Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Esam Omeish

Esam Omeish has, of course, lost his bid for the Democratic Party's nomination for a seat in the Virginia Assembly.

A short while before this loss at the polls this week, Hillary Clinton accorded him a kind of honor - as a Muslim leader worthy of her attention:

A Muslim leader invited by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to participate in a conference call after President Obama's speech in Cairo last week once told a crowd that "the jihad way is the way to liberate your land."

Esam Omeish, a surgeon and community leader who is running for Virginia state assemblyman, made the statements in 2000 at pro-Palestinian rally where he spoke out against Israel and urged Muslims to support the Palestinian liberation movement.

[...]

The State Department has not replied to questions as to whether it was aware of Omeish's past comments when he was selected as one of approximately 100-200 invitees to participate in the conference, which included academics and Muslim leaders....

How could the State Department be unaware of Omeish's background? The Washington Post has provided ample coverage of Omeish's jihad-loving ties.

Islamified Judges

Apparently one is sitting on the bench of the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia. And this September 14, 2008 article in the local section of the Washington Post shows a slant toward Islamophilia when reporting on prosecutor U.S. attorney Gordon Kromberg:

Relentless Terrorism Prosecutor Faces Accusations of His Own

Sami al-Arian, one of the nation's most prominent terrorism defendants, was about to be released into his daughter's custody to await a new trial on contempt charges. Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon Kromberg protested, saying that "in this particular culture," a woman could not prevent her father from fleeing.

U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema lashed out at the prosecutor, calling his remark about the Muslim family insulting. Earlier, she had chastised Kromberg for changing a boilerplate immunity order beyond the language spelled out by Congress and questioned whether Arian's constitutional rights had been violated.

"I'm not in any respect attributing evil motives or anything clandestine to you, but I think it's real scary and not wise for a prosecutor to provide an order to the Court that does not track the explicit language of the statutes, especially this particular statute," Brinkema said at the hearing in the Alexandria courtroom.

[...]

Defenders of the fast-talking New York native say he has a tough-but-fair style that keeps Americans safe...

[...]

"Gordon is very effective and professional," said Andrew McCarthy, a former federal terrorism prosecutor. "As long as nothing goes boom, they want to say you're an Islamophobe. The moment something does go boom, if the next 9/11 happens, God help anyone who says they weren't as aggressive as Gordon."...

Andrew McCarthy understands what's at stake. But with judges such as Brinkema sitting on the bench, all of us are less safe and more of these jihadists will continue to escape our legal system.

And check out this portion of the WaPo article:

...Kromberg's highest-profile case since joining the office's new terrorism unit after Sept. 11 was what prosecutors called the "Virginia jihad network," 11 Muslim men convicted on such charges as preparing for holy war by, among other things, playing paintball. Justice officials hailed it as a classic post-Sept. 11 case of prevention, but civil libertarians and some Muslims said it targeted Muslim men.

Fact check! They were Moslem men waging jihad! Their motivation came from the Koran.

But the Arian case escalated the tension. Arian pleaded guilty to one count of supporting Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Tampa in 2006 after a federal jury acquitted him or deadlocked on other counts. The judge who sentenced Arian to 57 months in prison called Arian a "master manipulator" who had been a "leader" of the terrorist group.

Kromberg sought Arian's testimony in the Islamic charities probe and refused to delay his appearance until after the Muslim holiday of Ramadan because, he said, that would aid the "Islamization" of the courts, according to an affidavit filed by one of Arian's attorneys, Jack Fernandez.

"They can kill each other during Ramadan, they can appear before the grand jury. All they can't do is eat before sunset," Kromberg said ...

Prosecutor Kromberg is stating a fact. And saying so gets him branded as an Islamophobe.

Leftist judges don't want to know the facts about Islam and don't want those facts brought out in court, either. No wonder so many of the "terror trials" end in acquittals and mistrials!

(Crossposted to THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS)

Never Forget

The left would like for all of us to forget 9/11 and to ignore the threat of Islamic terrorism.

I won't.

Not ever.

Set to the music of Samuel Barber's "Agnus Dei" from Adagio for Strings:



YouTube link

Some reading: rebuilding lives after 9/11 — a love story.

(With a hat-tip to Farmer John for the above video)

Arabic Classes In America

[Image source]

Since 9/11, we have heard of the importance of more of us learning to speak Arabic. Indeed, more and more people today are studying the Arabic language, many of these students enrolled in community colleges and prestigious universities as well as uncounted others studying by using software such as Rosetta Stone. I personally know a few young people who have attempted such classes, only to abandon their study of Arabic; the reasons they gave me, their former teacher, were vague but typically included a level of discomfort with the material or the instructor.

A July 5, 2008 Washington Post commentary, written by a student at Harvard Law School, provides disturbing information about the material offered in such classes:

To study Arabic in America today is to be inducted into a world of longing, abandonment and regret. And that's before you even touch the political issues.

Most maps of the Middle East in "Al-Kitaab" [the curriculum used] do not include Israel, though a substantial minority of Israelis, both Jews and Arabs, are native Arabic speakers. Alongside simple Arabic poems, students read about anti-Western heroes such as Gamal Abdel Nasser.

The DVD that comes with "Al-Kitaab" includes footage of Nasser's mass rallies in Cairo -- including slogans in Arabic and French such as "Brother Nations in Struggle, We Are By Your Side." These scenes of totalitarian rage are fondly described by the narrator as "dreams of his youth."

The accompanying lesson describes the highlights of Nasser's career, including the nationalization of the Suez Canal and the formation of the United Arab Republic. No mention is made of Egypt's defeat in the Six-Day War or of Nasser's brutal, repressive rule. In my class, we were asked to recite a passage about Nasser to practice our vocalization. (I refused.)

The last lesson in the book -- which we skipped -- features Maha's mother speaking wistfully of her childhood in Palestine: "My childhood was taken from me!" Over mournful music on the DVD, she talks about returning to Jerusalem, as if she were a refugee, but the images suggest that she left voluntarily after the Six-Day War, when Israel offered citizenship to the Arab residents of East Jerusalem. The fact that Israel also claims Jerusalem as its capital is ignored.

My class watched three movies this semester, all with political themes. One was "West Beirut," which cast Christians as the prime bad guys in Lebanon's civil war (though, to be fair, there was plenty of hatred all around). Another was "The Tale of Three Jewels," an allegorical film about Palestinian nationalism that portrayed Israeli soldiers as bloodthirsty child-killers.

The third movie, "Destiny," told the story of the great medieval Islamic philosopher Averroes and his struggles against Islamic religious fundamentalism. It was a bit more nuanced than the first two. But the film omitted the fact that it was only through the Hebrew transcription of Averroes's writings by Jewish scholars in Egypt that his works were preserved for posterity.

Friends and relatives who have used "Al-Kitaab" at other American universities report similarly morose experiences.

[...]

...[T]here is something fundamentally wrong with this indoctrination into misery. Most introductory language classes avoid controversial political subjects. In fact, they often highlight the brighter side of different cultures. Particularly with the growing importance of Arabic, can't we do better?

The U.S. government has funded studies on anti-Semitism in Palestinian textbooks. Fairfax county officials have asked the State Department to investigate the teaching materials at a Saudi-funded school. "Al-Kitaab" is published by Georgetown University Press, with some assistance from the National Endowment for the Humanities. Perhaps we should also be looking into the content of the federally funded materials used in Arabic programs at our own universities.

According a friend of mine who studied Arabic as a second language in Saudi Arabia, lessons in The Kingdom included material much unlike primer readers to which most of us are accustomed. Specifically, beginning lessons used phrases such as "The sword is on the table," "The sword is under the table," and "The sword is behind the curtain." Certainly those phrases and their message are quite different from the early readers I encountered as a child, those primers including phrases such as "The cat is on the mat" and "See Spot run"!

Via a Google search of how language shapes thinking, I found the following essay entitled "Semanticide," by William Murchison at Human Life Review 1999:

George Orwell's stress on the distortive possibilities available in language remains fresh because of his descriptive and prophetic powers. Nineteen Eighty-Four sears the recollection, notwithstanding that when the title-year in question actually got here, the distorters-the Soviets-were stumbling toward ruin. Orwell's lesson is clear: Language shapes thinking; thinking shapes action. When language means other than it must, for a particular possibility to reach fruition, somebody is going to propose a new way of talking, and of understanding.

As the West rightly pursues the study of Arabic, precautions must be taken that the classes are not those of indoctrination and propagandizing. Instead, we have institutions such as the Islamic Saudi Academy instructing our military in Arabic. What else is being taught in those Arabic-language classes?

The Dhimmis At The WaPo

Via Jihad Watch (emphases mine):

In "5 Myths About Terrorism" in the [September 11, 2007] Washington Post (thanks to Steve), Alan B. Krueger provides a sterling example of the politically correct myopia that prevents an accurate analysis of the global jihad and Islamic supremacism. And he does so in such a clumsy way that it is remarkable that no one at the paper caught this before it was printed:

4. Terrorism is mainly perpetrated by Muslims.
Wrong. No religion has a monopoly on terrorism. Every major religious faith has had followers involved in terrorism. (Sri Lanka, for instance, has grappled for decades with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, a separatist group that pioneered suicide bombing as a terrorist tactic and hopes to create a homeland for the country's mostly Tamil minority, who are largely Hindu.) Although radical Islamic terrorists are the worry du jour because of 9/11 and Iraq, the data show pretty clearly that the predominant religion of a country is not a good predictor of whether its people will become involved in terrorism.

After all, it was not long ago that homegrown villains such as Timothy McVeigh and the so-called Unabomber were the most notorious terrorists. That makes sense; the vast majority of terrorist incidents are local, motivated by local concerns and carried out by natives. Even international terrorist events tend to be local affairs, most frequently carried out by local militants who target foreigners who happen to be in their country. (Just think of last week's foiled plot to attack U.S. targets in Germany.) This suggests that the likelihood of attack by homegrown terrorists is far greater than the threat of another 9/11-style attack by foreigners.

Did you catch that? Terrorism isn't "mainly perpetrated by Muslims" because "no religion has a monopoly on terrorism." This doesn't even establish what Krueger wants it to establish, because the fact that people of all religions have committed terrorist acts doesn't disprove the contention that terrorism is mainly perpetrated by Muslims. If one group is responsible for something, say, 80% of the time, it is mainly responsible for it: you can't point to the existence of the other 20% as if it were proof that the 80% group is not mainly responsible.

Also, it should be obviously absurd to everyone at this point, but of course it isn't, to drag out poor old McVeigh, and the Unabomber to boot, and stack them up as equivalent to the plethora of armed Islamic organizations that can be found all over the planet, and the more the 9,000 terror attacks committed in the name of Islam since 9/11. But of course since the overwhelming majority of those have not been reported by Krueger's friends with any significant mention or exploration of the Islamic texts and teachings that the perpetrators used to justify them, most Americans don't realize that they have anything to do with Islam in the first place -- while every schoolchild knows that McVeigh was a Christian (he wasn't).

Finally, it is in no way relevant to a discussion of terrorism in general, much less Islamic jihad terrorism in particular, to assert that "every major religious faith has had followers involved in terrorism." It's a shame that such superficial analysis is so dominant these days. While the statement may be broadly true, it brushes by the central question: does Islamic theology and tradition contain any elements that encourage its followers to be involved in terrorism? Do other religions? This is a central consideration of my book Religion of Peace?, and it is a question media and policymakers should be asking. They don't, of course, because CAIR and others have mau-maued them into thinking that even to ask such questions promotes "bigotry" and "intolerance," as well as that trumped-up concept "Islamophobia." It never occurs to them that such discussions would actually aid the moderate Muslims they profess to support, being a necessary step toward the self-criticism that would have to be an essential component of any genuine Islamic reform.

Today's WaPo on September 15, 2007, is promoting "7th Heaven," an interfaith game for middle schoolers. Article here. CAIR has approved the game. Sample question:

8. On what two levels does Islam seek to promote peace?

Answer: "Peace within one's self and peace with others."

Apparently, the creators of the game have chosen to ignore the last "revelation" of Allah: Sura 9. An excellent explanation of that Sura is HERE. An explanation of the concept of abrogation of verses is HERE. You can find even more about abrogation HERE.

The Muslim Vote

(All emphases by Always On Watch)

From this August 24, 2007 article in the Washington Post:

More than 50 candidates in this fall's elections are expected to appear in Reston tomorrow [August 25] at a political picnic organized by a group of Northern Virginia mosques, and organizers say the heavy turnout underscores the growing influence of Muslim voters in local politics.

The event, the group's seventh annual "family and civic picnic," has a dual purpose, organizers say. Through a voter registration drive, they hope to persuade more Muslims to become involved in local elections. In addition, they hope to show the candidates that "we're here, we care, and we do vote," said Shirin Elkoshairi, a spokesman for the Sterling-based All Dulles Area Muslim Society, which has more than 5,000 members.

"[The turnout] definitely shows that candidates feel that Muslims are voting and are a force at the polls," Elkoshairi said.

So far, nothing remarkable in the article.

Then comes the mention of Mukit Hossain, about whom I have blogged on more than one occasion. An index to those postings is HERE.

According to the following information in my first posting on Hossain back in August of 2005,

For Hossain, helping immigrants, most from Central and South America, is a Muslim issue. Charity is one of the five pillars of Islam. So he raised money from Muslim businessmen in Herndon to buy 400 winter coats for the laborers, brought them food through another charity he started, called Food Source, and even rounded up day laborers to attend a Thanksgiving dinner at an Iraqi restaurant where falafel, not turkey, was served.

"I consider them my neighbors," said Hossain...

[...]

Hossain has not only parlayed giving food and coats to illegal migrants into a federally funded exercise in Da'wa (Islamic propagation), he has assisted those who broke the law with legal aid to help them fight to stay in the US. Hossain exploits his 'charitable' work for furthering his Islamist agenda,and openly proclaims this to be his political mission as well.... Hossain is also active in MAS, the Muslim American Society, the group which is in the forefront of campaiging for the release of jailed presidental assassin wannabe Omar Abu Ali. MAS also lauded Hossain as a 'supporter' of their organisation which is directly linked to ICNA and by extension Al Qaeda. The trustee of MAS's Islamic American University is Sheik Yusuf Qaradawi who proclaimed that Muslim women have an Islamic duty to become suicide bombers.

Apparently, Hossain is quite the advocate for immigration, and it doesn't matter to him whether those immigrants are illegal or not because he ties his advocacy with his Muslim duty.

Returning now to the first-cited link in this posting,

There are about 64,000 Muslims registered to vote in Virginia, with the vast majority of them in the outskirts of Washington, said Mukit Hossain, president of the Virginia Muslim Political Action Committee, which tracks trends and endorses candidates in many local elections.

[...]

Organizers also expect candidates from Loudoun and Prince William counties, which last month approved resolutions aimed at cracking down on illegal immigrants. Although the actions were seen as primarily affecting Hispanics, they have sparked concern among Muslims because of fears that the actions could increase racial profiling and curb civil liberties, Hossain said.

"I think since 9/11, the Muslim community has learned that any community can be attacked," he said. "When someone is attacked unfairly, we have to stand in solidarity with them."

As we approach the sixth anniversary of 9/11, here is Hossain whining about Muslims being targeted.

Excuse me, Mr. Hossain, but nearly 3000 innocent people died during those horrific attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon as well as those stop-the-hijackers patriots about Flight 93, which went down in a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Have you forgotten about those who perished on 9/11? Do you consider the very few verified cases of post-9/11 persecution of Muslims to be more significant than Islamic terrorist attacks? Also, Mr. Hossain, I remind you that Muslim is not a race.

And here is a bit more from Hossain:

Hossain, who has been organizing opposition to the Loudoun and Prince William votes [against illegal immigration], said his group conducted a survey of Virginia Muslims and found that immigration was their top local concern. Education was second, he said, and respect for diversity was third.

Muslims respect diversity? Really? Oh, that's right, Saudi Arabia is one respect-for-diversity country. **snerk**

The article also states the following:

Although Muslims represent a tiny part of the electorate, candidates are beginning to see the value of courting Islamic voters, because small but motivated groups can have a big impact at the polls, he said. That's especially true for off-year elections, which tend to have lower voter turnout. Last fall, more than 86 percent of registered Muslim voters turned out to vote, he said, compared with about 53 percent of the general population.

That has not gone unnoticed among political activists, said Brian Roherty, campaign manager for Michael Firetti, who is running for chairman of the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors.

"Every single vote counts, and smart politicians know that," Roherty said.

Ah, the dhimmitude of politicians, as they cater to the whim of a "tiny part of the electorate"! Somehow, that phrase is reminiscent of another few words: "a tiny portion of extremists," often used to refer to Islamic terrorists.

Even a champion of the battle against illegal immigration in Northern Virginia, Loudoun Supervisor Eugene A. Delgaudio is attending the picnic:

Loudoun Supervisor Eugene A. Delgaudio (R-Sterling), the main sponsor of Loudoun's resolution, said he plans to attend tomorrow's event, partly because the Muslim community reflects his values of being "extremely moral and religious." His district's demographics are among the most rapidly changing in Northern Virginia. For example, Sterling's Park View High School was two-thirds white in 2000; last year, whites made up less than half the school.

"We have a lot of ethnic groups represented here," he said. "Sterling is like the United Nations. It's a very diverse neighborhood."

Oh, yes, Mr. Delgaudio, Muslims are extremely moral. Why don't you do a little reading on the topic? You can start by reading Western Resistance and Dr. Homa Darabi Foundation. Those sites might open your eyes as to certain barbaric customs in Islamic culture.

According to the August 24, 2007 Washington Post article, a good turnout is expected for the pandering to Muslim voters:

Picnic organizers are expecting a broad spectrum of candidates running for the state legislature and boards of supervisors in Loudoun, Prince William and Fairfax counties. The candidates will have a chance to speak to and field questions from the more than 1,000 attendees expected.

Fairfax County Supervisor Penelope A. Gross (D-Mason), whose diverse district in central Fairfax includes two mosques, said her research has turned up more likely voters among Arab Americans than any other minority group.

"Over the past few years we have seen a lot more interest among Arab Americans in the civic culture of our community," said Gross, adding that she tries to go to the picnic each year and plans to attend tomorrow [August 25].

I wonder if CAIR will also attend.

Islamification continues apace on the political front here in Northern Virginia and elsewhere in the United States. As the percentage of Muslims increases, now allied with immigrants legally present or not, expect more of the same types of events and political pandering. Start checking the local section of your newspaper to see what's happening in your area.

Inviting In The Enemy

Our State Department is playing the dhimmi and endangering all of us. Requirements for visas have been relaxed so as to allow Wahhabist-trained imams to come into the United States.

From the August 14-20, 2007 edition of Insight Magazine (subscription required):

Hundreds of Islamic fundamentalist clerics have been allowed to enter the United States to take over mosques in major cities. The clerics come from countries such as Egypt, Jordan and Pakistan and have been influenced by al Qaeda. Many are fresh graduates from Saudi-financed Wahhabi seminaries....

According to the article, hundreds of these imams with radical training are already here and teaching in mosques in our major cities, including locations in New York, New Jersey, Michigan, and the Washington, D.C. area. Several of these imams are graduates of Cairo's Al Azhar University, which has ties to Al Qaeda, and of various seminaries in Pakistan. Furthermore, despite warnings from various law-enforcement officials and the National Intelligence Estimate, our State Department continues to pursue this import-the-imams agenda.

Even our FBI is supportive of bringing in these imams:

At this point, the FBI, which has played down links between Muslim extremists and white supremacists, has not tried to stop the influx of the imams. Instead, the agency has sought to expand its public relations campaign to change Muslim perceptions of U.S. law enforcement and recruit Muslims to the FBI.

"We, within the FBI, are trying to break down a lot of barriers and create a different brand about the FBI within the Arab-American and Muslim American community," said Gwen Hubbard, chief of the FBI's National Recruitment and Marketing unit.

For at least the past three decades, Wahhabism has been funding the building and renovation of mosques throughout the West. Mosques established well before the Wahhabist push have undergone change in their direction and their leadership. A possible tip-of-the-iceberg example, buried in the local secion of the August 16, 2007 edition of the Washington Post:

For over 25 years Farzad Darui [former manager at the Islamic Center of Washington, the city's oldest mosque]...has been dedicated to preventing radical fundamentalists from taking over Washington D.C.'s Islamic Center," one of the briefs begins.

[...]

According to Darui's filings, the Saudi government was funneling money secretly to Khouj. The filings don't explicitly give a reason but assert a Saudi desire to control the influential mosque.

Photo from WhiteHouse.gov
In his June 2007 speech at the D.C. Islamic Center, President Bush took off his shoes and stated the following, which gives credence to some of the content in the Insight article:

...Today I am announcing a new initiative that will improve mutual understanding and cooperation between America and people in predominately Muslim countries.

I will appoint a special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference. This is the first time a President has made such an appointment to the OIC. (Applause.) Our special envoy will listen to and learn from representatives from Muslim states and will share with them America's views and values. This is an opportunity for Americans to demonstrate to Muslim communities our interest in respectful dialogue and continued friendship....

In my own experience, when I drive around the D.C. area and travel to other areas of the United States I have noticed the proliferation and renovation of mosques and hal-al markets sprouting up all over the place. I suspect that you've noticed the same in your area and in your travels.

Not so long ago, I met with a Jordanian who told me of a mosque he had visited in our Heartland. The mosque had been built several decades ago and had recently undergone a huge renovation. And guess what was on the materials table? Books and videos of Wahhabist orientation, even though the imam at that particular mosque was clearly not a Wahhabist. Apparently the funders of the renovation attached some strings to the financing of the upgrading of the mosque.

Getting back now to the content of the first link in this posting....If indeed America is importing Wahhabist imams, then radicalization of young Muslims will pick up speed within our borders. We're already noted the progression of Europe toward Eurabia as homegrown terrorists become a significant threat to national security. Importing Wahhabists to the United States will lead to the same radicalization here.

Embezzlement At The Islamic Center Of Washington? Or Something Else?

Back in June, I posted an article about President Bush's speech at the Islamic Center of Washington. The center was in the news again this week. From this August 16, 2007 article in the Washington Post (emphases mine):

A man charged with embezzling $430,000 from a prominent Washington mosque said in court documents filed yesterday that the mosque's director was actually paying him for rent and other expenses for the director's mistresses.

The motions were part of the defense's argument in the federal government's case against Farzad Darui, a former manager at the Islamic Center of Washington, the city's oldest mosque and a landmark on Embassy Row. Darui has been indicted for allegedly taking checks that he was supposed to use to pay the mosque's regular bills and directing them instead toward his own private businesses.

Darui's motions, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, ask that five of the seven counts against him be dismissed. The motions argue that the indictment is too vague and does not provide specific details to back up its charges, such as naming vendors and specifying which checks are being referred to.

"The indictment has been drafted in such a manner that Mr. Darui is unable intelligently to defend himself against allegations," one motion says.

The 140 pages filed by Darui's attorneys describe him as a patriot who was trying to keep extremists from seizing control of the mosque, whose board is made up largely of ambassadors from various Islamic countries. Darui says in motions that he was being pressured by Saudi funders of the center and its director, Abdullah M. Khouj, to allow in "individuals who adhered to a radical form" of Islam.

"For over 25 years Farzad Darui . . . has been dedicated to preventing radical fundamentalists from taking over Washington D.C.'s Islamic Center," one of the briefs begins.

Khouj's assistant yesterday said he declined to comment because he had not seen the new filings. A call to the center's attorney was not returned.

According to Darui's filings, the Saudi government was funneling money secretly to Khouj. The filings don't explicitly give a reason but assert a Saudi desire to control the influential mosque. The briefs say that Khouj used some of the money to pay for housing for two mistresses in apartments Darui owned and other expenses for the women, which is Darui's explanation of why checks to Darui's companies have Khouj's signature.

Calls to the Saudi Embassy went unanswered yesterday afternoon.

The center had filed a lawsuit against Darui in September, leveling similar charges of embezzlement. A federal judge dismissed that suit in December.

One could hope that the funds indeed went to support a mistress and not a Wahhabist push to control the oldest mosque in Washington, D.C. But, somehow, I doubt that outcome. After all, it is well known in counter-jihad circles that Wahhabists have funneled money into mosques throughout Western nations and, thereby, have spread Wahhabism to attendees of the mosques. Also, many imams in mosques have direct ties to Saudi and to Wahhabism. Funds supporting a mistress would be more palatable than the Wahhabist funding of mosques and would not undermine the very existence of the United States.

Convenient Amnesia

From this article in the August 14, 2007 edition of the Washington Post:

On April 19, 2005, Darrick Jackson completed an application to work as a private security guard at an entrance gate to Andrews Air Force Base.

"Have you ever used or been known by another name?" he was asked in the second of 20 queries.

"No," Jackson answered.

He got the job.

Federal prosecutors now allege that Jackson intentionally withheld his Muslim name, Abdul-Jalil Mohammad, to conceal a connection to a controversial imam in Southeast Washington....

Controversial may be an understatement:

Abdul Alim Musa, 62, is the outspoken imam at the mosque, Masjid al-Islam. In public statements, Musa has called Jews cowards, denounced the United States as the most criminal government in the world and lauded suicide bombers as heroes. He has praised Hezbollah and Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement, and advocated the creation of an Islamic state in the United States by 2050.

In the interview, Musa joked that two of every five men at the Benning Road mosque could be undercover FBI agents. Musa said he recently taught three sessions of "How to Punk the FBI" at his mosque. Lessons included such "counter-harassment techniques" as asking an interrogating agent if his mother bought him his shirt, according to one of his Web sites.

[...]

...At issue are two essays, though it is unclear who wrote them. An essay titled "The Politics of Suicide and Self-Sacrifice" argues that Palestinians who conduct "self-sacrifice operations" do so in the same heroic spirit as Japanese kamikaze pilots. The other, "A Thought Provoking Process," faults the United States for its historical treatment of African Americans and Native Americans and, in a more conspiratorial vein, for allegedly spreading AIDS in Africa.

Musa uses both MuslimSpace and MySpace. On one site yesterday, visitors in an audio section could hear him lauding Hezbollah for kidnapping two Israeli soldiers last year. "It shows the rest of the Arab world that these Jews ain't nothing [but a] bunch of sissies and cowards," he said.

Prosecutors want to tell jurors that Musa once said Muslims would "burn America to the ground" if the mistreatment of Muslims continued. He was speaking at a fundraiser for Jamil Al-Amin, the imam who was formerly H. Rap Brown, a once-prominent Black Panther who in the 1960s famously said: "If America don't come around, we're gonna burn it down."...

Read the entire article.

At present, Jackson a convert to Islam is free on his own recognizance until a hearing on September 4 and living with his wife and child in a house next door to the mosque.

Chertoff's Hunch

For some time, we've known that Secretary of Homeland Security is operating on hunch that, this summer, we're in greater danger of an attack, although with the caveat of "without a lot of specifics."

On August 1, 2007, along came this story:

A new al Qaeda propaganda ad, headlined "Wait for the Big Surprise" and featuring a digitally altered photograph of President George Bush and Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf standing in front of a burning White House, was posted on the Internet today.

The brief clip from al Qaeda's "as Sahab" propaganda arm juxtaposes the doctored photo of Bush and Musharraf along with previously seen images of al Qaeda's top leadership -- Osama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahri and Adam Gadahn -- as well as a photo of an SUV in a motorcade.

There is no additional information provided in the ad, and it closes with the words, "Soon -- God willing," written across the screen and repeated several times.

In addition, the amount of anti-terrorism dollars has just been increased for the D.C. area. From this August 1, 2007 story in the Washington Post:

The D.C. area will use a major anti-terrorism grant to upgrade its bomb squads and provide law enforcement with new intelligence analysts and computer systems -- including one dubbed "Google for cops," authorities said yesterday.

Those were among the details released by state and local officials, who met this week to carve up a recent $61.6 million grant from the Department of Homeland Security. The funds are a 30 percent increase over last year's award to the region...

On August 4, 2007, this story appeared in the Washington Post, on the front page, above the fold:

The Senate bowed to White House pressure last night and passed a Republican plan for overhauling the federal government's terrorist surveillance laws, approving changes that would temporarily give U.S. spy agencies expanded power to eavesdrop on foreign suspects without a court order.

The 60 to 28 vote, which was quickly denounced by civil rights and privacy advocates, came after Democrats in the House failed to win support for more modest changes that would have required closer court supervision of government surveillance. Earlier in the day, President Bush threatened to hold Congress in session into its scheduled summer recess if it did not approve the changes he wanted.

The legislation, which is expected to go before the House today [August 4], would expand the government's authority to intercept without a court order the phone calls and e-mails of people in the United States who are communicating with people overseas.

[...]

Sixteen Democrats and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) joined all 43 Republicans in supporting the measure, which is nearly identical to a proposal prepared by the Bush administration. "We're at war. The enemy wants to attack us," Lieberman said during the Senate debate....

A few weeks ago, the Washington Post carried an item from a local reader, who noted a lot of extra heliocopter activity in the airspace over his home, situated near Andrews Air Force Base. He emphasized that he had noticed such activity only twice before, each time prior to the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Locals in the D.C. area have also recently noted frequent testings of the Emergency Broadcast System.

Put together all the above. Your conclusions?

Attention, Counter-Propagandists!

(Stuck toward the top through July 27)

From this source:

Bloggers, clear your calendars Sunday, July 22, through Friday, July 27. Some real propaganda bombshells are bound to be dropped, and you’ll want to be there when “several leading Muslim clerics and thinkers from around the globe will participate in an unprecedented online dialogue about their religion, terrorism and human rights.”

The “dialogue,” sponsored by The Washington Post and Newsweek Interactive and presented in conjunction with Georgetown University, has been dubbed “Muslims Speak Out” and will take place at On Faith, a blog operated as a joint effort of the Post and Newsweek.

More at this link.

Muslims Speak Out (July 22-27)

Follow up to this posting...

To access the On Faith forum in order to post comments or questions, CLICK HERE, then on the name of the person to whom you wish to address the question or comment.

To the credit of the Washington Post, the following article was published in "Outlook," July 22, 2007

Losing My Jihadism

By Mansour al-Nogaidan
Sunday, July 22, 2007; B01

BURAIDAH, Saudi Arabia Islam needs a Reformation. It needs someone with the courage of Martin Luther.

This is the belief I've arrived at after a long and painful spiritual journey. It's not a popular conviction -- it has attracted angry criticism, including death threats, from many sides. But it was reinforced by Sept. 11, 2001, and in the years since, I've only become more convinced that it is critical to Islam's future.

Muslims are too rigid in our adherence to old, literal interpretations of the Koran. It's time for many verses -- especially those having to do with relations between Islam and other religions -- to be reinterpreted in favor of a more modern Islam. It's time to accept that God loves the faithful of all religions. It's time for Muslims to question our leaders and their strict teachings, to reach our own understanding of the prophet's words and to call for a bold renewal of our faith as a faith of goodwill, of peace and of light.

I didn't always think this way. Once, I was one of the extremists who clung to literal interpretations of Islam and tried to force them on others. I was a jihadist.

I grew up in Saudi Arabia. When I was 16, I found myself assailed by doubts about the existence of God. I prayed to God to give me the strength to overcome them. I made a deal with Him: I would give up everything, devote myself to Him and live the way the prophet Muhammad and his companions had lived 1,400 years ago if He would rid me of my doubts.

I joined a hard-line Salafi group. I abandoned modern life and lived in a mud hut, apart from my family. Viewing modern education as corrupt and immoral, I joined a circle of scholars who taught the Islamic sciences in the classical way, just as they had been taught 1,200 years ago. My involvement with this group led me to violence, and landed me in prison. In 1991, I took part in firebombing video stores in Riyadh and a women's center in my home town of Buraidah, seeing them as symbols of sin in a society that was marching rapidly toward modernization.

Yet all the while, my doubts remained. Was the Koran really the word of God? Had it really been revealed to Muhammad, or did he create it himself? But I never shared these doubts with anyone, because doubting Islam or the prophet is not tolerated in the Muslim society of my country.

By the time I turned 26, much of the turmoil in me had abated, and I made my peace with God. At the same time, my eyes were opened to the hypocrisy of so many who held themselves out as Muslim role models. I saw Islamic judges ignoring the marks of torture borne by my prison comrades. I learned of Islamic teachers who molested their students. I heard devout Muslims who never missed the five daily prayers lying with ease to people who did not share their extremist beliefs.

In 1999, when I was working as an imam at a Riyadh mosque, I happened upon two books that had a profound influence on me. One, written by a Palestinian scholar, was about the struggle between those who deal pragmatically with the Koran and those who take it and the hadith literally. The other was a book by a Moroccan philosopher about the formation of the Arab Muslim way of thinking.

The books inspired me to write an article for a Saudi newspaper arguing that Muslims have the right to question and criticize our religious leaders and not to take everything they tell us for granted. We owe it to ourselves, I wrote, to think pragmatically if our religion is to survive and thrive.

That article landed me in the center of a storm. Some men in my mosque refused to greet me. Others would no longer pray behind me. Under this pressure, I left the mosque.

I moved to the southern city of Abha, where I took a job as a writer and editor with a newly established newspaper. I went back to leading prayers at the paper's small mosque and to writing about my evolving philosophy. After I wrote articles stressing our right as Muslims to question our Saudi clerics and their interpretations and to come up with our own, officials from the kingdom's powerful religious establishment complained, and I was banned from writing.

The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, gave new life to what I had been saying. I went back to criticizing the rote manner in which we Muslims are fed our religion. I criticized al-Qaeda's school of thought, which considers everyone who isn't a Salafi Muslim the enemy. I pointed to examples from Islamic history that stressed the need to get along with other religions. I tried to give a new interpretation to the verses that call for enmity between Muslims and Christians and Jews. I wrote that they do not apply to us today and that Islam calls for friendship among all faiths.

I lost a lot of friends after that. My old companions from the jihad felt obliged to declare themselves either with me or against me. Some preferred to cut their links to me silently, but others fought me publicly, issuing statements filled with curses and lies. Once again, the paper came under great pressure to ban my writing. And I became a favorite target on the Internet, where my writings were lambasted and labeled blasphemous.

Eventually I was fired. But by then, I had started to develop a different relationship with God. I felt that He was moving me toward another kind of belief, where all that matters is that we pray to God from the heart. I continued to pray, but I started to avoid the verses that contain violence or enmity and only used the ones that speak of God's mercy and grace and greatness. I remembered an incident in the Koran when the prophet told a Bedouin who did not know how to pray to let go of the verses and get closer to God by repeating, "God is good, God is great." Don't sweat the details, the prophet said.

I felt at peace, and no longer doubted His existence.

In December 2002, in a Web site interview, I criticized al-Qaeda and declared that some of the Friday sermons were loathsome because of their attacks against non-Muslims. Within days, a fatwa was posted online, calling me an infidel and saying that I should be killed. Once again, I felt despair at the ways of the Muslim world. Two years later, I told al-Arabiya television that I thought God loves all faithful people of different religions. That earned me a fatwa from the mufti of Saudi Arabia declaring my infidelity.

But one evening not long after that, I heard a radio broadcast of the verse of light. Even though I had memorized the Koran at 15, I felt as though I was hearing this verse for the first time. God is light, it says, the universe is illuminated by His light. I felt the verse was speaking directly to me, sending me a message. This God of light, I thought, how could He be against any human? The God of light would not be happy to see people suffer, even if they had sinned and made mistakes along the way.

I had found my Islam. And I believe that others can find it, too. But first we need a Reformation similar to the Protestant Reformation that Martin Luther led against the Roman Catholic Church.

In the late 14th century, Islam had its own sort of Martin Luther. Ibn Taymiyya was an Islamic scholar from a hard-line Salafi sect who went through a spiritual crisis and came to believe that in time, God would close the gates of hell and grant all humans, regardless of their religion, entry to his everlasting paradise. Unlike Luther, however, Ibn Taymiyya never openly declared this revolutionary belief; he shared it only with a small, trusted circle of students.

Nevertheless, I find myself inspired by Luther's courageous uprising. I see what Islam needs -- a strong, charismatic personality who will lead us toward reform, and scholars who can convince Islamic communities of the need for a bold new interpretation of Islamic texts, to reconcile us with the wider world.

Mansour al-Nogaidan writes for the Bahraini newspaper Al-Waqt.

CLICK HERE to view the schedule for and to access the On Faith Forum "Muslims Speak Out." Here's our chance to ask pointed questions and to make appropriate comments. I've test-posted a comment there, and it went up onto the site.

As far as I can tell, Mansour al-Nogaidan, the author of the above article is not a part of the forum. Comments can be directed to Mansour al-Nogaidan at the Washington Post web site, but you might have to register first. You can address comments to all of the authors in the "Outlook" section HERE.

How Secure Are We?

From this article in the July 13, 2007 edition of the Washington Post, emphases mine:

Bomb Squads Are Left Lacking
Multiple Attacks Would Reveal Equipment Gaps

Many local bomb squads in the Washington area are under-equipped to respond to the kind of simultaneous attacks being attempted by terrorists around the world, most recently in London, officials say.

None of the eight local and state bomb squads in the region is top-rated under the classification of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, according to the local officials. The region has asked the Department of Homeland Security for $8 million to bring them to the highest level.

Some officials said the lack of top-level status isn't critical. In an emergency, local squads would get help from explosives experts from the area's military bases or federal agencies including the FBI and U.S. Capitol Police, they said.

But some first responders worry that federal agencies might be tied up with their own responsibilities during a crisis or could face such complications as gridlocked traffic, particularly if there is an attack in the suburbs.

"We don't want to create a false sense of security for residents," said Keith Brower, head of the bomb-squad committee of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. "The bomb squads don't have what they need to handle multiple events or provide the top-line services we need in this day and age."

[...]

Mike Heimbach, who heads the counterterrorism division at the FBI's Washington field office, said he is "pretty comfortable" that the region could handle such simultaneous attacks because of the cooperation between federal, state and local agencies. But, he said, the local bomb squads believe they need better tools because the area is such a likely target.

"Let's face it: The nation's capital being high on al-Qaeda's radar, we should have the best of the best," he said.

The $8 million request to upgrade the bomb squads is part of the D.C. area's yearly application for a major Homeland Security anti-terrorism grant. The region has asked for a total of $140 million.

According to one official briefed on the process, Homeland Security is expected to announce this month that the region will get about $56 million. It's not clear how much would go to the bomb squads.

The upgrade "is extremely important. That's underscored by the recent events in the United Kingdom," said Robert P. Crouch, the top Virginia homeland security official, who manages the national capital area grant along with his Maryland and D.C. counterparts.

The foiled U.K. plot involved two cars in London rigged with propane canisters and nails, plus a subsequent attack on an airport terminal in Glasgow, Scotland.

[...]

Just last year, two U.S. citizens were charged in Atlanta with plotting attacks against targets including a fuel storage depot off Interstate 95 in Northern Virginia....

Read the entire article.

Low-Tech Terrorism

Citing the low-level methods and apparent bumbling of the Fort Dix Six, the media have disparaged last week's arrest of the aspiring terrorists in New Jersey.

To all those who might think that low-tech terrorist attacks cannot be of significance, I offer the following editorial, which appeared two days before the story broke.

Complete article, as it appeared in the May 6, 2007 edition of the Washington Post, emphases mine:

The Rise of Low-Tech Terrorism
The movies were an affront to God, encouraging vice and Western-style decadence. So in August 1978, four Shiite revolutionaries locked the doors of the Cinema Rex in the Iranian city of Abadan and set the theater on fire. The firefighters were late, and nearby hydrants did not work. The victims' shrieks could be heard while firefighters and police stood outside, watching helplessly. At least 377 people -- perhaps many more -- were burned alive.

Never heard of the Cinema Rex fire? You're not alone. But the tragedy is more than an obscure, grisly memory from the run-up to the 1979 Iranian Revolution. It's also the second-deadliest terrorist attack in modern history -- deadlier even than airline bombings such as Pan Am Flight 103 -- and one that offers many lessons about the changing threat of terrorism today.

Since Sept. 11, 2001, most Americans have worried about what terrorism experts call "spectaculars": massive, ingenious and above all theatrical extravaganzas such as al-Qaeda's attack on the twin towers, its simultaneous 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and its brazen 2000 suicide-boat assault on the USS Cole in Yemen. But perhaps we should be more worried about the Cinema Rex attack.

Although Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants still dream of spectaculars, a quick glance at the terrorist acts committed since 9/11 suggests that perpetrators are going low-tech, too. As the survivors of attacks in London, Madrid and the Russian town of Beslan will confirm, such tried-and-true terrorism methods as low-tech bombs, hostage-taking and arson have tremendous appeal to jihadists. Indeed, the State Department's annual survey on terrorism, released last week, notes that "in 2006 most attacks were perpetrated by terrorists applying conventional fighting methods that included using bombs and weapons, such as small arms."

While the United States and other countries have devoted lots of attention to bracing themselves for the big one, we've spent far too little time considering what we can learn from more mundane -- and more repeatable -- terrorist attacks that can inflict mass casualties.

A look at the various suspects arrested in recent years for crimes linked to radical Islamic terrorism in the United States suggests that the immediate threat we face is angry amateurs, not poised, professional killers such as Mohamed Atta, the leader of al-Qaeda's 9/11 team. Most of those arrested do appear to have meant Americans harm, whether by conducting attacks on their own or by raising money for other would-be killers. But these plots were rarely well-developed, and the operators were at best enthusiastic novices.

Consider the case of one of the few Americans actually convicted of terrorism since 9/11: Iyman Faris, an Ohio truck driver and naturalized U.S. citizen born in Kashmir who pleaded guilty in 2003, plotted to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge by severing its cables with blowtorches. Scary, sure -- but a completely absurd way to destroy the bridge, whose many cables are more than a foot in diameter.

These homegrown terrorists don't necessarily share the zeal and anonymity of a seasoned professional such as Atta. Many of those arrested on terrorism charges have a prison record and thus are known to law enforcement officials.

One of the most advanced post-9/11 plots, against the Israeli consulate in Los Angeles and U.S. military facilities in the area, involved four former inmates who began their plotting while behind bars. Former prisoners rarely make ideal comrades; many would sell their own mother for a small reward.

But it's a mistake to write off the angry amateurs. They're not terribly skilled, but it doesn't take that much skill to kill dozens of people -- as the shootings at Virginia Tech so tragically demonstrate. Attacks such as the Cinema Rex fire are easily repeated, and they don't take the years of onerous training and planning that spectaculars demand.

So how can we stop low-tech terrorism? Unfortunately, better defenses can solve only part of the problem. We should defend the White House, nuclear plants and other high-profile targets that would tempt terrorists to stage a spectacular. But we can't defend every movie theater, synagogue, local government building or shopping mall without spending hundreds of billions of dollars and turning the United States into an armed camp.

That leaves offense -- at home as well as abroad. The FBI has tried to penetrate cells of would-be terrorists, often opening itself to criticism for spending enormous resources on disrupting what seems to be a bunch of bungling blowhards. The bureau should keep at it. Of course, sometimes a ballyhooed terrorism arrest will look foolish when the media reveal the plotters' amateurish plans and backgrounds. But aggressive law enforcement can help prevent these amateurs from becoming something more deadly.

Perhaps the best way to fight low-tech terrorists is through community support. For instance, the FBI began to focus on the "Lackawanna Six," who pleaded guilty in 2003 to providing material support to al-Qaeda, after receiving an anonymous letter from a member of the Yemeni community in Lackawanna, N.Y., near Buffalo. But to get these sorts of tips, Arab Americans and Muslim Americans need to see the police as protectors, not persecutors.

In this respect, Europe provides a cautionary tale. Governments there, particularly France's, have spent more time trying to shake down their Muslim communities for intelligence than they've spent reassuring and integrating them. The result? An angry, unassimilated Muslim minority whose fringes produce terrorists while its mainstream often resists police efforts to find them. The U.S. government has a fine line to walk here, too. But when in doubt, we should jettison intrusive measures in favor of those likely to win sustained support from Muslim Americans.

Finally, the government needs to talk coolly and calmly to the American people. Complete protection against arson, shootings and low-level bombings is impossible. Americans will have to accept a certain amount of risk in their daily lives, recognizing that effective government policies can reduce the threat but not eliminate it. Public opinion is the fulcrum of counterterrorism. Terrorists -- high-tech and low-tech alike -- rely on overreaction from a rattled public and government to do their dirty work. We shouldn't indulge them.

About the author of the above:

Daniel L. Byman is director of Georgetown University's Center for Peace and Security Studies and a senior fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution.

Additional information from Google Search about the author of the above.

Information about Brookings Institution.

I'm not sure that Mr. Byman's conclusions as to how to prevent such attacks are correct. But I know that part of the statement from CAIR certainly is inaccurate and promotes dhimmitude. From American Crusader:

CAIR's statement: “Based on the information gathered in this case, it seems clear that a potentially deadly attack has been averted. We applaud the FBI for its efforts and repeat the American Muslim community’s condemnation and repudiation of all those who would plan or carry out acts of terror while falsely claiming their actions have religious justification.”

If they had stopped there, it would have been almost un-CAIR-like, but of course they had to add a little caveat.

CAIR went on to say “refrain from linking this case to the faith of Islam.”

Be sure to read American Crusader's entire posting.

We in the West can soothe ourselves by pointing out that moronic terrorists got nabbed last week in New Jersey. But we're creating a false sense of security if we don't address the ideology behind Islamic terrorism. After all, the Fort Dix Six had a common bond. They didn't just "go postal," nor did they suffer from sudden jihad syndrome. And there are bound to be many more like them.

Afraid To Break Free

(All emphases by Always On Watch)

From this article, which appeared on the front page of the May 8, 2007 Washington Post:

"My husband beat. He show knife. I am scared for him, for all family," said Shamim, 21, the Pakistani bride, who was rescued by police. She is being sheltered and tutored in English at a private home. "They say no money, no call mother at home. I cook for all, I not eat. I not know 911 what is. I think I go crazy."

Here, in the United States. In the D.C. area, hardly a backwater region.

The article goes on to state the following:

A major obstacle to recognizing and fighting abuse, experts said, can be Islam itself. The religion prizes female modesty and fidelity while allowing men to divorce at will and have several wives at once. Many Muslims also believe that men have the right to beat their wives. An often-quoted verse in the Koran says a husband may chastise a disobedient wife, but the phrasing in Arabic is open to several interpretations.

A few imams have spoken out:

In Sterling [Viriginia], Imam Mohamed Magid at the All Dulles Area Muslim Society offers counseling to engaged couples, ensuring they understand their mutual rights and duties. In Silver Spring, Imam Faizul Khan at the Islamic Society of the Washington Area holds weekly counseling sessions for troubled couples.

"For many years, our community did not face these issues. Women suffered in silence and fear. Even today, many imams think it could never happen in their mosque," Khan said. "Islam gives equal rights to men and women, but there are myths in Muslim society that men are superior and violence is permitted. This is wrong, and it needs to be said."

Khan and others are also trying to bring men into the debate by forming a group called Muslim Men Against Domestic Violence. But they said recruiting participants is not easy. Even when taken to court on charges of abuse, several experts said, many Muslim men will argue that they were within their rights or are being victimized by vindictive spouses.

Perhaps the following, portions of the Koran not in keeping with the imams' soothing words, explain why Muslim men are not coming forward to support rescuing abused Muslim women:

Sura 2:228 states, "Women have such honorable rights as obligations, but their men have a degree above them." Sale is more to the point in declaring that "the women ought also to behave towards their husbands in like manner as their husbands should behave toward them, according to what is just; but the men ought to have a superiority over them. God is mighty and wise." (p. 32) The superiority is expressed in another fashion toward their wives. "Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God’s guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them." (Sura 4:34)

[...]

The Qur’an declares that a man shall purify himself before prayer, and among those polluting sources are women. (Sura 5:6) It may be worth noting explicitly here that men apparently are not similarly a source of pollution for women. Apparently women are inherently more unclean than men...

More examples at the above link.

Additional information from "Muhammad's Low Opinion of Women":

FACT #1: The Qur’an allows (or, perhaps, commands) men to beat their wives into subservience.

[...]

FACT #2: According to Muhammad, women lack common sense because their minds are deficient.

[...]

FACT #3: Muhammad offered women little hope for the afterlife.

Supporting data for Fact #1, the imams' concern as express in today's Washington Post:

Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret what Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great.

Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

Men are the protectors And maintainers of women, Because Allah has given The one more (strength) Than the other, and because They support them From their means. Therefore the righteous women Are devoutly obedient, and guard In (the husband’s) absence What Allah would have them guard. As to those women On whose part ye fear Disloyalty and ill-conduct, Admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); But if they return to obedience, Seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, Great (above you all).

Perhaps the imams mentioned in the Washington Post article are abrogating certain portions in the Koran or advancing a more enlightened interpretation. If they are they should say so — not try to spin what the Koran says.

Sadly, even here in America, Muslim women are trapped, both culturally and physically. According to the Washington Post:

Social workers and government officials said there are numerous programs in the area to help Muslim women who are abused, such as hotlines with links to Arabic and Urdu speakers and shelters that serve meat slaughtered according to Islamic ritual. But if a young woman is brought to the United States, speaking no English and surrounded by in-laws, she might be as far from help as if she were living in a Pakistani or Moroccan village.

"Many women are kept inside, with no one to turn to," said Catherine Juhel, a counselor at the Foundation for Appropriate and Immediate Temporary Help (FAITH), an assistance program for Muslim women in Herndon. "They don't know the language or the laws here, only what their husband tells them. Often they come from a society where if you go to the police, they will bring you right back home. How can they be sure it would be any different here?"

A cudgel often wielded by abusive Muslim husbands in the United States is their power over the legal immigration status of their wives. Many brides arrive with temporary "marriage" visas obtained through husbands who are U.S. residents or citizens. Lawyers and social workers say an angry or demanding husband might threaten to "call immigration" and have the wife deported, raising the horrifying specter of her returning home in shame.

[...]

[E]ven U.S.-educated women can be browbeaten into enduring abuse for fear of shaming their families or facing cruel gossip at the mosque. Organizations that help them escape are viewed by some conservative Muslims here as dangerous saboteurs of Muslim values and family.

In Shireen's case [a professional born in Turkey but reared here in the United States], even a college degree and a good job could not fend off the demands of family and community bent on fitting her into a traditional Muslim mold. Now that she finally has freed herself from an unhappy match, she said, she has become a pariah to the family that once hovered around her.

"I know I was stupid to give in, but you get overwhelmed by all the pressure," she said. "Now I have been totally shunned. I embarrassed my husband in the eyes of the community. It doesn't matter why I left him or what he did to me. Even in America, you can't always get away from home."

Near the end of the Washington Post article, we find this poignant passage:

"Now I am freedom," Shamim said, grinning broadly as she took a tea break recently from her English studies. "I stay America. Not go home. In home, everyone blame woman, it is my culture. Everyone blame me."

May Shireen, Shamim, and others like them find true freedom here in America and break the shackles of Islam!

UAE's Gift To Johns Hopkins

Item from the May 6. 2007 edition of the Washington Post:

Johns Hopkins Gets Major Gift From Sheik

An Arab sheik has made a major gift to Johns Hopkins Medicine and will have a tower at Hopkins hospital named in honor of his father, a founder of the United Arab Emirates, officials announced.

The size of the gift was not disclosed, but Hopkins officials described it as "transformational."

The gift, from Sheik Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, will support heart research, an AIDS research program in Uganda and a billion-dollar construction project that will replace half of Hopkins Hospital by 2010.The sheik is the ruler of Abu Dhabi and the president of the United Arab Emirates. Hopkins has agreed to name a 355-bed clinic after the sheik's late father, Sheik Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan.

Now for some additional information about the sheikh....

Sheikh Kalifa, of equestrian-circles fame, is the head of the Supreme Petroleum Council. An article at Wiki includes the following about his philanthropic donations:

...[C]haritable contributions by Sheikh Khalifa are not from his own wealth but that of his nation's, given the vast sums of the state's wealth accumulated by his father and his family.

The sheikh gets the glory but the funds apparently come from UAE's national treasury.

It seems that the dollars which the West pays for UAE's oil get used for all sorts of purposes. Consider the following information about the Sheik, from this source, emphases mine:

On July 27, 2005, the Palestinian Information Center carried a public HAMAS statement thanking the UAE for it’s “unstinting support.” The statement said: “We highly appreciate his highness Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Bin Sultan Al-Nahyan (UAE president) in particular and the UAE people and government in general for their limitless support…that contributed more to consolidating our people's resoluteness in the face of the Israeli occupation".

The HAMAS statement continued: "the sisterly UAE had… never hesitated in providing aid for our Mujahid people pertaining to rebuilding their houses demolished by the IOF… The UAE also spared no effort to offer financial and material aids to the Palestinian charitable societies." Indeed, as documented by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Center for Special Studies (C.S.S), HAMAS charitable societies,” are known as integral parts of the HAMAS infrastructure, and are outlawed by Israel and the U.S.

The HAMAS statement included a special tribute: "One can never forget the generous donations of the late Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan,” the father of the current UAE president. Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al Nahayan of Abu Dhabi, was the first Arab leader to understand the importance of waging economic Jihad against the West...

Does Johns Hopkins have a clue about Sheikh Khalifah's and his family's connections to Hamas?

Even the WaPo Decries Pelosi!

Due to personal circumstances, I've barely been able to read the newspaper for the past two weeks. Shameful, I know. But real life comes first.

Today, now that I'm once again able to make blog rounds, I spotted this commentary about a recent editorial in the Washington Post. Excerpt from "The Erosion of Our Constitution":

Once in a while, the Washington Post doesn't align with the Democratic Party, as shown by the lead editorial in the April 27, 2007 edition. The subtitle of the editorial, a commentary on Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's recent trip to Syria, sets the tone:

Having finished hosting U.S. politicians, Syria's dictator has returned to jailing dissidents and sponsoring terrorism.

Ostensibly, Ms. Pelosi visited Syria to stop the flow of terrorists from Syria into Iraq, to promote the release of political hostages, and to further the idea that the road to peace is through Damascus. A Pollyanna fantasy if there ever was one!

Read the rest at Praesidium Respublicae (Latin for "Guardians of the Republic").

Virginia Tech massacre

Shortly after I made the two posts about "accomodations" of Muslims at colleges and universities, I learned about the massacre at Virginia Tech. 33 people died, with many more wounded. The victims from Northern Virginia are:

Daniel Perez Cueva, Woodbridge. Age 21. Junior, International Studies.
Erin Peterson, Chantilly. Age 18. Freshman.
Mary Read, Annandale. Age 19. Freshman.
Reema Samaha, Chantilly. Age 18. Freshman.
Leslie Sherman, Springfield. Age 20. Sophomore, History and International Studies
Maxine Turner, Vienna. Age 22. Senior, Chemical Engineering.

The lives of these young women and young man were senselessly cut short. I extend my sympathy and condolences to family and friends. May God provide you courage and strength in these difficult times.

Northern Virginiastan

UPDATE: We now know that the killer was Cho Seung-Hui, a Korean national from Centreville who graduated from Westfield High School. I am saddened for his family, who will have to carry the stigma of having the perpetrator of the worst massacre in U.S. history as family for the rest of their lives.