The battle is just beginning in California over same-sex marriage. Helpfully, Mary suggested a compromise based on British law, but I don't think the L.G.B.T. activist groups are willing to compromise on an issue framed as a matter of unfair discrimination quite yet. Personally, I think a compromise is valid, but one is not in the offing, especially not on a national level in the United States.

We should remember, however, a lawyer can easily set up anything homosexual couples desire as far as deposition of property, powers of attorney, living wills and so forth. A legal civil union would simply make a one-size-fits-all legal situation that may or may not be appropriate for everyone. Marriage, on the other hand, is a societal tradition designed to foster child-bearing and child-rearing. It is the primary institution which passes on cultural values from one generation to the next. When the family falls apart as it has, society as a whole also disintegrates. My opinion is that legalizing homosexual marriage would speed the process, at a time when we desperately need to slow it. Here the latest report from New Duranty:

“It’s going to be the largest, most expensive and most hard fought L.G.B.T. ballot measure in the history of the country,” said Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, which works on behalf of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people. Both sides say they expect to spend $10 million to $20 million on the campaign, which will officially begin when the secretary of state puts the amendment on the ballot, pending spot inspections of more than a million signatures turned in by groups opposing same-sex marriage.

The amendment would insert 14 words into the California Constitution — “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California” — a phrase tested with focus groups months before the court’s decision.

Advocates for same-sex marriage have also been planning for this fight well before Thursday, forming campaign committees as early as 2003, when an initial effort to change the Constitution began, but failed.

“We didn’t even have to ask what the next step is,” said Kate Kendell, the executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. “We are in full campaign mode. We need money. We need volunteers. We need to begin mobilizing to protect this incredible decision.”

The latest effort to ban same-sex marriage began in earnest in January, when petitioners fanned out across the state with the help of a variety of national groups, including Concerned Women for America and the Family Research Council, both based in Washington. All told, a coalition of groups called Protect Marriage had spent some $1.8 million on the campaign through the end of March, according to state election documents, though much phone and foot work was done by volunteers from churches and other groups...

Thursday’s ruling, which becomes effective after 30 days, would make California the second state to allow same-sex marriages, after Massachusetts.

Constitutional amendments like the one proposed here are preferred by some opponents to same-sex marriage because they are less likely to be overturned by the courts, said David Masci, a senior research fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. And they have been remarkably popular. Voters have approved a ban in 27 of the 28 states that have taken up the issue, Mr. Masci said. Arizona defeated an initiative in 2006.

“There is a concern especially among conservatives that so-called activist judges will see a constitutional right to same-sex marriage,” Mr. Masci said. “Constitutional amendments are seen as a way of stopping that from happening.”

Groups opposed to same-sex marriage say they see several advantages in California, including the somewhat low bar, a simple majority, for changing the Constitution. They also say banning same-sex marriage is an issue that will play well with the state’s large Hispanic population, which tends to hold somewhat more conservative social views.

The state’s electorate seems divided. A 2007 poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found 49 percent of residents opposed to same-sex marriage, and 45 percent in favor.

Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco, who added to the national debate about same-sex marriage in 2004 when he ordered the county clerk to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, said it would be important to the fall campaign to perform marriages as soon as possible.

Mr. Staver, of Liberty Counsel, said he would ask for a stay of the court’s ruling until voters could decide, but Mr. Newsom is not interested in waiting.

“As we move forward and literally tens of thousands of couples are married, the question to the voters changes,” Mr. Newsom said. “It’s no longer denying something to people that they never had. It’s taking something away that they’ve already enjoyed. And that’s a much more difficult thing to do.”

Some couples are planning to combine their weddings with efforts to make sure their legal unions are not short-lived. Cary Davidson, a lawyer who lives in Los Angeles and is a member of the Equality California board, said he and his partner, Andrew Ogilvie, planned to marry before the November election.

But he said they would ask guests to contribute to the campaign to defeat the ballot measure instead of buying gifts.

“The only thing that matters to us at the moment is to make sure that the rights that we just gained are maintained,” said Mr. Davidson, 53, who has been with Mr. Ogilvie for 18 years. “And that’s the best way to do it.”

From the series "Likvidatsiya" (Liquidation):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxwdBiCVFVc&feature=related

Like Abdul Rahman who had to be judged insane and then spirited out of Afghanistan to avoid the death penalty for converting to Christianity, this student journalist is likewise facing death for "insulting Islam" in the new improved Afghanistan we are fighting to preserve and he will probably endure the same sort of treatment. It would be too embarrassing, there would be too much publicity, if we let the Islamic wheels of justice (a system we helped to instate) roll forward in full view of the world. He will undoubtedly be coming to live with the infidels.

AP: PUL-E CHARKHI, Afghanistan - The prison uniform Sayed Parwez Kambakhsh wears is emblazoned with crudely painted black scales of justice, but the young journalist insists on the eve of his appeal that he has yet to see justice done.

A court found Kambakhsh, 24, guilty on Jan. 22 of distributing an article that questioned the Muslim practice of polygamy. It handed him the maximum sentence on the charge of insulting Islam _ death. ...

The judges found him guilty of handing out a report he printed off the Internet to fellow journalism students. The article asked why under Islam men can have four wives but women cannot have multiple husbands.

Kambakhsh said the article accused Islam of violating women's rights, but he was hesitant to discuss details. He insisted he had no knowledge of it until government officials accused him.

The verdict sparked an international outcry, with a number of organizations demanding that the case be annulled and Kambakhsh set free.

A U.S. State Department spokesman expressed concern that Kambakhsh was sentenced to death for "basically practicing his profession."

Abdul Malik Kamawi, a spokesman for the Supreme Court, said Kambakhsh's case will go before an appeals court in the capital on Sunday.

Bob Dietz, Asia program coordinator for the New York-based rights group Committee to Protect Journalists, welcomed the transfer of the case to Kabul and the defendant's access to legal counsel.

He said CPJ was concerned that Kambakhsh may have been targeted because his brother, Yaqub Ibrahimi, had written about human rights violations and local politics for the Institute for War and Peace Reporting, an organization that trains Afghan journalists.

He hopes Kambakhsh will be acquitted in Sunday's appeal, but added "we fear for his safety in Afghanistan if he is given his freedom." ...

Baltimore Sun: Dr. Louis J. Cantori, a Middle Eastern scholar, author and former professor of political science who taught at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County for more than three decades, died of heart failure Monday at his Hunting Ridge home. He was 73.

Dr. Cantori was born and raised in Haverhill, Mass., and served in the Marine Corps from 1951 to 1955, where he attained the rank of sergeant. He earned a bachelor's degree in international relations from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst in 1961.

He was a graduate of the University of Chicago, where he earned a master's degree in political science in 1962 and his doctorate in political science in 1966. He continued his education at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt, where he studied Islamic philosophy.

According to the Global Muslim Brotherhood report, Dr. Cantori was a supporter of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood:

Omitted from this information is Dr. Cantori’s extensive affiliations with the U.S. Brotherhood. Perhaps the most prominent of these affiliations was serving as a founding board member of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID. Dr. Cantori was also a faculty member of the Cordoba University, headed by Taha Jabir Al-Alwani who has played a major role in multiple U.S. Brotherhood organizations such as CSID, the Graduate School of Islamic Social Sciences, the International Institute of Islamic Thought, and the Fiqh Council of North America. Both Dr. Cantori and Dr. Al-Alwani were also member of the Steering Committee of the Circle of Tradition and Progress (COTP) described as a:

…unique international association was established in 1997 consisting of distinguished Christian and Muslim scholars of conservative or traditionalist inclination committed to a common investigation of the permanent things. The association, the Circle of Tradition and Progress, recently held its second international symposium in London. The objective of the research, conferences and publications which the Circle projects is to reintegrate Mediterranean and Arab Islam within that Western world of which it long constituted an important part.

Members of the COTP Steering Committee included:

Sheikh Youssef Qaradhawi (most important leader of the global Muslim Brotherhood)

Dr. John L. Esposito (Georgetown University academic and Muslim Brotherhood supporter)

Rachid Ghannoushi (Tunisian Islamist associated with Brotherhood networks)

Bashir Nafi (Palestinian Islamic Jihad)

I have some sympathy with commenter John who writes in response to Rebecca’s post:

I pay my taxes, as you do, and I demand the same right of regulation as you and all your heterosexual companions already expect and have - if you will not grant that then stop taxing us.  

And it is easy to find examples of gay couples who stay together for years in loving relationships, and, conversely, of marriages that end after an absurdly short time. A gold digger who marries an old codger with a nasty cough inherits his fortune, while a gay man whose partner of fifty years dies intestate gets nothing. Is this fair?

On the other hand, I agree with Rebecca’s view, that marriage is “the glue that holds society together” and must be “maintained as a special category”.

Perhaps the US could learn from the Great British tradition of muddling through. Thus, rather than accept gay marriage on “equal rights” grounds, or reject it on religious and moral grounds, find a pragmatic compromise.

Since 2005, gay couples have been allowed by UK law to enter into Civil Partnerships. This is not the same as gay marriage, which in the EU is legal only in the Netherlands and Belgium. From the rather tackily named Government Equalities Office:

Civil Partnership is a completely new legal relationship, exclusively for same-sex couples, distinct from marriage.

The Government has sought to give civil partners parity of treatment with spouses, as far as is possible, in the rights and responsibilities that flow from forming a civil partnership.

There are a small number of differences between civil partnership and marriage, for example, a civil partnership is registered when the second civil partner signs the relevant document, a civil marriage is registered when the couple exchange spoken words.  Opposite-sex couples can opt for a religious or civil marriage ceremony as they choose, whereas formation of a civil partnership will be an exclusively civil procedure.

So what rights and responsibilities do Civil Partners have? From the same website:

·         Tax, including inheritance tax;

·         Employment benefits;

·         Most state and occupational pension benefits;

·         Income related benefits, tax credits and child support;

·         Duty to provide reasonable maintenance for your civil partner and any children of the family;

·         Ability to apply for parental responsibility for your civil partner’s child;

·         Inheritance of a tenancy agreement;

·         Recognition under intestacy rules;

·         Access to fatal accidents compensation;

·         Protection from domestic violence; and

·         Recognition for immigration and nationality purposes

It is reasonable for gay couples to have these rights and duties. However, marriage should be a special category referring only to a man and a woman, particularly as regards the validity of a religious ceremony.

Is this compromise merely a matter of words? Have hordes of homosexuals been clogging up the Registry Offices? The short answer is no. In the first year after it was made legal, just over eighteen thousand couples entered into a Civil Partnership in the UK. The figures were at their highest in the first month, falling gradually over the course of the year. Statistics do not seem to be publicly available for 2007, but numbers are likely to have peaked in the first year the opportunity was available.

Has the UK opened the floodgates to all kinds of irregular unions, with people demanding to marry their pet parrot, or, worse still, more than one wife? Rebecca fears that gay marriage will lead to demands for polygamy to be recognised.

There is a big difference between gay marriage and polygamous marriage. Polygamous marriage greatly increases the number and proportion of Muslims. The proportion of gays, on the contrary, remains constant whatever their legal status. So gay marriage is not the threat that polygamous marriage is. Still, the use of the word “marriage” implies an identity with man-woman unions, and this does set a dangerous precedent. Does a Civil Partnership imply the same thing?

There is no evidence that demands for polygamous marriage have increased as a result of Civil Partnership legislation. Such demands, were they made, would come from Muslims. There is a problem with in the UK with unofficial “polygamy”, and there was the ridiculous decision to recognise for the purpose of benefits polygamous “marriages” conducted abroad. But this is not a result of Civil Partnership legislation, and logically it cannot be. Consider the rights and duties of Civil Partners. These rights and duties are fundamentally at odds with the teachings of Sharia on marriage, whether monogamous or polygamous, because Civil Partners are legal equals. Equal inheritance rights, proper maintenance, equal rights on dissolution and, in particular, protection from domestic violence, all go directly against Sharia.

A seemingly minor provision of the legislation, making a gay union purely a civil contract, ensures that religion cannot play a role. Since equality before the law is a fundamental principle of civil contracts, the legislation could not logically be extended to allow multiple “wives” without also allowing multiple “husbands”. Muslims, of all people, would be unlikely to support such a change.

Civil Partnership legislation has worked well here, without much of a song and dance. Perhaps we’re not a song-and-dance people.

Portsmouth are leading nil 1 at half time, Kanu having scored in the 37th minute. The teams are fairly evenly matched at the moment, in my opinion.
As well as the football Kathryn Jenkins and Lesley Garrett sang Abide With Me as a duet and Land of My Fathers and God Save the Queen individually beautifully. 
And The Telegraph is doing a better update minute by minute from a blogger.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n21t89Zxjk

Het Grote Ongedaan Maken

Als Nederland de koranfilm van Geert Wilders verbiedt dan zal dit verbod één van de meest significante acties zijn in de lange geschiedenis van vrije meningsuiting. Het zal een actie zijn voor Het Grote Ongedaan Maken van het belangrijkste politieke recht dat, gedurende eeuwen, door individuen in de westerse wereld is verworven – een recht zonder welke alle andere rechten wezenlijk zonder betekenis zijn. Het Grote Ongedaan maken in antwoord op bedreigingen van redeloze primitieven.

Als Nederland, of andere NAVO landen (die nu betrokken zijn), vrijheid van meningsuiting niet kan toestaan en deze zelfs de facto zal beëindigen waar het gaat om volstrekt legitieme islamkritiek, dan zal het nu nog Vrije Westen een enorme dreun krijgen. Het zal niet iedereen wat uitmaken of zelfs maar opvallen. Sommigen zullen zichzelf wijsmaken dat deze zogenaamd “rechtse” Wilders juist op zoek is allerlei “moeilijkheden” los te maken door de islam te bekritiseren. Maar wat dan nog? Is het niet beter dat die “moeilijkheden” zich nu openbaren? Het Vrije Westen kan zich, met name binnen de eigen landsgrenzen, nog verdedigen als tenminste het Westen de wezenlijke betekenis en dreiging van islam en jihad weet te herkennen. Anderen zullen iets zeggen als “maar onze militairen in Afghanistan lopen zo nog meer gevaar”. Anderen zullen toevoegen “ja, en ook militairen van andere NAVO landen”. Misschien is dat waar. Toch, als het waar is, dan is het wellicht de NAVO die nog eens goed na zou moeten denken over zijn “missie” in Afghanistan, en wat daar redelijkerwijs haalbaar is.

Misschien kan de NAVO zich nog eens bedenken of het werkelijk wel zo wijs is om mensen te willen “helpen” die maar wat graag moorden naar aanleiding van de simpele weigering van de westerse wereld om de vrijheid van meningsuiting op te schorten in het geval van een 15-minuten durende film uit Nederland. Misschien zou de NAVO moeten nadenken over wat dit ons zegt over de aard van de mensen in Afghanistan, of in enige andere moslimstaat of maatschappij. Mensen waarvan wij met zekere zelfgenoegzaamheid en lichte wanhoop aannemen dat zij niet onze gezworen vijanden zijn, maar die toch grote vijandigheid koesteren tegenover alle niet-moslims van de wereld. En, ja, die vijandigheid kan heel goed bestaan naast de wens om te profiteren van alle voordelen die het Westen overduidelijk biedt, inclusief alle soorten hulp. Deze vijandigheid is zelfs aanwezig bij mensen die naar het Westen migreren. Sterker nog, zelfs zij die zich ontworstelen aan het islamitische juk kunnen doorgaan met het koesteren van diezelfde vijandigheid tegenover niet-moslims. In tegenstelling tot hen die nazisme of communisme hebben ontvlucht, brengen deze migranten, in hun mentale bagage, hoe dan ook de islam met zich mee. Terwijl zekere effecten van de islam – zoals politiek despotisme en economische verlamming – hen juist bewogen heeft om vreselijke oorden te verlaten zoals, zeg, Somalië, Pakistan, of de Maghreb.

De op handen zijnde onderdrukking, door het Westen zelf, van de vrijheid van meningsuiting zal zeer ernstige gevolgen hebben die zich nog heel lang zullen manifesteren. Want als deze ene film in de ban gaat, is het aannemelijk dat andere, gelijksoortige films hetzelfde lot zal treffen. Moslims binnen en buiten Europa zullen steeds meer censuur eisen, inclusief censuur van het geschreven woord. Zij zullen – met hun welbekende triomfalisme – steeds meer concessies eisen om zeker te zijn dat zij zich nooit meer gekwetst hoeven te voelen. En dat niet alleen in hun eigen landen maar ook in het historische centrum van het vrije en ontwikkelde Westen. De consequenties, voor als zij zich beledigd voelen, zullen dan veel ernstiger zijn dan wat het Westen bereid is te dragen. Het hoeft niet om militairen in Afghanistan te gaan. Het kan ook gaan om het opblazen van, zeg, het Vaticaan, het Louvre, of zelfs de complete Amsterdamse grachtengordel. De dreiging kan werkelijk van alles zijn. Doe wat wij willen, onderwerp je aan onze wetten… of anders!

Het moment is nu om ons hiertegen te verzetten. Niet later. Later zal te laat zijn.

Hugh Fitzgerald

Hugh Fitzgerald schrijft op www.jihadwatch.org, oorspronkelijke titel The Great Undoing.

Vertaling: Cornelis de Deugd  

Mosquée de Draguignan : un Maire exemplaire, à féliciter chaudement.

Par zebulon9 le 16 mai 2008

Max PISELLI maire de Draguignan refuse de se laisser intimider par l’association culturelle musulmane de la Dracénie qui utilise des moyens peu élégants pour forcer la main au conseil municipal et à son maire au sujet de leur projet de mosquée comme l’atteste l’article suivant de Var Matin:

Max Piselli a pris connaissance « avec surprise » de notre article sur l’éventuelle construction d’une mosquée à Draguignan et apporte des éléments de réponse… très réservés.

Dans notre édition du 6 mai, l’association culturelle musulmane de la Dracénie et le conseil régional du culte musulman réclamaient un lieu de culte et culturel digne de ce nom à Draguignan. Selon les dirigeants, dont le président Slimane Hamdaoui, le terrain pourrait être fourni par la mairie et le bâtiment financé par la communauté musulmane.

Seul bémol, si le maire a prêté la MSJ pour la rencontre, il affirme désormais ne pas avoir été tenu au courant du projet de mosquée et dénonce les moyens de pression. Il affirme :

« Je déplore et condamne la pression dont la ville de Draguignan, la seule du Var dans ce cas, fait subitement l’objet de la part de l’Association Culturelle des Musulmans de la Dracénie et de son président. 

Son attitude et ses méthodes ne plaident certainement pas en faveur de la cause qu’il défend. Par ailleurs, je tiens à préciser que contrairement a ce qui est insinué, je n’ai jamais accordé un rendez-vous le 30 mai, à M. Abderrahmane Ghoul (président du Conseil Régional du Culte Musulman PACA) que je ne connais pas et n’ai jamais rencontré. Je rappelle en outre que la ville n’est nullement responsable de la situation actuelle dans laquelle se trouve le culte musulman.

Ses pratiquants se réunissaient jusqu’alors dans un immeuble de la rue Jean Boyer dont le propriétaire n’a pas souhaité renouveler le bail. Je ne vois donc pas pourquoi on rendrait aujourd’hui la mairie responsable de l’absence d’un lieu de culte musulman et surtout pourquoi on la mettrait en demeure de régler ce problème.

Je tiens en conséquence à préciser et éclaircir plusieurs points pour les Dracénois :

1 - La Ville ne dispose pas aujourd’hui d’un terrain de 3 000 m2 à mettre à disposition de quelque culte que ce soit.

Les seuls terrains disponibles sont aujourd’hui destinés à accueillir des équipements publics, d’intérêt général, qu’il n’est pas question de remettre en cause.

2 - Même si la Ville disposait d’un tel terrain, elle ne saurait prendre la décision de l’affecter à un culte sans avoir auparavant procédé à une large consultation de tous les Dracénois.

3 - La loi du 9 décembre 1905 sur la séparation de l’Église et de l’État précise clairement dans son article 2 « La République ne reconnaît, ne salarie, ni ne subventionne aucun culte. En conséquence, à partir du 1er janvier qui suivra la promulgation de la présente loi, seront supprimées des budgets de l’État, des Départements et des Communes, toutes dépenses relatives à l’exercice des cultes. »

Dans son Titre IV, article 19, dernier alinéa, il est clairement précisé concernant les associations pour l’exercice des cultes, qu’elles « ne pourront, sous quelque forme que ce soit, recevoir des subventions de l’État, des Départements ou des Communes. » La pratique religieuse relève, depuis plus d’un siècle maintenant, de la seule conscience privée de chaque individu. La collectivité n’a donc aucune obligation vis-à-vis des confessions religieuses.

Ce principe fondamental de laïcité est profondément ancré dans la société française et assure la cohésion de notre pacte républicain.

4 - Il est tout à fait possible à l’Association Culturelle des Musulmans de la Dracénie de rechercher des solutions dans le secteur privé plutôt que de vouloir forcer la main à la Collectivité publique.

5 - La perspective des élections au sein du Conseil Français du Culte Musulman semble conduire les responsables locaux des différents courants à des surenchères dont le but « électoraliste » n’échappe à personne.

Je pense pour ma part que la question des lieux de cultes pour la pratique de l’Islam doit être abordée avec sérénité et franchise mais pas dans la précipitation et l’intimidation. Elle doit relever d’une politique générale définie par le ministère de l’Intérieur, chargé des Cultes, et non d’initiatives locales dispersées.

Je voudrais ainsi dire au président de l’association, que s’il veut que les Dracénois « n’aient pas peur de l’Islam » comme il le dit, la meilleure façon d’y parvenir n’est sans doute pas de les menacer de manifestations dans la rue, fussent-elles des prières, de nature à troubler l’ordre public.

En Démocratie, si l’on veut être respecté en tant que citoyen d’une minorité, il faut d’abord soi-même faire preuve de respect pour la majorité de ses concitoyens, dans leurs convictions, leurs croyances et leurs lois.

C’est pourquoi, je ne céderai à aucun chantage, mais serai toujours vigilant à faire respecter les lois de la République ».

Source : Var Matin

William McGonagall's poems have plodded across these pages before, as has his play Jack o’ the Cudgel (or The Hero of a Hundred Fights):

Set in the court of Edward III, it tells the story of Jack, a “noble Saxon” who rises from pauper to royal knight and vanquishes his enemies by clubbing them over the head with an enormous cudgel. In one memorable scene, he stops a giant from attacking a minstrel, declaring: “Leave the minstrel, thou pig-headed giant, or I’ll make you repent/For thou must know my name is Jack, and I hail from Kent.”

Upon learning of Jack’s heroics, the King summons him to his court and makes him a knight.

He tells him: “Sir Jack, I give thee land to the value of six hundred marks/In thine own native county of Kent, with beautiful parks/Also beautiful meadows and lovely flowers and trees/Where you can reside and enjoy yourself as you please.”

These days would-be artists do not die poor for lack of talent; in fact a folio of thirty-five McGonagall poems, signed by the author, has just been sold at auction for £6,000. In his lifetime, however, McGonagall was paid only for one poem: an advertisement for Sunlight Soap:

You can use it with great pleasure and ease
Without wasting any elbow grease;
And when washing the most dirty clothes
The sweat won’t be dripping off your nose
You can wash your clothes with little rubbing
And without scarcely any scrubbing
And I tell you once again without any joke
There’s no soap can surpass Sunlight Soap
And believe me, charwomen one and all
I remain yours truly, the Poet McGonagall

Well, it beats "A Mars a day helps you work rest and play," and is probably more accurate than this, or its German counterpart.

This comes from Islam in Europe (hat tip: Brussels Journal)

Oslo police recently released its 2007 Rape Report. The report shows a marked increase in Somali rapists, generally on account of gang rapes...

At least ten women were attacked and molested by a gang of Somali men at Sofienberg park in Oslo on Saturday evening.

Last year a record-high 161 rapes and 35 rape attempts were reported in Oslo. Over 70% of the rapists were non-Norwegian [ed. ethnically, a majority had Norwegian citizenship].

Lawyer Abid Raja visited a cafe in Grønland in Oslo for Norwegian broadcaster P4. There he met three young men (ages 26, 30 and 35), from Somalia and Senegal.

The men, who refused to have their names published, spoke with P4 about the rape and robbery wave hitting the city.

A: Honestly? Norwegians are horrible!

Q: What are you thinking about?

A: I'm thinking of everything. Not least the food is bad. (He then speaks of the fact that Muslims don't eat pork).

Q: What do you think of Norwegian women then?

A: They're something completely different, he says as his friends laugh.

---

A: But listen now, Norwegian girls complain that foreign boys do this and that, but the reason there are so many rapes is that Norwegian girls go around almost completely naked! That's like saying "come here and fuck me", you understand?

Q: You're saying that Norwegian girls are asking to be raped?

A: Not exactly asking, but when then go out almost completely naked and get completelydrunk in Frogner park or go to a party together with some friend, and then they complain about being raped? It's their fault, says the 26 year old from Somalia.

Q: But even if they go around lightly dressed and get drunk then they're certainly not asking to be raped?

A: No, but many of the foreigners aren't used to this where they come from. They're not accustomed that girls go dressed as they want, then maybe they interpret this a bit wrong, you understand?...

Q: You don't think many will be scared that you have such attitudes if P4 broadcasts this interview on the radio?

A: Just broadcast it, because this is true. That's the way things are - it's the facts. I'm not lying. I've never been with a Norwegian lady, but I've been with many Norwegian girls - they are fairly nice and very skilled in bed.

Raphael Israeli has a glowing review of Andrew Bostom's new book, The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism (also reviewed by Bill Warner here) in the Jerusalem Post:

Following the recent publication of his massive compendium The Legacy of Jihad - a breakthrough inasmuch as the enormous task of assembling together all the major sources which govern the holy war in Islam had never been attempted before - this amazingly prolific writer has completed another, no less imposing, collection of sources, Islamic and others, which testify to the long and sorry history of anti-Semitism in Islam. This too had never been undertaken before on such a scale, mainly due to the constrictions of political correctness that posited that Islam, unlike Christianity, had not entertained a systematic persecution of the Jews.

This apologetic for Islam has now been shattered by Andrew Bostom, who painstakingly but thoughtfully collected and collated this documentation that would have been a stunning and innovative undertaking for any scholar of Islam to pursue, let alone for a professional in medicine whose research on Islam has been merely a secondary career.

Appropriately, Bostom begins his volume with a well-tailored survey of the theological, historical and juridical origins of Islamic anti-Semitism, including the Koran, the Hadith and the Sirah, then proceeds to an insightful description of the dhimmis in the main lands of Islam, to test the theory of the cited sources against the practice of Muslim rulers in the entire area spanning the Middle East, North Africa, the Iberian Peninsula (Andalusia) and the Ottoman Empire.

The picture these documents give reverses in a dramatic way many of the ill-conceived and misjudged information that had attempted in the past to ascribe to the lands of Islam a much more benign and idyllic image of their (mis)treatment of the Jews. The coalition between the Palestinian mufti of Jerusalem and the Nazis during World War II is conjured up to conclude this introduction.

Secondly, the author delves in considerable detail into the main sources of Islamic jurisprudence - the Koran and the Hadith, complemented by the Sirah (the earliest pious Muslim biographies of Muhammad), where an abundance of references, usually not complimentary but rather derogatory, are made to Jews, collectively known as Israi'liyyat (Israelites' stories). This is a trove of anti-Jewish stereotypes that have become the Shari'a-based uncontested "truth" about the People of the Book. Those accounts are invariably cited in sermons during Friday prayers, thus assuring their universal diffusion among Muslim constituents and the constant poisoning of the souls of young and adult Muslims alike, something that renders their fundamentally negative attitudes to Jews and Israel unchangeable.

This extremely important collection from the holy sources is supplemented by the thinking and judgment of the most authoritative jurists whose every word has been awaited and avidly digested by Muslim constituencies the world over. The great medieval masters, such as Tabari and Jahiz, are reinforced by more recent ones such as the Egyptian Tantawi and Egyptian-in exile Qaradawi, who represent the two poles of established Islam and popular Islam in our contemporary world...

One can hardly exaggerate the vast importance of this volume, which will henceforth become indispensable for any student of Islam, of Judeo-Islamic relations, of anti-Semitism in particular and of hate-literature in general. The variety of materials assembled here, which makes a fascinating, if disagreeable, reading, for all the splendid and insightful overview offered by this incredibly energetic and imaginative author, will continue for times to come to constitute a mainstay of Muslim sources which will have to be referred to by future researchers, scholars and the general educated public which aspires to comprehend the significance of the new outburst of anti-Semitism, clearly articulated by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, among Muslims worldwide.