Please Help New English Review
For our donors from the UK:
New English Review
New English Review Facebook Group
Follow New English Review On Twitter
Recent Publications by New English Review Authors
The Oil Cringe of the West: The Collected Essays and Reviews of J.B. Kelly Vol. 2
edited by S.B. Kelly
The Impact of Islam
by Emmet Scott
Sir Walter Scott's Crusades and Other Fantasies
by Ibn Warraq
Fighting the Retreat from Arabia and the Gulf: The Collected Essays and Reviews of J.B. Kelly. Vol. 1
edited by S.B. Kelly
The Literary Culture of France
by J. E. G. Dixon
Hamlet Made Simple and Other Essays
by David P. Gontar
Farewell Fear
by Theodore Dalrymple
The Eagle and The Bible: Lessons in Liberty from Holy Writ
by Kenneth Hanson
The West Speaks
interviews by Jerry Gordon
Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy
Emmet Scott
Why the West is Best: A Muslim Apostate's Defense of Liberal Democracy
Ibn Warraq
Anything Goes
by Theodore Dalrymple
Karimi Hotel
De Nidra Poller
The Left is Seldom Right
by Norman Berdichevsky
Allah is Dead: Why Islam is Not a Religion
by Rebecca Bynum
Virgins? What Virgins?: And Other Essays
by Ibn Warraq
An Introduction to Danish Culture
by Norman Berdichevsky
The New Vichy Syndrome:
by Theodore Dalrymple
Jihad and Genocide
by Richard L. Rubenstein
Spanish Vignettes: An Offbeat Look Into Spain's Culture, Society & History
by Norman Berdichevsky

These are all the Blogs posted on Monday, 21, 2006.
Monday, 21 August 2006
"We don't know anymore who is living among us."
BERLIN — The weekend arrest of a Lebanese student [Youssef Mohamad E.H., 21 ] suspected of trying to blow up two commuter trains last month prompted German authorities to warn that the country has become a target for Islamic terrorists.

"The danger has never been as high," Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said in an interview on German public television.

Schaeuble said he feared strikes by homegrown Muslim radicals. "That is the real reason for concern," he said. "We don't know anymore who is living among us."..

Michael Lüders, a Middle East expert and government policy consultant, said, "Germany is reorienting its (foreign) policy. It did not call for an immediate cease-fire (during Israeli attacks) in Lebanon, and that was disappointing in the Arab world. Some radical forces now think Germany should be punished," he said.

German counterterrorism officials keep close watch on Islamic activists. In its annual report on extremists, the country's domestic intelligence agency said Germany was home to about 900 members of the militant Lebanese Shiite organization Hezbollah.

Posted on 08/21/2006 5:49 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Monday, 21 August 2006
Goodbye tourism industry?
In a recent column, David Warren analyzes the purpose of terror tactics:

The terror attacks on the West are pure theatre, and the number of casualties aren’t important, so long as they give an impression of great magnitude. For Western eyes, and minds, the purpose of these strikes is to inspire dread and fear, but that is the secondary intended effect. The primary audience is Muslim eyes and minds, and for them, believe it or not, the purpose is to inspire pride, by presenting Islam triumphant and the West defeated. The key rhetorical message of fanatic Islamism corresponds with this, and explicitly invokes the glories of Jihad in previous centuries, when Islam was expanding and Christendom was contracting under blow after blow.

Yes, but I think it is more than theater.  The tourism industry is the target.  Bring down tourism, bring down a nation's economy.  Take Scotland, for example, where tourism provides "direct employment for 200,000 people and generating visitor spending of more than £4 billion a year."  No other industry in Scotland comes close. 

And, in the wake of recent scares, budget travel may be a thing of the past.   Budget airline Ryanair has lost £2 million due to "cancelled flights and a temporary ten per cent drop in bookings"

British Airways, of course lost far more: "BA has lost an estimated £40m and has been involved in a massive luggage recovery operation after the chaos led to 20,000 bags going missing."

Stay tuned.
Posted on 08/21/2006 6:03 AM by Robert Bove
Monday, 21 August 2006
Lunar calculations for holidays big step for Muslims

Now these are simple astronomical calculations that obviously could have been done at any time during the past 1350 years and yet among Muslims the practice is controversial and opens those engaging in it to charges of being un-Islamic. The Washington Post offers up this story as though it is proof American Muslims are assimilating and entering the 21st century.  Don't hold your breath.

The Muslim practice of following a lunar calendar, requiring a naked-eye sighting of the new moon to start a holiday the next morning, has divided the Muslim community on its most sacred days. Now a scholarly panel that advises American Muslims on religious law is trying to end the confusion.

The Fiqh Council of North America announced last week that it would no longer rely on moon sightings to determine the start of holidays and would instead use astronomical calculations. The panel released an Islamic calendar that runs through 2011, hoping Muslims in the United States and Canada can be persuaded to trade the old way for the new.

The schedule problem is more than a minor inconvenience. School calendars and vacation time from work, for instance, depend on knowing dates in advance.

Posted on 08/21/2006 6:15 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Monday, 21 August 2006
Roger Scruton
... has a compelling op-ed on  Here's part, but it's all well worth reading:

The majority of European Muslims do not approve of terrorism. But there are majorities and majorities. According to a recent poll, a full quarter of British Muslims believe that the bombs of last summer in London were a legitimate response to the "war on terror." Public pronouncements from Muslim leaders treat Islamist terrorism as a lamentable but understandable response to the West's misguided policies. And the blood-curdling utterances of the Wahhabite clergy, when occasionally reported in the press, sit uneasily with the idea of a "religion of peace." All this leads to a certain skepticism among ordinary people, whose "racist" or "xenophobic" prejudices are denounced by the media as the real cause of Muslim disaffection.

Now of course it is wrong to give gratuitous offence to people of other faiths; it is right to respect people's beliefs, when these beliefs pose no threat to civil order; and we should extend toward resident Muslims all the toleration and neighborly goodwill that we hope to receive from them. But recent events have caused people to wonder exactly where Muslims stand in such matters. Although Islam is derived from the same root as salaam, it does not mean peace but submission. And although the Koran tells us that there shall be no compulsion in matters of religion, it does not overflow with kindness toward those who refuse to submit to God's will. The best they can hope for is to be protected by a treaty (dhimmah), and the privileges of the dhimmi are purchased by onerous taxation and humiliating rites of subservience. As for apostates, it remains as dangerous today as it was in the time of the prophet publicly to renounce the Muslim faith. Even if you cannot be compelled to adopt the faith, you can certainly be compelled to retain it. And the anger with which public Muslims greet any attempt to challenge, to ridicule or to marginalize their faith is every bit as ferocious as that which animated the murderer of Theo Van Gogh. Ordinary Christians, who suffer a daily diet of ridicule and skepticism, cannot help feeling that Muslims protest too much, and that the wounds, which they ostentatiously display to the world, are largely self-inflicted.

To recognize such facts is not to give up hope for a tolerant Islam. But there is a matter that needs to be clarified. Christians and Jews are heirs to a long tradition of secular government, which began under the Roman Empire and was renewed at the Enlightenment: Human societies should be governed by human laws, and these laws must take precedence over religious edicts. The primary duty of citizens is to obey the state; what they do with their souls is a matter between themselves and God, and all religions must bow down to the sovereign authority if they are to exist within its jurisdiction.

The Ottoman Empire evolved systems of law which to some extent replicated that wise provision. But after the Ottoman collapse the Muslim sects rebelled against the idea, since it contradicts the claims of the Shariah to be the final legal authority. The Egyptian writer and leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sayyid Qutb, went so far as to denounce all secular law as blasphemy. Mortals who make laws for their own government, he argued, usurp a power which is God's alone. And although few Muslim leaders will publicly endorse Qutb's argument, few will publicly condemn it either. What to us is a proof of Qutb's fanaticism and egomania is, for many Muslims, a proof of his piety.

Posted on 08/21/2006 6:52 AM by Andy McCarthy
Monday, 21 August 2006
British Law Against Glorifying Terrorism Has Not Silenced Calls to Kill for Islam

The New Duranty Times unbelievably did not qualify the word Islam:

LONDON, Aug. 20 — From his home on the northwest edge of this city, Muhamad al-Massari runs a Web site that celebrates the violent death of British and American soldiers. It is visited by tens of thousands of people every day, he said.

Mr. Massari maintains the Arabic-language site,, in the face of a strict new law aimed at curtailing violent speech and publishing. Just last week, the Council of Holy Warriors, a group affiliated with Al Qaeda, posted a declaration on the site praising a suicide bombing in Iraq that killed or wounded 55 people.

“If you kill our civilians, we kill your civilians,” Mr. Massari declared during an interview...

Atilla Ahmet, leader of the Islamist group Supporters of Shariah. In meetings with supporters and in interviews, the British-born Mr. Ahmet speaks freely about what he considers the necessity for violent action, both here and abroad, to avenge what he considers unjustified attacks on Muslims abroad.

“You are attacking our people in Muslim countries, in Iraq, in Afghanistan,’’ Mr. Ahmet said, referring to the British and American governments. “So it’s legitimate to attack British soldiers and policemen, government officials, and even the White House.”

Mr. Ahmet, a 42-year Briton of Cypriot descent, went on to include bank employees as legitimate targets “because they charge interest,” which he says is in violation of Islamic law.

Mr. Ahmet said he is aware of the new law, but that he could not shirk his duty to defend Islam, which he believes is under assault by Britain and the United States in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. He says he often addresses his followers, who he says number 3,000.

“If you are going to kill a Muslim, then I will do everything in my power to kill you,’’ he said.

Posted on 08/21/2006 6:59 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Monday, 21 August 2006
Did Osama lust for Whitney?

NY Post: Kola Boof, 37, the Sudanese poet and novelist who claims to have once been bin Laden's sex slave, writes in her autobiography, "Diary of a Lost Girl," which is excerpted in the September Harper's: "He told me Whitney Houston was the most beautiful woman he'd ever seen."

Boof - who wrote for the soap opera "The Days of Our Lives" until she was axed last month - continues, "He said that he had a paramount desire for [Houston] and although he claimed music was evil, he spoke of someday spending vast amounts of money to go to America and try to arrange a meeting."

Boof says bin Laden couldn't stop talking about his favorite singer and had lofty plans for her. "He said he wanted to give [her] a mansion that he owned in a suburb of Khartoum. He explained to me that to possess Whitney, he would be willing to break his color rule and make her one of his wives."

But bin Laden's murderous side also emerged in his fantasies about the pop superstar. "[He would say] how beautiful she is," Boof claims, "what a nice smile she has, how truly Islamic she is but is just brainwashed by American culture and by her husband - Bobby Brown, whom Osama talked about having killed, as if it were normal to have womens' husbands killed.

"In his briefcase, I would come across photographs of the Star [magazine], as well as copies of Playboy. It would soon come to the point where I was sick of hearing Whitney Houston's name," Boof writes.

But as much as bin Laden adored Houston, he was also dismissive of black women. "African women are only good for a man's lower pleasures," bin Laden supposedly said. "What need do you have for a womb?" ..

Posted on 08/21/2006 7:17 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Monday, 21 August 2006
James Q. Wilson on Last Week's NSA Decision ...
also well worth the time in this morning's WSJ.  It's here (subscription required).
Posted on 08/21/2006 7:21 AM by Andy McCarthy
Monday, 21 August 2006
Althouse Slays Tribe
Harvard's (and the Democratic Party's) Laurence Tribe is upset with intellectually honest liberals who, though sympathetic with the result, conceded that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's opinion last week, holding the NSA's Terrorist Surveillance Program unconstitutional, was a disgrace.  Ann Althouse has a superb take-down of Tribe (h/t Bench Memos):

Are you saying that ordinary people who don't read law reviews and who are trying to understand current events shouldn't have the benefit of law professors helping them understand an important new case, that we're distracting them from their proper job of despising the President? You want people to concentrate on the judge's conclusion and not to question the judge's reasoning and analysis? To do that is to bow to authority. If that's what people ought to do, what happens to the foundation for criticizing the President? The President has concluded that he has the power to do what he's doing. Why shouldn't people accept that "important conclusion" and leave it for the experts to hash out the details in law review articles?

Posted on 08/21/2006 7:22 AM by Andy McCarthy
Monday, 21 August 2006
Dhimmitudinally incorrect poet/artists series

Been perusing William Blake on the Web, as is sometimes my wont, and came across this (h/t ZombieTime), at the National Gallery of Victoria, Australia (where else?).

The Schismatics and Sowers of Discord: Mahomet   1824-27
pen and watercolour over pencil (NGV 23)
Felton Bequest, 1920
National Gallery of Victoria

"Inferno XXVIII, 19-42. The poets are in the ninth chasm of the eighth circle, that of the Sowers of Discord, whose punishment is to be mutilated. Mahomet shows his entrails to Dante and Virgil while on the left stands his son Ali, his head cleft from chin to forelock. A winged devil with a sword stands on the right. In the distance, behind Mahomet, can be seen Bertrand de Born carrying his head in his hand."  (c)1999 National Gallery of Victoria.

I like so much better "discord" than "peace" when applied to Islam.  It rings true, a sound beloved of Dante and Blake--and any other poet worthy of the name.

(Alternative title:  "Dante Throws Mahomet on the Bar-B")
Posted on 08/21/2006 7:18 AM by Robert Bove
Monday, 21 August 2006
Throw jihad on the bar-b

Australian Stephen Morris,a fellow at Johns Hopkins University's Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, DC, defends the use of the term "Islamic Fascists" and reminds the willfully ignorant that we are in a War:

As we know from the events of last week, al-Qa'ida's present tactic is to recruit citizens of Western countries to carry out horrendous terrorist acts in the West. In the case of Britain, the problem is that a minority of the Muslim community sympathises with the terrorists. A British Daily Telegraph poll in February on the July 7, 2005, bombings of innocents on the London Tube and bus showed that 6 per cent of British Muslims insisted the bombings were fully justified. As the poll noted: "Six per cent may be a small proportion but in absolute numbers it amounts to about 100,000 individuals who, if not prepared to carry out terrorist acts, are ready to support those who do."

By now it should be patently clear that we in the West are at war with a hydra-headed and barbaric enemy that has not a shred of humanity and relishes the bloodletting of tens of thousands of innocents, including other Muslims. It is at least as brutal as the Nazis and communist enemies we have faced in the past. Although radical Islam is not militarily as powerful as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, it has the huge strategic advantage of suicide bombing, which is immune to deterrence.

Should any of its constituent elements -- the Iranian Government or al-Qa'ida -- acquire nuclear weapons, it will likely attempt genocide against Israel and create devastation in the West of an unprecedented kind.

(h/t: Chuck Colson)
Posted on 08/21/2006 7:57 AM by Robert Bove
Monday, 21 August 2006
Cut from the same cloth

The growing menace of Islam needs to be dealt with decisively. In the UK, the mainstream political parties have yet to address it. So is the answer the British National Party (BNP), the only party to fight on an anti-Muslim platform?


Sadly, one or two commenters at this site seem to think so. Strangely enough, almost without exception, those posters who cheer for the BNP do not actually live in the UK. None has any direct experience or knowledge of the BNP, and their views are taken entirely from the party’s sanitised self-presentation on its website – I will not discredit the New English Review by linking to it; interested readers can google. The ignorance of the posters is matched only by their arrogance and presumption in telling UK citizens what is best for them. If a little learning is a dangerous thing, total ignorance is lethal.


In contrast, those of us with direct experience of the BNP, formerly the National Front, know it for what it is – a neo-Nazi white supremacist party, which does not allow non-white members and whose leader, Nick Griffin, has stated publicly that his white skin is what defines him. 


The ideology of Islam – and Islam is much more an ideology than a religion – and that of Fascism are remarkably similar. Never has this similarity been better expressed than by Ibn Warraq, whose article for this edition of New English Review should be required reading. Only one similarity, specific to Britain’s Fascist party, has been left out: taqiyya.


Many readers with knowledge of Islam will be aware of the concept of taqiyya, or lying in the furtherance of Islam. This can take various forms, from signing treaties with no intention of keeping them to selectively quoting the earlier, more peaceful verses of the Koran when speaking to Westerners. The BNP, too, are past masters at the art of taqiyya. They have re-packaged themselves, knowing that if they let the electorate know what they really stood for they would never get in. Griffin co-opted a token Sikh and Jew, in the face of considerable opposition from party members. This is in a bid to present themselves as opposed to Islam the ideology, rather than Muslims, the dark-skinned people. Yet, while no longer advocating forced repatriation of non-whites, they advocate “voluntary” repatriation, which means that a white Muslim such as Yvonne Ridley would stay, but black Christians, atheists, Hindus, Sikhs and apostates would be “encouraged” to leave.


With the BNP, as with Muslims, there is a way to test whether they have genuinely reformed or whether they are practising taqiyya. This is to ask them directly to repudiate the violent passages in the Koran, or the policies of white supremacy. It is not enough to refrain from mentioning them, or to talk about peace or inclusiveness. The violence or racism must be explicitly and unequivocally rejected. Nothing else will do.

I could be wrong, of course. Perhaps the BNP is the first Fascist party to change its spots. But I doubt it.

Islam and Nazism are cut from the same cloth. For proof, follow this link, which Paul, a regular commenter here, kindly sent in. Here’s a taster:

Posted on 08/21/2006 8:10 AM by Mary Jackson
Monday, 21 August 2006
Meet the Raufs
The New Duranty Times has in interesting profile of the Rauf family who are tied to the British airline plot. Neighbors repeatedly reported suspicious activity but, as will be no surprise to Theodore Dalrymple readers, the police refused to follow up.
Posted on 08/21/2006 8:48 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Monday, 21 August 2006
Iran refuses UN inspectors

VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Iran has turned away U.N. inspectors wanting to examine its underground nuclear site in an apparent violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty, diplomats and U.N. officials said Monday.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the confidentiality of the information, told The Associated Press that Iran's unprecedented refusal to allow access to the facility at Natanz could seriously hamper international efforts to ensure that Tehran is not trying to make nuclear weapons.

The revelation came on the eve of Iran's self-imposed Aug. 22 deadline to respond to a Western incentives package for it to roll back its disputed nuclear program. The United Nations has given Tehran until the end of August to suspend uranium enrichment.

Posted on 08/21/2006 9:20 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Monday, 21 August 2006
Get ready: Hezbollah vs. Israel, Round 2

WND: JERUSALEM – Hezbollah has returned to many of its strongholds in south Lebanon and is capable of launching another round of attacks against the Jewish state, Israeli and Lebanese officials tell WorldNetDaily.

"Hezbollah has undoubtedly returned to their positions," Walid Jumblatt, Lebanon's Druze leader and head of the country's Progressive Socialist Party, told WND. "They were victorious against Israel and now they are regrouping for another round, which is inevitable."

Posted on 08/21/2006 9:24 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Monday, 21 August 2006
Muslims Are Now Faced With Two Clear Choices

Must read op-ed in the New York Sun by Youssef Ibrahim in which he asserts:

A Muslim basically has two choices in life: Take refuge in secularism to escape this literal straitjacket and become a barely tolerated cousin who has strayed from the righteous path; or adhere to the code of behavior and become a "soldier" of a militaristic faith that sees itself in perpetual war with infidels.

Posted on 08/21/2006 10:00 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Monday, 21 August 2006
Robert Spencer on C-Span

This excellent C-Span presentation is available here.

CAIR wants Muslims to write letters of protest about it, so it doesn't happen again.

Posted on 08/21/2006 10:13 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Monday, 21 August 2006
End of tourist industry 2

Regarding the threat to national economies--and democracy itself--that jihadist targeting of the airline industry represents, Amnon Rubinstein offers several strong suggestions about what can be done now. 

This is not a mere question of human rights against security – as some commentators would have it. This is a war for our democratic way of life. It is a war staged by new means — readiness to die in order to kill others is a mighty weapon — that menaces everything dear to us.

How can democracies defend themselves?

There are of course the usual means: intelligence, interrogation, more efficient searches of passengers and baggage. But as events in London's Heathrow air terminals have shown, these may paralyze major airports in the world. More drastic and effective measures may be required — such as equipping all international airplanes with anti-missile devices or the obligation to check baggage a substantial time before take-off. But, as in any other war, one must not give up means of deterring the enemy. Two major means of deterrence would be: firstly, to impose a ban on all air traffic serving countries which by action or inaction aid and abet these terrorists; secondly, to constitute a list of extremists who verbally and ideologically support this war against civilian air-traffic and exclude them from access to airplanes. After all, they too cannot perpetrate their murderous deeds without air-travel.

Add to these suggestions Rebecca's, in her comment on Stephen Morris's insistance that, "Although radical Islam is not militarily as powerful as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, it has the huge strategic advantage of suicide bombing, which is immune to deterrence."

Counters Rebecca:

"I take issue with the idea that suicide bombings are 'immune to deterrence.' I think they are deterrable if western gov'ts had the will to carry collective punishments in retaliation, to announce these punishments publicly, and to carry them out after a terror attack."

Both sets of suggestions would comprise a sane, effective program--if the political will were there to implement it.
Posted on 08/21/2006 10:21 AM by Robert Bove
Monday, 21 August 2006
And Dan Rather is sentenced to pension?

I've posted about fan behavior here, here, and here, so I clearly know a fan behavior story when I see one.  This, from ESPN (my emphasis):

NEW YORK -- Ryan Leli loves the New York Mets.

The Suffolk County teenager loved the Mets so much that authorities say he posed as a reporter to get into Shea Stadium and talk with players.

Police arrested Leli, 18, on Friday night at Shea just before the start of the Mets' game against the Colorado Rockies game and charged him with impersonating a journalist, the Queens district attorney announced Saturday.

Prosecutors say Leli told Mets officials he worked for NBC Universal and showed a fake NBC employee identification card so he could get press credentials.

Leli first used the press pass to attend an Aug. 10 game between the Mets and the San Diego Padres. Authorities said Leli used the pass to approach and chat with players including Mike Piazza before and after that game.

Leli used the fake NBC identification again Friday to get another press pass for the Mets-Rockies game.

Mets management apparently became suspicious and contacted authorities.

Leli was also charged with criminal possession of a forged instrument, falsifying business records, larceny, criminal possession of stolen property, criminal impersonation and criminal trespass.

He was arraigned Saturday in Queens Criminal Court and released.

Leli was scheduled to return to court Sept. 27. He faces up to seven years in prison if he is convicted.

Leli's attorney John Rapaway did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

And what about the Fauxtographers?  And David al-Frost?
Posted on 08/21/2006 11:26 AM by Robert Bove
Monday, 21 August 2006
Re: Spencer on C-Span

Anyone here from the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines? Anyone now stationed in Iraq? Anyone who has returned from Iraq, still trying to make sense of why those Iraqis were so so ungrateful, so clamoring for more and more and more American goodies for themselves and their family and their tribe, but not for "Iraq," anyone wondering why they were so eager to have the American soldiers take all the risks, do all the most important and dangerous tasks, whether the Shi'a government urging us to fight the Sunnis (or as they have been called, the "insurgents") and the Sunnis now wanting us to protect them from the Shi'a, and even to see if they can inveigle us, the infinitely-foolable Infidels, into now fighting the Shi'a militias, then you will want to see this interview with Robert, in addition to, or preparatory to, reading his books, and finding out what the generals and civilian masters would not teach you, would prevent you from learning adequately about, lest it cause you to question all kinds of things, including the "forward strategy of freedom" that makes no sense.

And for that matter, many others connected to the military should watch this video -- no, it should be assigned. Do you now teach, or attend one of the service academies, or one of the ar colleges? Perhaps you are, say, a colleague of that nice Vali Nasr, the one who is the son of the famous apologist, and who has tried, out of belief and embarrassment and filial piety, to ignore so much of Islam in order to keep himself a Muslim, and whose current theme is that the American government should "seek to engage" (whole lot of "seek-to-engaging" going around -- its the fashion of the month, just the way that word "robust" is now the adjective of the month -- "a robust response" and a "robust" this and a "robust" that -- lemmings of language, and lemmings of thought). And so there he is, and he sounds plausible, and he tells you why it would make sense -- from his point of view it would -- to "engage the Shi'a" in dialogue. And back in Washington, Sunni Arab diplomats are explaining why we should take the side of the Sunnis in Iraq and, by the way, please do pressure Israel into that suicidal "two-state solution" stuff because you see, it will dampen the appeal of Iran and help relieve us, the Sunni Arab despots.

No, Vali Nasr, sweet as he is, is part of the problem -- as are all those sweet-and-reasonable Muslims who want us to do all kinds of things, but never to realize that Sunni and Shi'a alike, and all those who take the belief-system of Islam to heart, and the duty of Jihad, or who, even if they do not participate in Jihad, attempt to support or promote it, or to hide its promptings in the immutable and canonical texts of Islam, are part of the Camp of Islam that regards us, the Infidels, as the enemy. And if they regard us, and treat us, as the enemy, then it follows that they are, in turn, for us the enemy. We didn't cause it. We haven't been making war, all the Infidels in the world, on Muslims. We haven't moved by the tens of millions into Muslim lands, nor has the government of India treated its Muslims the way Hindus have been treated in Pakistan and Bangladesh, nor have Christians in the West treated Muslims with the same hostility and cruelty with which Muslims have for centuries treated Christians and other non-Muslims, and continue to do so today in any land where Muslims dominate and rule.

It is silly to study "counter-insurgency" techniques -- as all kinds of "experts" with campaigns of the British in post-war Greece and Malaya, and the Americans in Vietnam, in mind. Why? Because in all those cases the insurgencies were of two kinds. There were the insurgencies of those who simply wanted an overlord, a colonial master, out -- as in Kenya with Jomo Kenyatta's Mau Mau. But in the main, the post-World War II "insurgencies" have been those of Communists, or those claiming they were Communists, motivated by a desire for economic justice. This was the case in Greece, In Malaya, the Communist insurgency was directed at the rich, who also happened to consist mainly of the British. In Vietnam, the war against the French was a nationalist with a growing Communist flavor (certainly in what became North Vietnam), and the Vietnam War was a war motivated again by nationalism and the Communists who exploited both that and a desire for less miserable economic conditions. In each case, hearts and minds might somehow be won, just a little bit, by improvement in the economic wellbeing -- in other words, by making things better.

But that is not what the "insurgency" in Iraq is about. The war in Iraq is about who, within Iraq, is going to possess political power and therefore whatever wealth -- almost entirely oil wealth -- there is. It would not matter if the Americans tried to win Sunni hearts and minds or Shi'a hearts and minds. They remain Infidels, the Sunnis and Shi'a will use them, as best they can, to promote their own quite different interests, but will never, can never, be truly grateful or for that matter even be friendly with American Infidels. It can't happen, and this is why all that advice from various "counter-insurgency experts" -- including the Australian who so impressed James Fallows (who consulted "sixty experts" to find out what he thinks he knows about how to deal with the Jihad), and in today's New Duranty Times, an article by "counter-insurgency expert" (from 40 years ago) Terence Daly, who does not mention Islam, who appears not to have any idea that just possibly the belief-system of Islam not only matters, but is indispensable for understanding what these so-called "insurgencies" in Iraq or elsewhere are all about. They are about power, about power within the Camp of Islam, where ethnic and sectarian and economic differences do divide, and they are about all Muslims within the Camp of Islam, against the entire Camp, as they see it, of Non-Muslims. Not to be assuaged by the hearts-and-minds of lavishing economic development on anyone.

Indeed, the plutocrats of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf sheikhdoms have used much of their wealth to pursue and promote the Jihad. The better off Muslims are, the more disguised Jizyah they receive in the form of foreign aid or directly, that manna from Allah known as oil revenues, the more powerful the forces of Jihad become. Prior to 1973 the doctrine and duty of Jihad existed, as it had existed, and had been acted upon, inspiring Muslims, for 1350 years. But it had fallen into seeming desuetude only because, in the past hundred years, the Western world had not only been more powerful but was seen to be obviously so. What changed everything was the OPEC oil money -- some ten trillion dollars since 1973 -- and the millions of Muslims permitted to live behind enemy lines, in Infidel nation-states, where they can and do cause all kinds of trouble, both in how it preserves its political and legal and social institutions, and in how it attempts to exercise freedom of Infidel states to conduct their own foreign policy (the French government is backing out of Lebanon because it is terrified of the reaction of the Muslims within France, though no one has yet noted this).

Any "counter-insurgency" class in the American military, or in any Infidel military, that does not deal with Islam, with what is contained in the texts -- Qur'an, Hadith, and the biography of Muhammad the Perfect Man -- any course that presumes to pretend that an "insurgency" in a Muslim country is just like, say, an insurgency by Communists in post-war Greece or Malaya, or by the Mau Mau in Kenya, and can be dealt with using the same "hearts-and-minds" strategy supplementing military campaigns, will be false, will be missing the essential significance of Islam -- will be, in short, worthless.

It may be that "counter-insurgency" experts of an older generation will refuse to consider this -- after all, it puts a burden on them. It requires them to learn, and in detail, what Islam teaches. Not what "extremist" Islam teaches, but Islam tout court. It requires them to learn about the attitudes that arise in any society, or environment, suffused by Islam and its teachings -- for one need not be a mosque attender, need not have gone to a madrasa, need not even be very devout, to nonetheless exhibit all the features of the much more militant Muslim, such features as not owning up to the contents of Islam but offering that sly blend of taqiyya and tu-quoque argumentation that we are all so familiar with (google "Taqiyya and Tu-Quoque"). In other words, many lax or unobservant Muslims, as long as they continue to identify themselves as Muslims and hence, as members of the umma, will continue to defend Islam, and to support it by protecting it from inquiring Infidels, and in other, more dangerous ways as well. We Infidels simply have to rely on the historical evidence, on the evidence of our senses, and on the evidence of those Infidels who grew up in Muslim-dominated societies (Copts from Egypt, Maronites and other Christians from Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Hindus and Chinese from Malaysia or Indonesia)), or from societies where there is a Muslim population large enough to support activities threatening to the larger non-Muslim society (as in India), and finally, and perhaps must usefully, on the evidence provided by the "defectors" from Islam, such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Irfan Khawaja, Azam Kamguian, Walid Shoebat, Nonie Darwish, and tens or hundreds of thousands of others, whose names are not household words, but whose private testimony is devastating.

Whatever "techniques of counter-insurgency" may work against those who are fighting for Communism and economic "justice," has no relevance at all to the problem of fighting the belief-system of Islam. That this has escaped so many of these counter-insurgency experts is not surprising. In the same way, those in the "spreading democracy" business -- who get government and foundation money, of course -- will be the last ones to admit that the "all people want freedom" business is silly, dangerous, and fails to consider the nature of Islamic religio-political theory on the basis for any ruler's legitimacy. And those who are in the "moderate Muslims are the answer" racket, also to obtain still more, ever more, government and foundation grants and the contributions of individuals, will not admit just how shaky, mutable, and unhelpful to Infidels reliance on that concept of "moderate Muslims" is, and how the supposed usefulness of "moderate Muslims" against the immoderate ones is no substitute for the real divisions within Islam -- sectarian, ethnic and economic -- that have been written about here and at JihadWatch some 500 times. But of course, others have a market niche to protect, and if the money rolls in to support the idea of encouraging "moderate Muslims" and only worrying about those "Islamists," then "Moderate Muslims" (the "answer") versus "Islamists" will be the theme, as it will be the content of course, of the next grant application.

And finally, the experts in "counter-insurgency" in whose discussion of "Islamic insurgency" or "Shi'a insurgency" or "Sunni insurgency" always focus on that noun, that so-easy-to-deal-with noun, and not with those pesky, but far more important, adjectives -- "Islamic," "Sunni" and "Shi'a."

Posted on 08/21/2006 1:25 PM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Monday, 21 August 2006
Muslim doctor wants apology from U.S. airline

He was kicked off, you see, after passengers became alarmed because he was chanting prayers in Arabic.

Absurd. And disgusting. No apology needs to be made. Someone might legitimately be alarmed, given what Muslim terrorists have done, are doing, promise to do in the future, on Western planes, to Infidels on them and on the ground. We know of the Egyptian co-pilot who grabbed the controls and aimed the plane downward, shrieking "allahu Akbar." We know of the similar shrieks on Flight 193 and during other terrorist attacks. Why should any Infidel passenger have to endure even greater alarm, with attendant nervousness (and for some that nervousness can cause cardiovascular and other problems not to be pooh-poohed, especially on a long flight, with someone on board who has terrified you by his chanting in Arabic).

And, it is entirely possible not to chant aloud but to say one's prayers silently. Furthermore, there are circumstances when one simply does not say one's prayers. Does a Muslim surgeon, performing a six-hour operation, take time out to prostrate himself and chant? Does he expect to be allowed to? If the answer to either of those questions is yes, then there should be no employment of Muslim surgeons, or of Muslims in any profession -- including airline pilot of course -- that would require regular intervals of prostration and prayer to Allah.

Bring on a lawsuit. It is important that there be one, and that a case be clearly argued, to the end, with every detail -- including that business no doubt thought up after the fact. And airlines crews should have the last word, for it is they who have a responsibility for the lives, the safety, and the minimizing of high anxiety in an already highly-anxious flying public. If indeed any members of the TSA were apologetic, they had no right to be. They had no right to claim that the flight crew had "overreacted." They were not that crew, flying that plane, in the circumstances brought to that crew's attention. And the possible attempt to assuage this man's hysterical overreaction, based on his complete inability to see things from the point of view of his non-Muslim fellow passengers and what must, quite reasonably, have gone through at least some of their minds (how would you react, if a bearded fellow passenger on a flight to, say, Frankfurt, suddenly started chanting something in Arabic over and over again, or even prostrated himself in the aisle? Wouldn't you wonder if he was doing this to prepare himself for something that was going to happen on that flight? Should all Infidels be carefully instructed in classical Arabic, and have to memorize the Muslim prayers (and the ever-fixed Qibla) as part of their mental and emotional preparation, as part of those Have-
A-Happy-Flight! instructions.

Flight attendants, we all know, have a required marcel-marceau routine, in which they wordlessly point to the exits, and wordlessly point to the dotted lines along the central aisle, and then wordlessly affixes that drop-down mask over her or his face. Shall they now have added to their many duties, a little season on "Muslim prayers: A Guide for Unnecessarily Alarmed Infidels" in which they, this time not wordlessly, explain carefully that (and now the sound in this story has been turned on)

"at a certain time, and facing in a certain direction, Muslim passengers may simultaneously be leaving their seats, and prostrate themselves in the aisles (so please, don't think of going to the bathroom then) and, because the plane is flying in this or that direction, the qibla, or direction of Mecca in which they will attempt to orient themselves, will be such and such. Don't mind this. Don't be alarmed, even if all aisles are blocked. Oh, and on the cards provided for your convenience in the pouch on the back of the seat in front of you, you will be able to read a phonetic rendition of the Arabic prayers our Muslim passengers will be saying, and you might wish to thoroughly familiarize yourselves with them in advance. I have to say, that I've been reading them over and over, and I find those prayers truly inspiring, and thought-provoking, and I'm sure you will too. So sit back, relax, and don't be in the slightest alarmed, just think of this as a way to become culturally not only more sensitive, but to become, truly, a better citizen of the world."

If we do not change our attitudes, and stop the nonsense in its tracks, it will come to that.

Posted on 08/21/2006 1:48 PM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Monday, 21 August 2006
UK Betjeman fans - really really really short notice!

In one minute's time (at 9pm), on BBC 2, John Betjeman fans can enjoy "Betjeman and Me", narrated by Griff Rhys-Jones.

Make that 30 seconds. 29....

Posted on 08/21/2006 2:57 PM by Mary Jackson
Monday, 21 August 2006
Extremist groups set to recruit freshers

This is from the Times Higher Ed supplement: (h/t LGF)

Academics are warned about burying their heads in the sand, report Anna Fazackerley and Jessica Shepherd.

Universities have been warned this week that Islamist extremists are likely to target freshers fairs looking for recruits, fuelling accusations that politically correct academics are burying their heads in the sand about terrorism.

Shiraz Maher, who joined the radical group Hizb ut-Tahrir while studying at Leeds University but later renounced his membership, told The Times Higher that universities were "bread-and-butter" recruiting grounds for extremist groups.

He said: "If you go to freshers fairs at University College London, the School of Oriental and African Studies and the London School of Economics next month, you will find Hizb ut-Tahrir undercover.

"Vice-chancellors have been wilfully blind to the problem. Recruitment of students is going on. That is categorical. Universities are not on top of this."

[Here in the southern US, our black colleges are especially vulnerable - RB]

Posted on 08/21/2006 6:55 PM by Rebecca Bynum
Monday, 21 August 2006
Gosh, I feel so much better now

“Bush has virtually never in his political career made a decision that he didn't think was the right thing to do and the right way to do it.” posted anonymously at The Corner under the title "Remembering Why We Prayed for a Bush Victory"

no comment

Posted on 08/21/2006 7:07 PM by Rebecca Bynum
Monday, 21 August 2006
David Littman: "Killing in God's Name" (at the UN) + OIC (Pakistan) statement:

David Littman writes in Frontpagemag:

The following statement was delivered in Geneva on August 17 by David G. Littman – speaking as a representative of the nongovernmental organization (NGO), the Association for World Education – to the 58th session of the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, under item 6(c): “terrorism and counter-terrorism”. It was then circulated to its 26 members (‘independent experts’), participants, and the media, with written statement E/CN.4/2006/NGO/231: Calls to Kill in the Name of God or Religion. 

This reiterated appeal to the Sub-Commission for an unqualified condemnation – by a resolution or a brief chairman’s statement – of “any call to kill, to terrorize, or to use violence in the name of God or any religion” is unlikely to be heard by this sitting, moribund UN body. Similar calls for such a clear condemnation have been made since 2003  to the defunct Commission on Human Rights and its Sub-Commission by several NGOs: AWE, International Humanist and Ethical Union, Association of World Citizens, and World Union for Progressive Judaism…………………………

Sir, the legitimacy of the use of violence and acts of terrorism in the name of Islam is the subject of continuing debate within the Islamic world, particularly since the recent events in the UK. The debate turns on interpretations of the concept of Jihad when carried out as “Holy War.”




We again call on this Sub-Commission to adopt a clear resolution at this session or, failing that, a Chairman’s statement in which any call to kill, to terrorise, or to use violence in the name of God, or of any religion, is condemned without qualification. Sir, there is a real risk that silence, here and now, would make of us all the accomplices of terrorism and tyranny.


[P.S. The next morning (Friday, 18 August), Pakistan’s Ambassador Masood Khan – speaking for the OIC countries – addressed the Sub-Commission. He did not refer to our appeal that the OIC condemn: “all those who kill or call upon others to kill in the name of God or religion,” as well as an “an unambiguous condemnation of those who are defaming Islam by their calls to kill in the name of Allah.” Rather, he spoke about “the Prophet Muhammad’s (PBUH) caricatures in a Danish paper last year,” and stated: “In the recent past, terrorist attacks, or even terrorist plots, have been used as a pretext to demonize Islam and Muslims… Muslims are being dehumanized as Jews were during the inter-war years in the last century. The spectre of Islamophobia is haunting Europe.” He also stated: “The OIC believes that the existing gaps in the international law – soft or hard – to combat defamation of religions and to promote respect for each others beliefs should be stepped up.” He concluded: “In the Islamic world, endeavours are being made to wage political and ideological struggles against the forces of obscurantism and extremism. Last year in Makkah, the OIC announced its 10-year programme for the promotion and protection of human rights. It will also elaborate [an] OIC Charter on Human Rights.” There can be little doubt that any such a Charter will be conditional on Shariah law (see the 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, articles 24 and 25),  in total contradiction to the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights].

Posted on 08/21/2006 7:38 PM by Andy Bostom

Most Recent Posts at The Iconoclast
Search The Iconoclast
Enter text, Go to search:
The Iconoclast Posts by Author
The Iconoclast Archives
sun mon tue wed thu fri sat
   1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31   

Via: email  RSS