots on this point but then again that appears to be their intent.
Many situations were profiled in the show from a Muslim tolerant perspective while avoiding the perspective that would have created Muslim conflict thereby contradicting The Learning Channel’s agenda to inaccurately portray Muslims in America.
The show portrayed a Roman Catholic who converted to Muslim to marry. However, there was no mention of a Muslim who attempted to convert to Christianity which has resulted in a multitude of conflicts in America and abroad. Many woman were shown wearing hijabs and many who were not, but the program did not show what happens if one of the hijab-wearing women decides to take it off. Such conflicts would conflict with The Learning Channel's agenda to inaccurately portray Muslims in America.
There is no mention of the honor killing of Jessica Mokdad who lived not far from where this show was taped in Dearborn.
The show fails to mention many Islamic believers’ demeaning treatment of women or great disdain for non-Muslims (infidels).
Kudos to David Caton of FFA for instigating this email writing campaign that has resulted in withdrawal of ad support for All American Muslims. As to California State Senator Lieu and his call for a boycott of Lowe’s and other advertisers who have withdrawn from support of this controversial Learning Channel da’wa (call to Islam) propaganda program, this simply indicates that he has been dhimmified. Let us hope that Lowe’s doesn’t recant under pressure from CAIR, MPAC and other Muslim advocacy groups supporting Sen. Lieu’s boycott threat.
Blast and subsequent fire at steel factory in Yazd province kills foreign nationals, among others, Iranian news agencyreports.
Another mysterious explosion rocked Iran on Sunday night, killing seven people and injuring 16 others, some of them foreign nationals.
The deaths occurred in an explosion and subsequent fire at a steel factory in the central Iranian province of Yazd, Iran's IRIB news agency quoted Yazd Governor Azizollah Seifi as saying on Monday.
Seifi stated that some of those killed in the explosion, which occurred on Sunday night, were foreign nationals residing in Yazd.
He added that the incident was being investigated.
The blast came after, last month, a mysterious explosion rocked the Iranian city of Isfahan, which hosts a nuclear facility involved in processing uranium fed to the Natanz fuel enrichment facility.
The source and target of the explosion were initially unclear. Some reports claimed it took place in a military base and others said it was a gas explosion.
Two weeks earlier, on November 12, an explosion hit an Iranian military base near the town of Bid Kaneh, killing 17 members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and Maj.-Gen. Hassan Moghaddam, chief architect of the Islamic Republic’s ballistic missile program. Israel’s Mossad has been accused of orchestrating the blast.
Head of the Military Intelligence Research Directorate Brig.-Gen. Itay Brun told the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that the November 12 blast at the missile base could delay Tehran’s development of long-range missiles.
“The explosion at the site to develop surface-to-surface missiles could stop or delay activities on that track and in that location, but we must emphasize that Iran has other development tracks in addition to that facility,” Brun said.
Juan Cole, the University of Michigan professor and blogger, fancies himself a fact-checker who uncovers hidden truths via the Arabic press. He attempted this most recently in a post entitled “Did the Muslim Brotherhood Threaten to Kill ‘All Jews’?”
His target was a report from Cairo by the Israeli journalist Eldad Beck, written for the Israeli daily Yedi’ot Aharonot (Ynet). The English-language version of Beck’s report, referenced by Cole, carried this headline: “Cairo rally: One day we’ll kill all Jews.” It described a rally held on November 25 and organized in cooperation with the Muslim Brotherhood at Al Azhar Mosque in Cairo. The report included this line: “Time and again, a Koran quote vowing that ‘one day we shall kill all the Jews’ was uttered at the site.” Some newspapers and many blogs recycled Beck’s report.
Cole sprang into action. First, he unearthed a short Arabic press report of the same event, “clearly written by a reporter on the scene,” and announced this discovery: “It does not say anything about the speakers or the crowd threatening to kill all Jews, and I don’t believe any such threat was made.” Cole then added that no Qur’anic verse speaks of killing the Jews: “The Qur’an doesn’t call for all Jews to be killed, and neither did the Muslim Brotherhood last Friday.” Beck, he declared, “clearly does not know what he is talking about”; his reporting of the rally was “shoddy and wholly inaccurate.” Cole capped his reprimand with an accusation: “If Beck had simply said that the Muslim Brotherhood crowds want Jerusalem back for Islamdom and evinced hostility toward Israelis, he would have been right. But his breathless exaggeration slides over into Islamophobia.”
Cole thought he’d exposed a case of journalistic incompetence, but I wondered. Eldad Beck is a serious correspondent. He did a degree in Arabic and Islamic studies at the Sorbonne, and is renowned for traveling to Arab and Muslim countries on a European passport to report from places Israeli journalists dare not tread (e.g., Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan). Cole referenced Beck’s report in English, but it originally appeared in Hebrew, and I suspected the Hebrew original might be more precise. So I consulted it.
It’s a more detailed report than the English translation of it. In the key passage, Beck wrote the following (my own translation from the Hebrew):
Brotherhood speakers and their guests from “Palestine” called explicitly for a jihad to liberate all of Palestine. Again and again, the quote was referenced, according to which “the day will come and we will kill all the Jews until even the stones and trees will say to us: ‘a Jew hides behind us, kill him!’”
So that’s it. Beck had heard speakers recite a well-known canonical hadith (a saying attributed to the Prophet Muhammad), about an event that will signal the imminence of Judgement Day. It goes like this (with only the slightest variations depending on the hadith collection):
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “The Hour will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. When a Jew hides behind a rock or a tree, it will say, ‘O Muslim, O servant of Allah! There is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!’”
Note that Beck didn’t attribute this “quote” to the Qur’an. That (erroneous) attribution was apparently introduced into the English translation by a Ynet translator. And Beck did label it a “quote.” Precisely.
In the comments section of Cole’s post, someone actually did speculate that perhaps the “hiding Jew” hadith was recited at the rally. Cole dismissed this: “The Arabic accounts don’t report that one [hadith] chanted at al-Husayn [Square, i.e., Al Azhar].” Well, those accounts (actually, Cole linked to only one) are incomplete. At least two speakers at the Azhar rally recited the hadith.
One was Abd al-Rahman al-Barr, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood Guidance Bureau. If you know Arabic, you can watch him recite it, at minute 8:10 of this clip filmed inside the mosque. (Clicking will take you right to the moment.)
And he wasn’t the only one: Shaykh Muhammad Mukhtar al-Mahdi, professor at Al Azhar and head of the Islamic Law Society, did so too at minute 8:05 of this clip, also filmed inside the mosque. (Clicking will take you directly to that moment.)
So Beck did hear the hadith recited at least twice, and he reported that fact.
In response to that same reader who guessed at the “hiding Jew” hadith, Cole made another off-base rejoinder. “There are thousands of hadith,” he huffed in a comment on the comment. “Most Muslims don’t accept the weak or obscure ones.” Well, it’s true that there are thousands of hadiths, but Islamic scholarship has a methodology for determining the weak ones. The “hiding Jew” hadith is included in the most canonical hadith collections (Bukhari and Muslim) as sahih, “authentic,” and is classified as marfu’, “elevated”—a hadith traceable in an unbroken line back to the Prophet Muhammad. It’s rated triple-A. Nor is it obscure. In fact, it’s one of the most quoted Jew-related passages in the Islamic canon. It figures most notably in the Hamas covenant (art. 7), and you can watch the late Osama Bin Laden recite it too (min. 6:20).
As to the substance, I suppose there is some difference between Muslim extremists vowing to “one day kill all Jews,” and their quoting an end-of-times prophecy that Muslims will one day kill the Jews with the help of rocks and trees that will betray the stragglers. I’m just not sure how much of a difference it is. In any case, though, the hadith predates the State of Israel by well over a millennium, so it certainly can’t be attributed to Israeli provocation. Those who invoke it—the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Bin Laden—root their hatred of Israel in a much deeper stratum of Islamic animosity toward the Jews. Those who downplay that sort of Judeophobia just help to perpetuate it.
I am waiting to see when, where, how, in what column by what columnist, in what report by what reporter, in what editorial by what member of what editorial board, the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya will first be mentioned or discussed.
For these reporters, these columnists, these writers of scolding editorials who presume to inform and instruct their audiences, appear to believe, with what might be called, wickedly, a Eurocentric view of things, that everyone in the world accepts the principle of Pacta Sunt Servanda -- the principle that "Treaties Are to Be Obeyed." It isn't true. That concept, which originates in the West, and which seems to people in the West as self-evident (for how, or why, would treaties have any value if one side or both could break them?), is not honored, and is not even discussed as worthy of being honored, in the Islamic world.
In that world, a different principle obtains. Treaties may be made with Infidel enemies. But those treaties do not bind the Muslim side. They can, whenever they wish, whenever they feel the time is right or ripe, break those treaties. There is no such thing as a permanent "peace" treaty with Infidels. All treaties that are called that in the West are merely "truce" treaties or hudnas. They are based on the model of the agreement that Muhammad made with his Meccan enemies (because they would not yield to his demands) in 628 A.D., at Hudaibiyya, just outside Mecca.
Muhammad is not merely the Messenger of Allah, the Seal of the Prophets. He is the center, he is the focus, of Islam. He is mentioned far more than Allah. He is the model for Muslims, in all things, and for all times. He is uswa hasana, the Model of Right Conduct, he is al-insan al-kamil, the Perfect Man. What he said, and what he did, as recorded in the Hadith, or retailed in the Sira, constitute the Sunnah, the essential gloss on the Qur'an, and not merely a gloss but something more, for the Sunnah is the guide to daily life, to what is prohibited and what commanded. (Some Muslims now talk about "reforming" Islam -- see Mustafa Akyol -- by returning to "the Qur'an alone." They frequently employ the phrase "sola scriptura" -- a phrase appropriated from the Protestant Reformation, for the Bright Young Reformers are still Muslims, and are consumed with an ill-concealed envy, and a desire to liken the Islamic world as much as possible to the West whose achievements and liberties confound and attract and scare and repel them.)
Those reporters, those columnists, those editorial writers so sure of themselves, without having spent the necessary hours in the library, need to be shamed into study -- the study of Islam. They could, for example, be asked why they have not, in their failure to understand the meaning, and relevance, of the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya, read such a standard work as Majid Khadduri's War and Peace in the Law of Islam. It's readily obtained. It explains a lot. It explains, for example, the Treaty of Al Hudaibiyya. Shouldn't they be asked, shouldn't they be forced, to start showing that they are actually learning something, are trying to find out about Islam? And that they are not finding out about it from the usual apologists but possibly, at first, simply by reading the scholars -- not espositos and armstrongs -- who have written about Islam, or have written about Islam at a time and place when they did not need to worry, and could be truthful? (Khadduri himself later retreated into a more apologetic, less truthful mode about some aspects of Islam, but that is another story).
For example, when Muslims -- when Hamas as one case -- talks about a "truce" that will last ten years, shouldn't those who report on this kind of thing ask themselves why "ten years" was chosen? Shouldn't they inquire further, and realize that "ten years" is always the date given for a hudna? And shouldn't they then ask themselves "why is that?" and then attempt to find out? If they did make the attempt, they would discover that the agreement that Muhammad made with the Meccans at Al-Hudaibiyya was to last for ten years, and so that has, ever since, become the appropriate length of time for a "hudna" with Infidels. It doesn't mean it can't be broken within those ten years; Muhammad broke the treaty within 18 months, even though, when they speak with Infidels, Muslims will attempt to deny this. They will say that it was all the fault of the Meccans. But the facts -- and also all of the crowing delight taken in Muslim literature over the very cunning that Muhammad showed in making this treaty when he was weak and breaking it when he was strong -- show that Muslims know what really caused that treaty to be broken, and by whom.
Yet none of this ever seems to appear, not in The New Duranty Times, not in The Bandar Beacon, not in the newsweeklies, with time on their hands. One wishes to ask: Why not? Why do these people who report from Muslim countries, or who report breathlessly on peace-processing between Israel and various subsets of their Arab and Muslim implacable enemies, not ever bother to find out about what treaty-making means? They have heard the complaints about non-compliance by the Arabs. Why don't they not only take those complaints seriously, and discuss what, for example, Egypt has done to comply with its duty, under the Camp David Accords, to encourage friendly relations and an end to hostilities, at the level of peoples, with Israel? Not important? Too complicated to find out? Really?
And then, why should not journalists -- those reporters, those columnists, those editorial writers -- not be held to the duty to explain not only Egypt's failure now, but the failure to honor other agreements, or the failure of other Arab states, or of the "Palestinians," to honor their agreements? And why not ask them to find out when, and where, and why, for example, Yassir Arafat alluded for Muslim audiences to the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya -- such as his speech made in Johannesburg before a Muslim audience soon after signing the Oslo Accords, a speech surreptitiously recorded, in which he clearly makes reference to Muhammad and his Treaty? And his audience knew exactly what he was saying.
When we read, for example, that Muslims in the southern Philippines, having reached and signed an agreement a year ago with the government, are now attacking non-Muslim Filipino farmers and forcing off their land, in direct violation of that agreement, we should not be surprised. But we deserve, we readers, to be told why what these Muslims are doing is not surprising, but fits into a repeated pattern of Muslim violations of agreements with Infidel nation-states. Of course the Muslims in the southern Philippines have no intention of honoring their agreement. Of course the "Palestinians" of Fatah's Slow Jihad have no intention of honoring whatever agreement the Israelis might be foolish enough to make. Of course the government of the Muslim Arabs in Khartoum have no intention of honoring the peace agreement they made with the non-Muslims of the southern Sudan, or the commitments they have made with outside Infidels about not further harming the inferior, because non-Arab, Muslims in Darfur. And so on.
These are not unconnected, isolated examples. They are all the same example, or all examples of the same thing: the Muslim view, or even the Muslim Arab view, of treaties or agreements made with enemies who are Infidels. These are not agreements about "salaam" but about "sulh." They are not peace treaties but hudnas, truce treaties.
It isn't hard to find out all of this. This is not elementary particle physics or advanced mathematics beyond the ken of mere mortals. You don't have to be P.E.M. Dirac or John von Neumann or Paul Erdos to understand, or make sense, of this stuff. You just have to decide to be a little less lazy, and to apply to yourself the standards that, before you entered journalism, you might have imposed on yourself, or at least learned about, when you were a graduate student, or in college. You have to do the appropriate amount of research. You have to not leave things unexplained. If you are going to report on Muslims on the world of Islam, you had damn well better start learning about Islam. And that includes what Muhammad said, and did, and what he did, in particular, in 628 at Hudaibiyya.
Fitzgerald: Islam, The Treaty of Hudaibiyya, And The Two-Stage Solution
[re-posted from May 22, 2009]
I have asked before (see my article "Waiting for Hudaibiyya") and I still want to know: what is keeping the editorial page writers for The Times, The Post, The Globe, The Daily Scream, from discovering the rules that, for Muslims, govern their agreements and treaties made with Infidels?
And I still am waiting to find out. But I now want to know from the Grave Men in Government, the Grave Men who presume to be able to protect and to instruct us, who show us day after day how confused or fearful or willfully ignorant so many of them are about Islam, and thus so incapable of constructing policies that make sense to defend non-Muslims from the "struggle" or "jihad" by Muslims, wherever they are to be found, to remove all obstacles to the spread and then the dominance of Islam.
Now Pakistan is clamoring, apparently successfully, for still more billions (and using some of those billions to expand its nuclear arsenal). Now the Administration seems crazily hell-bent not merely on refusing to do what it should, and destroy or set back Iran's nuclear project (Iran, where members of a Shi'a version of the Taliban, in essence, are already in control of the government).
Still more horrifying, it is attempting to prevent Israel from doing so, by denying it the aid and intelligence and weaponry it has every reason to expect would be forthcoming (and that we should be eager, even grateful, to supply), and by publicly warning the Israelis not to do anything "without letting the Americans know first." And now the fiasco of Iraq is being joined by the fiascos of Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Muslim threat metastasizes. The only strategy that can be thought of is giving more money to, and relying on assurances from, the slightly less dangerous Muslims in power, instead of coldly welcoming the auto-destruction of Muslim states and peoples, and intervening only to keep them from acquiring, or from delivering, or from keeping, weapons of mass destruction.
The shabby treatment being given to Israel does not surprise. Even the demand that Israel lose the element of surprise by telling the Americans in advance of a strike on Iran is not surprising. That request is absurd and insulting. The Americans would see such a request made on them as such. Also, the Americans have a record of light-headed negligence when it comes to Israeli secrets. How many remember that James Baker inadvertently revealed to Assad of Syria the identities of two Israeli agents, all in order just to show off, to give an example of how much the Americans, through the Israelis, knew?
What Baker said was enough for those spies to be located, arrested, and executed. And given how many people -- it only takes one -- are malevolently inclined toward Israel, it would be madness for Israel to give the Americans prior warning, which would no doubt find its way to Iran. And even if it is argued that Iran surely knows by now that such an attack can come "at any time," there is a great difference, in the ability to protect one's installations, between the awareness that an attack "can come at any time" and the knowledge that the attack "will take place, at a particular time," say, at 5:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, on August 2.
The Administration appears impervious to that "new thinking" that Obama called for, a "new thinking" that should be based squarely on a knowledge of Islam, its texts, its tenets, its attitudes, its atmospherics, we are still stuck in the ridiculous rut of that self-proclaimed "Two-State Solution." And we know it is a "solution," you see, because otherwise it would not have been repeatedly called by the Wise Men of Washington a "solution," now would it? Therefore is again time to ask the question asked here many times before. So once again, with feeling:
Does anyone in the Obama Administration know what the Treaty of Hudaibiyya is, or why that matters so much?
Let's start with the central duty incumbent on all Muslims, to engage directly, or sometimes indirectly, using whatever instruments are available and effective, in the "struggle" or "jihad" to remove all obstacles throughout the world to the spread and then the dominance of Islam. Of course, within this larger struggle for the whole world, there is a To-Do List, with some nations higher on it than others. Those with priority on the Muslim To-Do List are those lands where Islam once dominated and Muslims once ruled. These include, for example, Israel, Spain, Sicily, Greece, the Balkan states, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, most of Russia, almost all of India. These remain, as Infidel nation-states, highest on the Muslim To-Do List. Does anyone in the upper reaches of the Obama Administration understand that the principle, enshrined since Roman times in Western jurisprudence, of Pacta Sunt Servanda, that is, the principle that "Treaties Are To Be Observed" -- see Lauterpacht, see Julius Stone, see Philip Jessup -- does not obtain in Muslim jurisprudence? Sometimes Westerners, without a knowledge of the history of the development of their own legal systems, naively assume that the most fundamental principles are not the product of men, developed in history, but simply the obvious result of logic. How could, Westerners may think, there be any treaty-making of any kind if one side not only feels free to violate the treaty, but positively required to do so whenever it feels stronger? For most Westerners, it is impossible for them to grasp the nature of the Muslim worldview, and its consequences in every area of life.
In the Muslim view, treaties with Infidels are NOT to be obeyed. They are to be entered into when Muslims feel that they are at the moment too weak to do otherwise, and where they sense that they can gain, in the end, by entering temporarily into a treaty with Infidels. For Muslims, every treaty with Infidels is merely a "truce" treaty, a "hudna." The very idea that Muslims could recognize the permanence of an Infidel nation-state goes against everything in Islam.
The basis of Muslim treaty-making with Infidels can be found in the Treaty of Hudaibiyya that Muhammad made with the Meccans in 628 A.D. Finding himself and his followers too weak to take the Meccans on directly, Muhammad made an agreement with them. He would not attack them in return for their promise to allow him and his followers to annually enter Mecca for the 'ijra, or lesser pilgrimage. The treaty was to have lasted for ten years -- and ten years, by the way, is the maximum period that a treaty with Infidels can normally last, though some Muslim authorities have said that a treaty can be renewed at the expiration of that ten-year period, if the Muslims need more time to strengthen their forces and would benefit from a continued "hudna." The treaty with the Meccans lasted only 18 months, however, when Muhammad decided to find a pretext to attack, and did. And he has been praised ever since in Muslim lore, for his ability to deceive the unwary Meccans and to use the time of that truce to his advantage. And Muhammad is the Model of Conduct (uswa hasana) and the Perfect Man (al-insan al-kamil). He is the model in all things. Among those things, he provides the model, that transcends his time and is good for all time, for how to make treaties with Infidels.
On the justification, and the prescribed duration, of treaties made by Muslims with Infidels, here, for example, is the celebrated Averroes (Ibn Rushd) [d. 1198]:
"Among those who profess that the Imam is entitled to conclude a truce when he considers it in the interest [of the Muslims] are MÄ�lik (founder of the Maliki school of Sunni Islamic Law), ShÄ�fiÄ« (founder of the Shafi'ite school of Sunni Islamic Law), and AbÅ« Hanifah (founder of the Hanafi school of Sunni Islamic Law). ShÄ�fiÄ« maintains that a truce may not be concluded for a period longer than that of the truce which the Prophet concluded with the unbelievers in the year of Hudaybiyyah... Therefore, says ShÄ�fiÄ«, a truce may never exceed the period for which the Prophet concluded truce in the case of Hudaybiyyah. Still, there is controversy about the duration of this period. According to some it amounts to four years, but according to others three or ten years. ShÄ�fiÄ« opts for the latter."
And here is Antoine Fattal, a Lebanese jurist (and Christian) who wrote the most complete study, published in 1958, of the legal status of non-Muslims under Islam, "Le status legal des non-musulmanes en pays d'Islam" which, remains untranslated from the French. Dr. Fattal describes the Muslim view of what justifies Muslims in sometimes making treaties with Infidels:
"Connected with the notion of jihad is the distinction between dar al-harb (territory or "house" of war) and dar al-islam (house of Islam). The latter includes all territories subject to Moslem authority. It is in a state of perpetual war with the dar al-harb. The inhabitants of the dar al-harb are harbis, who are not answerable to the Islamic authority and whose persons and goods are mubah, that is, at the mercy of Believers. However, when Muslims are in a subordinate state, they can negotiate a truce with the Harbis lasting no more than ten years, which they are obliged to revoke unilaterally as soon as they regain the upper hand, following the example of the Prophet after Hudaibiyya."
And here is the scholar of Islam Bassam Tibi, originally from Syria, writing in 1996. (After years teaching in Germany, Professor Tibi now teaches at Cornell):
"Islamic wars are not hurub (the plural of harb) but rather futuhat, acts of "opening" the world to Islam and expressing Islamic jihad. Relations between dar al-Islam, the home of peace, and dar al-harb, the world of unbelievers, nevertheless take place in a state of war, according to the Qur'an and to the authoritative commentaries of Islamic jurists. Unbelievers who stand in the way, creating obstacles for the da'wa, are blamed for this state of war, for the da'wa can be pursued peacefully if others submit to it. In other words, those who resist Islam cause wars and are responsible for them. Only when Muslim power is weak is "temporary truce" (hudna) allowed."
And another authoritative summing up of how Muslims view treaties made with Infidels, and the model of Hudaibiyya, can be found in "War and Peace in the Law of Islam," by the celebrated Iraqi-American scholar Majid Khadduri. Strange that Fouad Ajami, the loquacious Fouad Ajami, who holds a chair at Johns Hopkins named after Majid Khadduri, has never in all of his writing or speaking referred to this book, and helped to enlighten the Americans about the Muslim view of such treaties as described in Khadduri's book. I don't have the book at hand, and at this point I'm not going to find the relevant passage. If you are a Washington bigshot, you should go out, buy your own copy, and read the book, and find the passage for yourself. I'm not going to do all your work for you. You do a little.
Yet despite all this, we are told, a treaty creating a "Palestinian" state is a "solution" to the war being made on Israel not only since it came into existence, but against the Jews of Mandatory Palestine just as soon as it became clear, after World War I, when they were no longer subject to Ottoman rule, that they would not accept the position of dhimmis under continued Muslim, now Arab, rule. No such "solution" is possible. Indeed, whatever promises may be made, either by the Fast Jihadists of Hamas, or the Slow Jihadists of Fatah, to Israel or to Washington policymakers, will be broken. According to Muslim law, Muslims will be obligated to break such promises made to Infidels as soon as they feel strong enough. Thus any such treaty will merely serve to weaken Israel. And this always been well understood among Arab Muslims. A good example of such an understanding comes from Yasir Arafat, who was quick to signal to his fellow Muslims, just a few weeks after signing the Oslo Accords, in an address to an all-Muslim audience in Johannesburg (save for the person or persons who secretly taped the event), that he had no intention of honoring any commitments made by the Muslim Arab ("Palestinian") side, and did so by alluding to Hudaibiyya and Muhammad's dealings with the Meccans.
Finally, within the week the "Palestinian" Ambassador to Lebanon, one Abbas Zaki, has been recorded explaining that any treaty with Israel, one that Abbas Zaki assumes will include the loss of Israeli control over the Old City of Jerusalem, will so demoralize the Israelis, undermining all that they achieved at such great sacrifice, that any such agreement will spell the beginning of Israel's end. And that, for Abbas Zaki, and for the "Palestinians" of the Slow Jihad, of Fatah and the "Palestinian Authority," is exactly what they intend to further.
They have no interest in a permanent peace with Israel. But they are more realistic -- just -- than the Fast Jihadists of Hamas, with whom they are locked in a struggle over money and power. That is why they differ from Hamas in matters of tactics and timing, but not on the ultimate goal of causing, in whatever way they can, an end to, the destruction of, the Infidel nation-state of Israel that remains, for Arab Muslims, such an intolerable affront that they can hardly stand it. The Slow Jihadists, being worldly men, want the tap of Western aid turned on, and so are prepared to minimally pretend, and to say, tellingly, as Mahmoud Abbas does in his No-One-Here-But-Us-Accountants mode (and just how far a suit and tie and mild manner will get you, in the capitals of the West, where you tend to be confused with technocrat Fayyad, is simply amazing to behold), when he says "we choose peace as a strategic option." Get that? As a strategic option. Words not to live by, but to worry by. If I were the Israeli leader, I'd call off the farce of the peace-processing that can only mean disaster for Israel right then, and right there.
Here's what that "Palestinian" ambassador to Lebanon, Abbas Zaki, said:
"With the two-state solution, in my opinion, Israel will collapse, because if they get out of Jerusalem, what will become of all the talk about the Promised Land and the Chosen People? What will become of all the sacrifices they made - just to be told to leave? They consider Jerusalem to have a spiritual status. The Jews consider Judea and Samaria to be their historic dream. If the Jews leave those places, the Zionist idea will begin to collapse. It will regress of its own accord. Then we will move forward."
In this he is merely speaking the truth, echoing Mahmoud Abbas, and Yasir Arafat, and all the others. For they, the Slow Jihadists, welcome the "Two-State Solution." They do so because it will force tangible surrenders of territory by Israel, and a seeming admission by the Israelis that they somehow have been in the wrong, even though Israel has a strong legal (see the Mandate for Palestine, and especially paragraphs 4 and 6 of the Preamble), historic, and moral claim. The Israeli claim is far superior to that of those who now claim, with all kinds of absurd arithmetic, made-up data, and deliberately induced historical amnesia, to have been the residents of the ill-considered backwater vilayets (and a separate sanjak for Jerusalem) that were once part of the Ottoman Empire, were under Arab rule for only a few decades, and that, by all accounts (including that of Mark Twain and many other Western visitors of note), were in a state of "ruin" and "desolation" until the land revived with the early Zionists.
The Zionists brought economic activity, and in so doing also attracted a great many Arabs, especially from Egypt and from modern-day Iraq, who were the grandfathers of so many of those who now claim -- and do so with such vehemence, such feigned or even by this time real deep belief -- to have been part of a non-existent "Palestinian people," and not merely the Arab descendants of all of the Arabs who came between the late 19th century and 1940. But what do facts matter, if you can get the BBC and NPR, and The Guardian, and Le Monde, and Canal Cinq, and Radio France International, to keep parroting the telling epithet "occupied," so that everyone will forget Israel's claim, and treat it as Nazi Germany, with its troops goose-stepping right through the Arc de Triomphe, while Rick and Mrs. Victor Laszlo make passionate love in a room with a view of the rooftops of Paris?
There is no hint, anywhere, in all this futile peace-processing, that the Muslim Arabs would ever recognize, permanently, the state of Israel, or would ever -- permanently -- stop trying to make war on Israel, militarily, or where that is not possible, through economic boycotts, diplomatic pressure, and constant attempts to demoralize the people of Israel. The Muslim Arabs may sign a treaty, may even clamor to sign a treaty that will bring about what they will sweetly call, for their American and other Western donors, a "two-state" solution. But they don't mean it. Nothing in Islam would permit any believer in Islam, any Believer, to permanently accept the existence of an Infidel nation-state, no matter how unthreatening, no matter how hopelessly tiny and permanently imperiled it might be. It just cannot be allowed to stand. The only way for Muslim Arabs to accept the reality of Israel is if they are convinced they cannot win, they cannot break Israel, they cannot push it back, or get others to push it back, to what Abba Eban once called "the lines of Auschwitz."
Those are lines that no American general of any sense would, looking at a map and at the balance of forces, ever recommend if he were the Israeli Chief of Staff. It is ignorance of Islam in many, and deep malevolence toward Israel in some, all over the capitals of the Western world, that have allowed this "Two-State Solution" to become an accepted idea, preposterous as it is in the light of Islam, in the light of its texts and tenets and attitudes, and especially in the light of the Treaty of Hudaibiyya. It is preposterous for the Western world to keep refusing to realize that for the Arabs, the Two-State "Solution" means something that may appear to be quite close -- off by a single letter -- but in fact is far, far different.
For the Muslim Arabs, the local shock troops of those carefully renamed after 1967 as the "Palestinian people," share the same goal (the disappearance of Israel and the reincorporation of its land into Dar al-Islam), but differ on matters of tactics and timing. And on those matters of tactics and timing, some of the Hamas people may now be making noises to indicate that they, too, are a bit more realistic and can mouth a few of the right phrases, if the benefits are understood.
The Americans want what is impossible: a "Two-State Solution." Such a "solution" would whet, not sate, Arab Muslim appetites, and feed Muslim triumphalism everywhere, not least in western Europe. And such an outcome would make Israel's struggle to survive even more hellishly difficult than it already is, and by depriving Israel of the perceived power it now enjoys, would undercut any possibility of "Darura" (Necessity) being invoked by an Arab leader who wanted to resist calls for a final military assault on Israel. The "two-state solution" makes peace less, not more, likely.
The Muslim Arabs would be the winners, and it is their interpretation, their understanding, of the "Two-State Solution" that would prevail. They can never reconcile themselves to the existence of Israel unless Israel remains overwhelmingly, and obviously, more powerful in a military sense. That is all that keeps the peace, and that is all that will ever keep the peace. Egypt refrains from attacking Israel not because Egypt has steadfastly agreed to honor the Camp David Accords (it has violated all of its solemn promises to encourage friendly relations with, and an end to inculcated hostility towards, Israel), but for the same reason that Syria, or Iraq under Saddam Hussein, do or did not attack Israel: fear of what the Israelis would do in return. And in the case of Egypt, what the Israelis would do is obvious: they would take the Sinai, and not ever give it back again. Twice, in 1956 and then in 1979-81, in three tranches, is quite enough. And Egypt wants to keep the Sinai.
It is not the Two-State Solution that the boys of Fatah, of the "Palestinian Authority," or the Saudi king, or any other Arab who takes his Islam seriously, have in mind as what's in store for Israel.
No. Their intended version may be off only by a single letter. But there is a world of difference. Would that those who make policy, and are not already compromised by decades of futile peace-processing whose futility they do not dare to acknowledge, for fear of how silly they would look, would see this. Why the hell didn't the aaron-millers, dennis-rossees, martin-indyks, robert-hasses, learn about Islam, and Hudaibiyya, decades ago? What made them think they could spend years and years doing peace-processing without ever studying and thoroughly grasping, the belief-system that animates hundreds of millions of Muslim Arabs? What were they thinking, or rather, why were they not thinking?
Yes, there is a world of difference between the naïve Americans proposing this Two-State Solution, with such colossal ignorance and at the same time such self-assurance, and what the Arab Muslims have in mind.
And that, as you have been tipped off by the candid title already to know, is what can only be called "The Two-Stage Solution." Anyone of sense should be able to figure out what the second stage of that two-stage "solution" would inevitably be (in the sense, for the Arabs, of their kind of "solution" to the horrible affront of Israel's existence).
We must, for the sake of our own moral sanity, do everything that can be done to prevent that from happening.
I see, so two kinds of dhimmis. Warner: Exactly, the word dhimmi has two separate meanings—a subjugated dhimmi is persecuted and the apologist dhimmi helps the persecutor. The context determines which dhimmi we are.
"The Jew" Israel however never mentions that the war against it is part of the jihad, the war, to make "the Jews" submit to Islam.
This would be beyond the pale for Israel, it is obviously thought by Israel, because to mention this war as part of jihad war, which is a never ending, never to end war until Islamic victory, would mean that Israel is announcing that a proper, permanent peace with Arab Muslims is in fact not possible - this because Islamic Shari'ah law does not allow for a proper permanent peace with any "non-Muslim" people and this of course includes the Jewish state of Israel.
This is of course because "peace" in Islam means submission to Islamic Shari'ah law.
"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism.
"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa. While as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan." (PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein, March 31, 1977, interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw.) [The Palestinian leadership, including Ahmed Shukar and Yasir Arafat, has openly admitted Palestinian "peoplehood" is a fraud;
Until the 1967 war, many in Western Europe saw Israel -- correctly -- as a tiny and besieged state, surrounded by enemies who wished to destroy it. In this respect, they were helped along by the fact that the leader of those who would after the Six-Day War be carefully renamed as the "Palestinians," were not yet called "Palestinians" but simply "the Arabs" or "the Arab refugees." And their putative leader, Ahmed Shukairy (who was himself half-Turkish), had the habit of expressing himself as a truthful Muslim, and told the world that his goal was the destruction of Israel.
The Arab leaders said the same thing. And those Arab leaders, at the time, did not have the enormous oil wealth that the member-states of OPEC really began to acquire only in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Then they enjoyed a really fantastic jump in oil revenues, and thus an equally fantastic increase in perceived power and real ability to buy all kinds of influence along with other, more tangible goods and services, only when OPEC quadrupled the price of oil in the fall of 1973.
Of course to accept Islam's claim as being one of the three “Abrahamic faiths” means to accept that Moses (Musa) and the biblical prophets and Jesus were Muslims and then one can begin to understand that if Israel/Jerusalem are Muslim then what isn't?
Rome, London, Paris, Brussels, New York, Washington, Tokyo, Moscow - the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th "holiest sites in Islam"?
This article goes some way towards explaining the issue:
"The "jihad" is " an expansionist holy war aiming at the Islamization of non-Muslim territories, that transforms a conquered people into a dhimmi people: while Islam, the force behind jihad, spreads Arab values." (p. 181.)
"...the concept of jihad…aims at the triumph of Islam, the extermination or conversion of pagans, and the conversion or humiliation of Jews and Christians.." (p.182.)
An elaborate legal system has evolved to define and justify the take over of the world by divine right and the subjugation of every human being.
I think that so many Jewish people suffer from extreme dhimmitude that they will probably think that Gingrich is causing trouble by telling the truth (which they are confused about) and so might not vote for him!
The truth is very simple.
"I was ordered to fight all men until they say ' There is no god but Allah.' "
-- Prophet Muhammad's farewell address, March 632
That is the essence of Islam. That is the truth.
This declaration is repeated, one way and another, throughout the Koran and the other foundational texts of Islam.
Only people with confused minds can think that that can be "moderated.
Everything else is an effect of Islam including all the horror and violence and war and including all the detail - all the books, laws to control and suppress, the whole pack of cards - are there to define and justify the end product that Islam requires: world rule in "accordance with islamic Shari'ah".
The effects are so great and the detail so vast that that serves as part of the deception that is part and parcel of Islam and which duly confuses the "non-Muslims" witless.
Here is some contemporary detail - this Islamic "Declaration" on "Human Rights" has been accepted into the Instruments of the United Nations and seeing that "non-Muslims" have no legal rights, not even the right to life, under "Islamic Shari'ah" law this demonstrates that the UN has been commandeered by Islam and is now being used by Islam as part of the jihad:
Adopted and Issued at the Nineteenth Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers in Cairo on 5 August 1990.
The Member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference,
Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which God made the best nation that has given mankind a universal and well-balanced civilization in which harmony is established between this life and the hereafter and knowledge is combined with faith; and the role that this Ummah should play to guide a humanity confused by competing trends and ideologies and to provide solutions to the chronic problems of this materialistic civilization.
Wishing to contribute to the efforts of mankind to assert human rights, to protect man from exploitation and persecution, and to affirm his freedom and right to a dignified life in accordance with the Islamic Shari’ah
Article 24 â€¨All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah.
Article 25 â€¨The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.
[Emphasis by The Law]
The creation of the "Palestinians" is merely part of latter day detail of islamic jihad.
P.S. Yes I have used a lot of inverted commas. This is because to accept the Islamic deception, or any part of it, is to enter into a world where "good is bad and bad is good and pigs have wings and elephants fly," to put it politely. This is from the lyrics of a song I have not recorded called "Sacrifice Yourself."
Morris-dancing 'flash mobs' to protest against Olympics snub...
Olympics chiefs are spending millions to combat international terrorists, anti-capitalist activists and eco-warriors at next year’s London Games.
But there’s one group of troublemakers they have not prepared for: irate Morris dancers. Practitioners of the centuries-old folk tradition are furious they have been overlooked for the opening ceremony, and are planning direct action to showcase their talents.
They intend to organise ‘flash mobs’, who will mingle with crowds at the Games and, on cue, launch into apparently spontaneous demonstrations of their skills. They also plan similar stunts along the procession route of the Olympic torch.
The Morris men say they feel angry and betrayed by ceremony organisers who want to present a more contemporary image of Britain to the worldwide TV audience of up to four billion.
Barry Goodman, president of the Morris Federation, said: ‘The feeling among Morris dancers is fury. . . It’s appalling. . . The opening ceremonies should celebrate the diversity of cultures in this wonderfully multicultural country of ours – but a place should be reserved for our national dance.’
But Britain’s Olympics chiefs seem to regard Morris dancing as a joke. When Sebastian Coe was asked in 2008 what London’s opening ceremony could possibly offer to compete with the awesome spectacle in Beijing, he quipped: ‘Five thousand Morris dancers.’
The opening ceremony will be masterminded by Danny Boyle, director of Slumdog Millionaire and Trainspotting. He has said he wants to ‘re-think’ tradition using British pop and rock culture and ‘bits of British films’. When asked by The Mail on Sunday whether Morris dances would be included in the ceremony, an Olympics spokesman simply laughed.
Peter Halfpenny, squire of the Morris Ring, has written: ‘They appear to be looking for youth involvement in particular, with a Hollywood shine on proceedings. There seems to be little interest in indigenous folk culture for the first time ever in the history of the Olympics. Morris leaders have attended every national meeting of perceived worth and been given no indication of interest. Lord Coe’s “5,000 Morris dancers” was froth and spin with no expectation of fruition.’
He held out little hope of Morris dancing making the closing ceremony, either, saying of the directors of that event: ‘Their background is generally pop music, having produced Take That’s comeback shows, Pet Shop Boys and Lady Gaga.
Paul Reece, Olympics liaison officer for Britain’s Morris dancers, has now suggested the flash mobs. He told The Mail on Sunday: ‘We will get together and launch these impromptu events. We want to put our indigenous culture on the map.’
The only role of the indigenous culture, and specifically the indigenous born and bred Londoners has been to pay for this PE fest. We have had the unheaval, the demolition, the tearing up of football pitches, allotments, churches and businesses, none of the jobs, none of the prestige posts and perqs, merely the 'Olympic levy' on our Council tax bill every month for the last five years, and who knows how long into the future. A pox on the bl**dy Olympics.
A former commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, which the FBI says played a role in a 1996 terrorist attack that killed 19 U.S. servicemen, accompanied Iraq's prime minister to the White House on Monday, attending an event at which President Obama trumpeted the end of the Iraq War.
Hadi Farhan al-Amiri, transportation minister in Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government, was part of the delegation that visited the White House to discuss Iraq's future and Iran's influence there, among other topics.
At a joint White House news conference with Mr. al-Maliki, Mr. Obama proclaimed that the U.S. is committed to being a major player in the region and that Iraq's neighbors should take heed. He did not mention Iran by name.
Critics have accused Mr. al-Maliki, a Shiite, of acting at the behest of the Shiite government in Iran. But Mr. Obama told reporters that he believes the Iraqi prime minister when he says that "his interest is maintaining Iraqi sovereignty and preventing meddling by anybody inside of Iraq."
"And he has shown himself to be willing to make very tough decisions in the interests of Iraqi nationalism, even if they cause problems with his neighbor," the president said in a thinly veiled reference to Iran.
White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to confirm whether Mr. al-Amiri was part of the Iraqi delegation. He referred questions to the Iraqi government.
Mr. al-Maliki's office listed Mr. al-Amiri as a member of the delegation. A spokesman for the Iraqi Embassy was unavailable to elaborate on Mr. al-Amiri's role in the White House visit.
Louis J. Freeh, who served as FBI director in the Clinton administration and the early months of the George W. Bush administration, said it was shocking that Mr. al-Maliki would include Mr. al-Amiri in his visit to Washington.
Iran's Revolutionary Guard has been involved in "countless acts of terrorism, which are acts of war against the United States," Mr. Freeh said in an interview.
Mr. al-Amiri served as a commander of the Revolutionary Guard's Badr Corps, a battalion that was tasked with operations in Iraq. He remained active in the Badr Corps during the late 1980s and 1990s, when he was working on resistance efforts against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.
The FBI linked the Revolutionary Guard to the attack on the Khobar Towers in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, on June 25, 1996. Nineteen U.S. servicemen were killed by a bomb blast at the towers, which were housing American military personnel.
"As a senior leader, [Mr. al-Amiri] would have to have known about Khobar, and he would know Gen. [Ahmad] Sherifi, who was the IRGC general that conducted the operation," Mr. Freeh said.
He added that the "FBI would love to sit down and talk to him, show him photographs and ask him questions" about the fugitives named in the Khobar Towers indictment.
The Revolutionary Guard has been linked to several acts of terrorism, including an attack on the Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires in 1994, in which 85 people were killed and hundreds wounded.
The Revolutionary Guard supported Iraqi Shiite deserters and refugees, organized them into the Badr Corps and used them against Saddam's regime in Iraq.
The Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, formerly known as the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, was one of the groups that received financial and military support from Iran during that time. Mr. Bush met the council's leader, Sayyed Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, at the White House in 2006.
Ali Alfoneh, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said that after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the fall of Saddam, Iran thought it was time to position pro-Iranian Shiite elements in the new Iraqi government.
"All those elements governing Iraq today have at some point been cooperating with Iran," Mr. Alfoneh said.
"That is true of the president [Jalal Talabani], the prime minister and a good number of Iraqi politicians who previous to their arrival in Iraq were refugees living in Iran," he added.
Analysts and Western officials say some of those officials still depend heavily on Iran.
U.S. officials say the Revolutionary Guard has had a role in several attacks on U.S. interests worldwide.
"In addition to the well-publicized Arbabsiar case, the IRGC has supported Shia militant groups who attack U.S. forces in Iraq," said a U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Mansour Arbabsiar, a U.S. citizen and used-car salesman, has been accused of a central role in a suspected plot by the Revolutionary Guard's Quds Force to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington. He has pleaded not guilty.
Outside the White House on Monday, a large group of protesters rallied in support of Iranian exiles at Camp Ashraf, which is located about 40 miles north of Baghdad.
The Iraqi government has set a Dec. 31 deadline to close the camp, which houses members of the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), listed by the U.S. as a terrorist group. The exiles' supporters fear the camp's unarmed residents will be massacred because of their opposition to Iran's government.
Current and former members of Congress, former officials who served in Republican and Democratic administrations, a former Iraqi official and a former senior commanding officer at Camp Ashraf spoke at the protest.
"We did not fight and die ... for you to deliver the integrity of Iraq to the mullahs in Iran," said former Sen. Robert G. Torricelli, New Jersey Democrat, in remarks directed at Mr. al-Maliki.
Former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, who served as homeland security secretary in the George W. Bush administration, called on the Obama administration to take the MEK off the U.S. list of foreign terrorist organizations.
Army Brig. Gen. David Phillips, former senior commanding officer at Camp Ashraf, said he found no evidence linking the camp's residents to terrorist acts.
"A few had unpaid parking tickets in the United States," he said. "That shows you how thoroughly we did the research on who they were."
Former Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell suggested that U.S. Marines be left in Iraq to ensure the safety of Camp Ashraf residents.
All U.S. combat troops are scheduled to leave Iraq by the end of this month.
Mr. Freeh warned of an imminent "genocide" at Camp Ashraf.
MEK leader Maryam Rajavi addressed the rally via teleconference from France. She said the al-Maliki government had turned Iraq into the "backyard of the Iranian regime" and accused the Obama administration of obstructing a European Parliament plan to relocate the camp's residents.
"The people of Iran and the United States will judge you on the basis of what you did when you could stop a great carnage," she said.
"One day, you will severely criticize yourselves for the events unfolding these days and for wasting time," she added.