Syria's Continued Domination of Lebanon Beirut's English newspaper, the Daily Star, contains this charmingly frank text in a boring-sounding article titled, "Sharaa hold [sic] talks with Lahoud on regional issues."

Syrian Foreign Minister Farouq Sharaa held talks with President Emile Lahoud at the Baabda Palace on Monday, hours after Syrian President Bashar Assad began consultations with Lebanese politicians on selecting Lebanon's next president and prime minister. ...

According to an official statement issued by the Presidential Palace, Sharaa conveyed a message from Assad on the Iraqi and Palestinian issues and bilateral relations between Lebanon and Syria.

Assad is due to meet with Baalbek-Hermel MP Hussein Husseini, Tripoli MP Omar Karami and Health Minister Suleiman Franjieh. The Central News Agency said Assad will meet with presidential candidates to form a picture of the Maronite political positions regarding the election.

Ah, for the pleasures of controlling a satellite country (the only one left in the world, by the way) and having the acquiescence of the United States. There's no need to mince words or pretend. (August 17, 2004) Permalink

The Maldives and the Professor When I wrote an article a few weeks ago, "U Penn Prof for Shari'a," criticizing Paul H. Robinson for working with the Maldive government to implement a Shar‘i criminal code, I focused on the Islamic law dimension, not the problematic political situation in the Maldives. But on Aug. 14, a major development took place, the declaration of a state of emergency resulting from violence attending a protest by about 5,000 people seeking more democracy. In one analysis, "Uneasy Calm, Rumours Galore in Maldives," I read such statements as "President Gayyoom has ruled the Maldives for the past 26 years as a police state" and even a comparison between him and Saddam Hussein. This makes it even more troubling that a distinguished American legal specialist should aid the regime with its laws, so I asked Professor Robinson about this and he wrote me that:

It is never a bad thing that a people have a criminal code that is true to justice. Does the present political turmoil suggest that it less likely that a proposed code will be put into effect? I think it is too early to tell. As the Chinese expression puts it: In chaos there is opportunity.

The current unrest is to a large extent a continuation of the public dissatisfaction that produced the press for a new criminal code in the first place. Logically, the continuing dissatisfaction ought not undercut a new code's prospects but it is also true that in chaos there is unpredictability.

All I can do is to carry out my planned code drafting reforms, with U.N. backing, and to hope that at some point in the not too distant future the political situation will be such as to support enactment. We shall see.

(Aug. 15, 2004) Permalink

Does the Saudi Government Subsidize Speakers on American Campuses? I documented in my article three days ago, "The Saudis' Covert P.R. Campaign," that "A range of public figures—former ambassadors, university professors, think tank experts – routinely opine in America about the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia while quietly taking Saudi funds."

In response, the embassy in Washington issued a press release today, "Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia Responds to New York Sun Article," denying my report above: "Neither the government of Saudi Arabia nor any public relations firm compensates these individuals for their activities. These esteemed experts on Middle East issues speak their own minds and on their own behalf."

To which Charles Lipson of the University of Chicago, the source of my information in the original article (where he was referred to only as "a senior professor at a major research institution"), has published a statement detailing his dealings with Sarah Burleson of Adelstein & Associates in Chicago and showing how he came to the conclusion that the speakers in question are ultimately paid by the Saudi government:

The Saudi press release also states that "Neither the government of Saudi Arabia nor any public relations firm compensates these individuals for their activities." It does not say whether other Saudi-related entities make payments or say whether these individuals have other financial dealings with the Kingdom.

Taking the Saudi government press release at face value, these speakers are actually turning down a normal academic honoraria in order to speak for free on behalf of the Saudi P.R. firm. Apparently, these senior figures spend days flying around the country, speaking on behalf of a major Saudi P.R. initiative, while turning down compensation from the venues that host them, from the Saudis themselves, and from the Saudi P.R. firms. One obvious question is whether they are compensated by any other Saudi-based or Saudi-funded institutions "for these activities." The press release mentions only the government and the P.R. firms. Another question is whether these speakers have other financial ties to the Saudi government, Saudi businesses, or Saudi-funded philanthropies that pay them for other activities closely tied to their seemingly unpaid speeches, such as "consulting." That is, these "free" speeches might be compensated indirectly through payments for other Saudi-related activities. I am not stating that these speakers are receiving such payments. I simply do not know. I am raising questions since it would appear that the speakers are actually turning down normal honoraria in order to speak for free and since the Saudi press release does not clarify these matters.

In short, those three innocent-looking words in the Saudi press release, "for their activities," permit the embassy its denial. But this is a word game; the press release implies that the kingdom pays the speakers, only not specifically for the talks. (Aug. 13, 2004)

Aug. 18, 2004 update: The New York Sun has an editorial today, "Numerous Spokespersons," that takes this story to the next level, contacting all five of the speakers promoted by the Saudis' p.r. agency and drawing some conclusions. Permalink

Words Not to be Uttered about Islam The American branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations has deemed the word Islamist unacceptable ("Constant use of ‘Islamist' overlooks real threats" is the title of an article responding to the 9/11 Commission report by a CAIR staffer, Arsalan T. Iftikhar); now, the Canadian branch has deemed the word Shari‘a, as in "Shari‘a court" unacceptable. In a press release, dated today, "CAIR-CAN Meets with Ontario Government Regarding Islamic Arbitration" (not online) the organization announces that it supports

the principle behind the proposal that the Muslim community in Canada is entitled to use the alternative resolution tools … to resolve civil disputes according to Islamic Personal/Family Law. However, CAIR-CAN recognized the challenges posed by the current scheme. Accordingly, CAIR-CAN made the following recommendations … : The term "shariah" should not to be used to describe the arbitration tribunal. The tribunal should be a form of Muslim dispute resolution equipped to settle specific and limited set of civil disputes.

I wonder what words the censors at CAIR and the other Islamist groups will prohibit next. (Aug. 11, 2004) Permalink

The Rationale behind "Londonistan"? Like many others, I have repeatedly bemoaned and ridiculed British weakness vis-à-vis Islamism (for example, here, here, here and here). But what if there's a method behind the British madness? That's the thesis of Jamie Campbell's cover story in the New Statesman dated today, "Why terrorists love Britain." Relying on the insights of Mohamed Sifaoui, author of Inside Al Qaeda (an autobiographical account of how this French Algerian journalist posed as an Islamist and infiltrated terrorist organizations in France and the United Kingdom), Campbell suggests that hosting so many terrorists renders the UK precious to the terrorists, who in turn leave it alone.

According to Sifaoui, it has long been recognised by the British Islamists, by the British government and by UK intelligence agencies, that as long as Britain guarantees a degree of freedom to the likes of Hassan Butt [a loudmouth pro-terrorist Islamist], the terrorist strikes will continue to be planned within the borders of the UK but will not occur here. Ironically, then, the presence of vocal and active Islamist terrorist sympathisers in the UK actually makes British people safer, while the full brunt of British-based terrorist plotting is suffered by people in other countries.

Campbell then tries this thesis out on Omar Bakri, leader of al-Muhajiroun, one of the most extreme Islamist groups in the UK, who confirms it:

He tells me the story of the companions of the prophet Muhammad who, when travelling to Abyssinia, were given protection and hospitality by that nation. The result of this generosity is the Koranic notion of covenant, namely that as a Muslim it is de rigueur not to attack the inhabitants of any country in which one finds oneself living safely. This, according to Bakri, makes it unlikely that British-based Muslims will carry out operations in the UK itself.

To the extent the allowing of Islamists and terrorists safe haven on British soil is a conscious decision to keep the UK safe at the expense of others, this is an immoral and despicable policy that must be changed immediately. (August 9, 2004) Permalink

"Mr. Pipes Comes to America" As the author of a book titled Militant Islam Reaches America (W.W. Norton, 2002), I am amused to learn that the Christian writer Douglas Bond published a 194-page book titled Mr. Pipes Comes to America (Christian Liberty Press, 2001) a year earlier. This is one of three of his "Mr. Pipes" series – the others being Mr. Pipes and Psalms and Hymns of the Reformation and Mr. Pipes and the British Hymn Makers.

For those curious, here is a description of Mr. Pipes Comes to America:

Cultivate a love of traditional hymns in your young believers as they follow Mr. Pipes from his cozy English cottage to America! From Plymouth to Amesbury, Princeton to Boston, Mr. Pipes leads Annie and Drew on a delightful historical adventure, teaching them about the lives and music of John Eliot, Phillips Brooks, John Greenleaf Whittier, and other great hymn writers. Includes music and lyrics.

The title page and excerpts can be read at Christianbook.com. (August 9, 2004) Permalink

Harvard Celebrates Middle East Studies In the years after World War II, Americans came to realize that the Cold War demanded expertise on the world's regions; Harvard University responded to this need in 1954 by establishing the Center for Middle East Studies and hiring H.A.R. Gibb (1895-1971), arguably the biggest name in Middle East studies of that era. Gibb gave the new center instant credibility but also surrounded himself with minor scholars who lasted well beyond his own tenure. Specialists in their beer agree – as do I, who spent the years 1969-86 in and out of the CMES, getting an A.B. and a Ph.D. along the way – that Harvard's work on the Middle East has been distinctly less successful than that at other major research universities, including UCLA and Princeton.

Further, the poor state of Middle East studies at Harvard reflects the judgment of the university administration that the field is a hopeless morass – something first learned in the debacle over Nadav Safran's conference on politics and Islam in 1985 and relearned again and again in subsequent years (most recently, in the embarrassing episode days ago of returning $2.5 million in cash to the United Arab Emirates). As Martin Kramer wrote in his pathbreaking book on Middle East studies, Ivory Towers on Sand, "Harvard tolerated its Middle East center (it brought in money), but never respected it."

Beyond Harvard's problems, there is the larger issue of the failure of Middle Eastern studies, as documented in particular by Kramer and also by Norvell B. De Atkine and myself in "Middle Eastern Studies: What Went Wrong?" The public critique of Middle East studies has been undertaken by Campus Watch, a unique project begun in September 2002 with the goal of improving the field.

None of these problems, however, are in any way acknowledged in the "CMES Fiftieth Anniversary Celebration Schedule" that details festivities planned for Oct. 30-31, 2004 in Cambridge, Mass. The outline suggests a mood somewhere between smug ("Lunch with brief reminiscences about CMES") and self-congratulatory ("An Israeli at CMES or why did I go to the States to study the Middle East?"), with not a word of self-criticism, not an iota of awareness of the field's troubles, and not a place on the program for a critic ready to point these out. But, then, what might one expect of Middle East studies? (August 9, 2004) Permalink

Arab Immigrants in Latin American Politics "In the run-up to the 1996 presidential elections, all of the three most likely candidates were of Lebanese extraction: Vice President Alberto Dahik Garzozi; the mayor of the capital city, Jamil Mahuad Witt; and former governor Jaime Nebot Saadi." No, this is not my description of Lebanese or even the Syrian presidential elections, but those of Ecuador. Outsiders tend to forget not just the presence of a (mostly Christian) Levantine and Arab population in Latin America, but even more its out-sized political importance. To remind us of that fact, here is a Syrian Arab News Agency report on a meeting between Syria's minister of expatriates, Buthaina Shaaban, and the Greek Orthodox archbishop of Mexico, Venezuela and central America, Anton Shedrawi. According to the news report, not only did the two stress the "necessity of boosting Syrian-Mexican relations in all domains" but Shedrawi pointed out that 12 percent of Mexico's Senators, Parliamentarians, and provincial governors are of Arab origins, "a matter that requires coordination and efforts to display the true image of Syria's history and position abroad." His Eminence also noted the importance of Arabs in the media. For her part, Dr. Shaaban reiterated her ministry's interest in working with expatriates and stressed the role of clergymen in both keeping children conscious of their patrimony and communicating with the old country. (August 4, 2004) Permalink

A Status Report on CAIR How fares CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, North America's toughest and strongest Islamist group? I discern two contrary trends.

On the positive side, the organization is doing gangbusters, hosting large fundraising events, expanding offices (it now claims twenty-eight of them), insinuating itself with the left, and getting more litigious. It is increasingly accepted as mainstream – meeting with government officials, making presentations at police stations, Elderhostels, and in schoolrooms, and giving official invocations.

On the negative side, CAIR is clearly hurting in the substance arena, having to retreat from some prized positions. I have already noted today CAIR's reluctant condemning of the Islamist government of Sudan for the atrocities in Darfur, surely an unpleasant task for an Islamist organization. Even worse for CAIR must have been its feeling compelled to condemn the teacher's manual for a first-grade Arabic textbook used at the Islamic Saudi Academy, a private school in Alexandria, Virginia. The manual's first page tells teachers to instruct students that any religion other than Islam is false. CAIR's spokesman, Ibrahim Hooper, said this conflicts with the Koran and "is inaccurate in terms of portraying Islam's relationship with other faiths." Saudi embassy Nail Al-Jubeir Nail Al-Jubeir reacted harshly to such criticism, calling it "pathetic" and "making a big thing out of nothing." CAIR receives Saudi funding, so for it to denounce a fellow Saudi-subsidized institution suggests how much its radicalism is hurting it.

In all, I am inclined to say that the substance is more of a leading indicator than the packaging, and that as CAIR's actions become ever-better known, the group is likely to come under increased scrutiny and experience difficult times. (Aug. 3, 2004) Permalink

Boilerplate for Denouncing Terrorism I recently wrote an analysis exposing "CAIR's Phony Petition" in which I concluded that its Not-in-the-Name-of-Islam effort "seeks to clean up Islam's image without doing anything of substance."

Well, it gets even worse. Sound Vision, a project of the radical Bridgeview Mosque outside Chicago, has produced "A sample statement/resolution of condemnation" for use with the media when Islamist terrorism once again rears its ugly head. Sound Vision helpfully suggests that "Your Islamic center can adopt, rewrite and issue the following statement to your local media." It also advises users to "replace ‘Muslims of America' with the Muslim community of your city" and "type this or your modified version on your Masjid or Islamic center's letterhead." It even explains that to fax the press release to the news desk of local media outlets you can "find the fax numbers in your yellow or white pages."

Then follows the meaningless boilerplate statement. (July 30, 2004) Permalink

The Difference between CAIR and MPAC I am sometimes asked to characterize the difference between the two leading American Islamist organizations, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Muslim Public Affairs Council. While they agree on many issues – impeding counterterrorism efforts and forwarding an Islamist vision of America in particular – they also differ in some ways.

General outlook: MPAC portrays itself as "moderate," a self-definition that presumably has never crossed CAIR's collective mind;
Aggressiveness: CAIR is the attack-dog, MPAC follows.
Funding: CAIR takes large amounts of money from at least one foreign state, something that MPAC disavows in its boilerplate fundraising appeal ("As a matter of policy, MPAC DOES NOT accept any funding from foreign governments").
Geography: CAIR, being headquartered on New Jersey Avenue in Washington, D.C., is more relentlessly political than MPAC, headquartered on Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles.

But the current crisis in Darfur brings out what is perhaps the key difference. Unlike the many cases around the world of Muslim violence against non-Muslims – what Samuel Huntington has so evocatively dubbed "the bloody borders of Islam" – this one involves Muslims only (or, to complete Huntington's quote, "and so are its innards"). That is to say, both the aggressor (the "Janjaweed" militia sponsored by the government of Sudan) and the victims (the Fur, Masalit, and Zaghawa of Darfur) adhere to the Islamic religion.

MPAC responded yesterday by issuing a press release, "Humanitarian Crisis in the Sudan," that decries that "the perpetrator of this crime is indirectly the Sudanese government" and calls on the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference "publicly and loudly" to condemn the violence in Darfur and call for a war-crimes tribunal. It also asks Americans "to write to the Embassy of Sudan, expressing concern about this terrible humanitarian catastrophe."

In contrast, CAIR has stayed mum about the whole Darfur matter. When buttonholed by a reporter, its spokesman, Ibrahim Hooper, tersely replied "We don't have enough knowledge of the situation to make judgments."

In brief, MPAC takes a public stance of wishing to protect ordinary Muslims from the Islamist furies; CAIR does not. As ever, CAIR is consistently more radical. (July 21, 2004)

August 3, 2004 update: The spin doctors at CAIR apparently figured that saying "We don't have enough knowledge of the situation to make judgments" is not an ideal response when everyone else in Washington does know enough to make judgments. So CAIR issued a press release today announcing it signed a statement demanding the government of Sudan to "stop population displacement and end crimes against humanity." Ibrahim Hooper also changed his tune, now saying that "It is important that Americans of all faiths first understand the misery felt by the people of Darfur and then act to help alleviate their suffering." I am proud to have done my part in shaming CAIR to improve its ways. Permalink

Israel's All-Woman Air Force Combat Squadron For over a century, the status of women has been one of the most enduring and pointed differences between the Zionists and their neighbors. Whether it was the sight of women working in the agricultural fields in shorts, striding the beaches of Tel Aviv in bikinis, or serving as prime minister of the country, women's robust status has proved one of the more difficult aspects for Arab Muslims of the yishuv and then Israel.

One can only imagine the impact of the news today that the Israel Defense Forces is about to unveil, as it were, a combat squadron composed solely of women. As Ma`ariv puts it, "In the new squadron, all positions are staffed by members of the fairer sex: from the combat pilot to the operations officer, training officer, air traffic control sergeant right down to the ground technician." More: the air force says that senior positions, such as that of squadron commander, will also eventually be filled by women. (July 20, 2004) Permalink

Madison, Wisconsin: Sister City to Rafah, Gaza? On the agenda for the Madison Common Council tomorrow evening, squeezed between regulations for juvenile curfews and a resolution to authorize water utility general managers to hire a consultant to prepare wellhead protection plans, one finds this unlikely piece of business:

Authorizing the Mayor to enter into an agreement with the City of Rafah in the Gaza Strip to establish a sister city relationship with the City of Madison.

Sponsor: MACCUBBIN, KONKEL, SLOAN, KING, BENFORD, WEBBER, OLSON

Recommended Action: ADOPT

LittleGreenFootballs.com posted the resolution when it came out in May 2004 (it includes this choice phrase: "the mission statement of the municipal government in Rafah reflects a democratic vision that corresponds to the values of Madison's political leadership") and also establishes that the "democratic vision" in Rafah is provided by Hamas, a bona fide terrorist group.

This mischievous plan inspires further pairings: Cambridge, Mass. and Fallujah? Ann Arbor and Jenin? Berkeley and Qandahar? (July 19, 2004)

July 22, 2004 update: There must be some long faces in Rafah, as the Madison Common Council turned down the sister-city proposal. Actually, a majority of 9-to-8 voted in favor of the proposal but 11 votes were needed, so it went down to defeat. This despite an eloquent appeal from University of Wisconsin sociology professor Joe Elder, who argued that the sister-city relationship would have enabled Madison "to learn at the grass-roots level and contribute at the grass-roots level." Permalink

Saudis Sponsor a National Gallery of Art Exhibit Starting today and running through Feb. 6, 2005, the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C. is showcasing an impressive collection of Islamic art from London's Victoria & Albert Museum from. The exhibit is noteworthy both for its artistic merit, said to be of the highest caliber, and for its unusual sponsorship.

Victoria & Albert's Islamic gallery might sound like something dating to Queen Victoria's times but it actually opened on Feb. 3, 2004. It was funded by the Abdul Latif Jameel Group, which happens to hold exclusive distribution rights for Toyota and Lexus cars in Saudi Arabia and other Arab Middle Eastern states. As for the exhibit at the National Gallery, a federal governmental institution, it is sponsored by the Abdul Latif Jameel companies and by none other than Prince Bandar Bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to Washington.

It would be one thing were the National Gallery a privately owned institution. But as a federal museum, Saudi sponsorship of an exhibit means that an entity of the U.S. government is facilitating the Saudi public relations campaign, and that is wrong. The National Gallery's overseers in Congress should not merely defer to art experts but make sure that sponsors do not use federal museums to peddle their problematic agenda. (July 18, 2004) Permalink

American Islamist Organizations Vanish The first American Islamist organization to disappear was the American Muslim Council, about which I have written extensively (see "[The AMC:] 'Mainstream' Muslims?" and "United States of America v. Abdurahman Muhammad Alamoudi" in particular). AMC collapsed in late 2003 or so, done in by a combination of an incompetent director and a founder with large legal problems. Its vanishing was established when www.amconline.org, once AMC's website address, was put up for sale by its owner.

According to the website of the Illinois secretary of state, the United Muslim Americans Association was dissolved on January 22, 2004; its website is also defunct. (UMAA should not be confused with UMMA, the Universal Muslim Association of America.) UMAA was founded by Sabri Samirah, called "an outspoken leader of Chicago's Muslim community who has helped run a group allegedly connected to Palestinian militants [and] has been barred from returning to the United States after visiting relatives in his native Jordan." Samirah's inability to return to the United States doomed UMAA. It's worth noting he was also chairman and had long been a board member of the Islamic Association for Palestine, an organization U.S. government officials have described as the American propaganda arm of Hamas. The UMAA also happened to share office space with the Islamic Association for Palestine. (July 17, 2004) Permalink

End of the Cozy U.S.-Saudi Relationship? Ever since April 1945, when Franklin D. Roosevelt initiated U.S.-Saudi ties in a meeting with King Ibn Saud, the two country's "special relationship" has been the private preserve of presidents, vice presidents, cabinet ministers, ambassadors, flag officers, and other eminentoes – plus their retired equivalents. The Congress has been as welcome in this important business as a skunk at a garden party. And for nearly a half century, generations of senators and representatives have invariably acquiesced to the Executive Branch's warnings that not to do its will would bring disaster.

But the House of Representatives today voted 217-191 on a foreign aid bill and resolved to deny financial assistance to Saudi Arabia. The Bush Administration strongly opposed the amendment to "prohibit any U.S. assistance to Saudi Arabia," saying it would "severely undermine" both counterterrorism cooperation with Saudi Arabia and U.S. efforts for peace in the Middle East (the latter is a bit of a stretch).

The actual amount is utterly trivial - $25,000 out of a $19.4 billion 2005 foreign aid bill, but beyond its political implications, it also has financial repercussions, for Saudi Arabia's receiving any amount of foreign aid, no matter how nominal, makes it eligible for much larger savings in discounts in a range of military expenditures.

It is a proud day for the Democrats, as they backed the measure to cut aid 156-39; in contrast, Republicans opposed it 152-60. (In all likelihood, those numbers would have been reversed were the president a Democrat, as relations with Saudi Arabia historically have not been a partisan matter.)

Next up: the Senate. For the Saudi aid not to go through, the Senate must either reject the Saudi aid provision or agree to its being dropped in conference. If history is a guide, the Senate will go along with the administration and Saudi Arabia will get the aid. But still, a vital precedent has been set and House members can stand proudly for having asserted, after fifty-nine long years, their constitutional prerogative. (July 15, 2004) Permalink

The British Follies The British government won itself the reputation for being tough because it joined with the U.S.-led effort in Iraq, quite in contrast to France. But when it comes to domestic counterterrorism, the French are far ahead of the hapless, head-in-the-sand Londonistanis – as I have noted earlier. Indeed, it sometimes seems like one could handsomely fill a blog with nothing but entries documenting the British follies. Here are some examples, in reverse chronological order:

"Terror leaflets found at mosque": Police last week were called in to investigate after hundreds of leaflets urging Muslims to become Mujahideen fighters and ask them to "pray for death and decay to be visited upon the West" were distributed at Birmingham Central Mosque, one of Europe's largest Islamic centers . The flyers were signed by Ahle Sunnah Wal Jamah, said by mosque officials to be an alias of Al Muhajiroun organization, which I have elsewhere described as "perhaps the most extreme Islamist group operating in the West." Interestingly, the mosque's chairman, Mohammed Naseem, blamed the British government for Al Muhajiroun's presence. "Its leaders continue to preach and incite terrorism and yet the Government does not nothing about it. These people should be removed from the country." It bears noting that on July 29, 2004, Azmat Yaqub, a person associated with the Birmingham Central Mosque died in a hail of bullets at a gymnasium, after having survived a similar assault in March 2003 in what the press reported as a dispute between factions at the mosque. This mosque appears to be out of control; one wonders if it will it go the way of its Finsbury Park counterpart. (Aug. 15, 2004)

"Hardliners hijack the re-opening of mosque": The closing of north London's Finsbury Park mosque in January 2003, due to suspected terrorism-related activities associated with Abu Hamza al-Masri, was supposed to clean the place out permanently. Ah, but this is Londonistan. The mosque re-opened after a year and a half yesterday for a while and was immediately occupied for two hours by some forty of Abu Hamza's acolytes, interrupting prayers, denouncing the trustees and new imam. The group's leader, Abu Hamza ally Abu Abdullah, in a 20-minute address announced that he had taken the mosque back "for the people." In true Abu Hamza style, he damned the trustees for working with the "infidels" and claimed he could produce thirty times as many people as he had brought yesterday. As a result of these antics, the mosque was again closed. Oh, and this detail, supplied by the Guardian: Abu Hamza's followers have prayed outside the mosque every Friday since he was banned, "resulting in a sizable policing bill and the closure of the road to traffic, while neighbouring mosques have struggled to cope with up to 800 displaced worshippers (Aug. 7, 2004)

"Terror Suspect Seeks Bail for Mental Health Treatment": A Palestinian terrorist suspect held being at Broadmoor, a security psychiatric hospital, seeks bail so that his mental health problems can be treated "in the community," the High Court heard today. Referred to only as "A" (because he is a hospital patient), this individual was arrested over three years ago on suspicion of raising funds for terrorist groups, including those linked to Osama Bin Laden. In July 2002, Home Secretary David Blunkett had him transferred to the hospital because of his mental health problems. A is seeking bail by calling on his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. (July 21, 2004)

"Hijackers allowed to stay for fear of infringing their human rights": In February 2000, nine Afghans hijacked a Taliban-regime airliner internal flight and forced it to fly to London. Today they found out that immigration adjudicators had refused the hijackers asylum but ruled that they could not be deported. The adjudicators ruled that Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits returning anyone to a country where he might be "subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment," prohibits the hijackers from being deported. Never mind that the Taliban no longer rule Afghanistan; defense lawyers argued that the hijackers anyway face a danger from "Taliban elements who could target them." As a result, the nine can stay in Britain, along with their 21 dependents. Oh, and they are living in rent-free housing and receive welfare benefits. The decision embarrasses the Government, which intends to appeal. The shadow home secretary, David Davis, characterized the ruling as "crazy" on the grounds that it invites others to hijack planes as a means to claim asylum. The Daily Telegraph notes two prior precedents for this ruling: the six Iraqis who in 1996 hijacked a Sudanese airplane to land in London have remained in the country with their families; and three members of a gang that hijacked a Tanzanian airliner in 1984 have remained in Britain. (July 14, 2004) Permalink

MPAC on Steven Emerson and Me The Muslim Public Affairs Council yesterday held a much-hyped meeting (see coverage in the Associated Press, Los Angeles Times, Pasadena Star News, and the Press-Enterprise) at which Maher Hathout unveiled a "mosque to mosque" campaign to provide Muslims with tools to fight terrorist activity. Sounds good, no? But Hathout throughout his talk kept disparaging Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project and me, calling the two of us "self-professed terrorist experts who make all us Muslim look like terrorists." (I, by the way, have never declared myself an expert on terrorism.)

When queried why MPAC does not anyway work in unison with the two of us to root out terrorists, that presumably being our common ultimate objective, an MPAC person answered that it cannot do so because Emerson and I make "lay persons believe that all Muslims are terrorists."

In saying this, of course, MPAC is lying through its collective teeth. Emerson and I routinely and repeatedly make the point that Muslims in general are not the issue, only those radicalized ones who support the militant Islamic program. But he and I can say this until we are blue in the face; the totalitarians at MPAC and the other Islamist organizations continue unabated to spread their Big Lie. (July 12, 2004) Permalink

Cynthia McKinney's Arab and Islamist Donors We all knew that Cynthia McKinney would be drawing on Arab and Muslim supporters in her bid to return to Congress, but a listing of contributors (with information up through June 28) reveals to what an extraordinary extent this is the case, as shown by the names of her backers.

Of particular note is the who's who of radical organizations her donors are associated with:

Hani Y. Awadallah – president, Arab American Civic Organization, New Jersey.

Jesse Aweida – co-founder, American Task Force on Palestine.

Belal Dalati – a vice president of Arab-American Broadcasting Co. (Orange County Register, February 19, 2002) associated with the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Hasan Elkhatib –member, board of directors, American Islamic Educational Foundation (MetroWest Jewish News, October 10, 1996)

Yaser Elmenshawy - chairman, Islamic Council of New Jersey.

Rafeeq Jaber – president, Islamic Association for Palestine, a Hamas offshoot.

Oussama Jammal – president, Bridgeview Mosque.

Samer Khalaf – chairman, American-Arab Anti Discrimination Committee's Political Outreach Committee in New Jersey.

Faroque Khan – president, Islamic Center of Long Island, also connected to the American Muslim Alliance and Islamic Society of North America.

Mahmoud A Nimer - member, board of directors, Islamic Academy of Florida, Tampa (an Islamic school established by Sami al-Arian; al-Arian's indictment indicates the school was used as a base of support for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad).

Ayman Osman - member, board of directors, Islamic Academy of Florida, Tampa; employer of Hatem Fariz, arrested on terrorism charges and charged with being a member of Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Talat Othman - former chairman of the Islamic Free Market Institute; secretary/treasurer of the American Task Force on Palestine.

Khalid Qazi – former president, American Muslim Council of western New York State.

Hareth Raddawi - member, board of directors, American-Arab Anti Discrimination Committee, Chicago.

Allam Reheem - former member, board of directors, Islamic Academy of Florida, Tampa.

Talal Sunbulli – former chairman, Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago.

James Zogby – president, Arab American Institute.

In addition, the American-Arab Anti Discrimination Committee gave $1,000.

Such an outpouring of extremist support comes as no shock; as Erick Stakelbeck documents in today's New York Post, "McKinney has long associated with militant Islamic groups whose members have openly supported terrorism," plus "she has taken to the floor of the House to defend them."

Comment: Georgia holds its primary on July 20; should McKinney win it, as seems likely, radical Arab and Muslim causes will have achieved their first significant electoral victory in the United States. (July 9, 2004)

July 21, 2004 update: "This victory means that her constituents missed her. She is a great lady, and I am delighted she won [the primary]." So gloated Abed Hammoud, president of the Dearborn, Mich.-based Arab-American Political Action Committee, as quoted in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Permalink

Berlin Recognizes Militant Islam as the Threat In what is surely a first for any Western country, interior ministers from the sixteen German states (länder) have, Reuters reports, agreed to a plan proposed by Federal Minister of the Interior Otto Schily to establish a central database for Islamist terror suspects. This would take the place of three databases now in existence.

This proposal met with a reasonable reaction from Nadeem Elyas, chairman of the Zentralrats der Muslime in Deutschland (Central Council of Muslims in Germany). Reuters quotes him warning that innocent Muslims risked falling under suspicion unless the term Islamist was properly defined, an entirely valid point.

When you speak about Islamism, you have to clarify what you mean by it. We are concerned that every Muslim could fall under this catch-all term, which is unacceptable. We're worried that people may be caught up arbitrarily who have nothing to do with terrorism.

This German breakthrough results in part from the fact that for decades the Federal Republic has benefited from the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution), a unique bureau that keeps a close tab on extremist political movements of all colorations, including "Islamischer Extremismus und islamistischer Terrorismus." It publishes a major study each year, the Verfassungsschutzbericht, that surveys Germany's extremist movements in a frank and constructive way.

This is a unique institution that should serve as a model for other governments to emulate, as Guenter Lewy argued in "Does America Need a Verfassungsschutzbericht" in the fall 1987 issue of ORBIS: A Journal of World Opinion (which I then edited). Lewy replied to this question emphatically in the affirmative. What was true seventeen years ago, in the waning years of the cold war, is all the more true today, in the early part of the war on militant Islam. (July 8, 2004) Permalink

For more entries see the Weblog Archive...