« August 2006 |
Main Page |
October 2006 »

Please read just a few of the headlines that World Net Daily has published.

Septemper, 2006

Suicide bombers follow Quran,
concludes Pentagon briefing

Tasked with pinpointing motivation, analysts find
terrorists 'rational actors' following 'holy book'

With suicide bombings spreading from Iraq to Afghanistan, the Pentagon has tasked intelligence analysts to pinpoint what's driving Muslim after Muslim to do the unthinkable.

Their preliminary finding is politically explosive: it's their "holy book" the Quran after all, according to intelligence briefings obtained by WND.

In public, the U.S. government has made an effort to avoid linking the terrorist threat to Islam and the Quran while dismissing suicide terrorists as crazed heretics who pervert Islamic teachings.

"The terrorists distort the idea of jihad into a call for violence and murder," the White House maintains in its recently released "National Strategy for Combating Terrorism" report.

(Story continues below)

But internal Pentagon briefings show intelligence analysts have reached a wholly different conclusion after studying Islamic scripture and the backgrounds of suicide terrorists. They've found that most Muslim suicide bombers are in fact students of the Quran who are motivated by its violent commands – making them, as strange as it sounds to the West, "rational actors" on the Islamic stage.

In Islam, it is not how one lives one's life that guarantees spiritual salvation, but how one dies, according to the briefings. There are great advantages to becoming a martyr. Dying while fighting the infidels in the cause of Allah reserves a special place and honor in Paradise. And it earns special favor with Allah.

"Suicide in defense of Islam is permitted, and the Islamic suicide bomber is, in the main, a rational actor," concludes a recent Pentagon briefing paper titled, "Motivations of Muslim Suicide Bombers."

Suicide for Allah a 'win-win'

"His actions provide a win-win scenario for himself, his family, his faith and his God," the document explains. "The bomber secures salvation and the pleasures of Paradise. He earns a degree of financial security and a place for his family in Paradise. He defends his faith and takes his place in a long line of martyrs to be memorialized as a valorous fighter.

"And finally, because of the manner of his death, he is assured that he will find favor with Allah," the briefing adds. "Against these considerations, the selfless sacrifice by the individual Muslim to destroy Islam's enemies becomes a suitable, feasible and acceptable course of action."

The briefing – produced by a little-known Pentagon intelligence unit called the Counterintelligence Field Activity, or CIFA – cites a number of passages from the Quran dealing with jihad, or "holy" warfare, martyrdom and Paradise, where "beautiful mansions" and "maidens" await martyr heroes. In preparation for attacks, suicide terrorists typically recite passages from six surahs, or chapters, of the Quran: Baqura (Surah 2), Al Imran (3), Anfal (8), Tawba (9), Rahman (55) and Asr (103).

CIFA staffs hundreds of investigators and analysts to help coordinate Pentagon security efforts at U.S. military installations at home and abroad.

The Pentagon unit is especially concerned about a new wave of suicide bombings hitting Afghanistan.

Suicide bombings have killed more than 200 people in Afghanistan this year, up from single digits two years ago. On Tuesday, a suicide bomber detonated his explosive vest and killed 18 outside an Afghan government compound. Last week, a suicide bomber riding a bike killed at least four NATO soldiers. And earlier this month, a suicide car bomber rammed into a U.S. military convoy near the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, killing 16 people, including two American soldiers.

500 suicide bombers in reserve

The U.S. command in Afghanistan now warns that a suicide bombing cell is operating inside the Afghan capital. Meanwhile, the Taliban's top military commander told ABC News he has 500 suicide bombers at his disposal.

"We have so many of them that it is difficult to accommodate and arm and equip them," Mullah Dadullah Akhund said. "Some of them have been waiting for a year or more for their turn to be sent to the battlefield."

The emergence of a suicide cell in Kabul troubles military analysts because suicide attacks are the most effective weapon Muslim terrorists can use against the West. The Rand Corp. predicts they'll pose a serious and constant threat to the U.S. for years to come.

The U.S. intelligence community is growing increasingly worried, as well.

"Most jihadist groups will use suicide attacks focused primarily on soft targets to implement asymmetric warfare strategy," warns the just-declassified executive summary of the National Intelligence Estimate on the global terror threat. "Fighters with experience in Iraq are a potential source of leadership for jihadists pursuing these tactics."

Many scholars and media pundits, however, insist Muslim suicide bombers are not driven by religion.

"Beneath the religious rhetoric with which [such terror] is perpetrated, it occurs largely in the service of secular aims," claims Professor Robert A. Pape of the University of Chicago. "Suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation rather than a product of Islamic fundamentalism."

He says U.S. foreign policy is more a factor than faith.

"Though it speaks of Americans as infidels, al-Qaida is less concerned with converting us to Islam than removing us from Arab and Muslim lands," Pape said.

But what about the recent video by Adam Gadahn, the American al-Qaida, warning fellow Americans to convert to Islam before al-Qaida attacks again?

"He never mentions virgins or the benefits Islamic martyrs receive in Heaven," Pape asserted.

In fact, Gadahn notes 36 minutes into his speech that Allah reserves the highest rewards – "honors and delights" – for martyrs in Paradise.

"[He] promised the martyr in his path the reward over and above the reward of the believer," Gadahn said. "He has promised them honors and delights too numerous to go into here."

The 9/11 hijackers and the London bombers made martyrdom videos. In their last testaments, they recite the Quran while talking of their "love of death" and "sacrificing life for Allah." Seven martyrdom videotapes also were recovered by British authorities in the foiled transatlantic sky terror plot.

Before the 9/11 attacks, the hijackers shaved and doused themselves with flower water in preparation for their weddings with the beautiful virgins in Paradise. "Know that the women of Paradise are waiting, calling out 'Come hither, friend of Allah,'" according to a four-page letter circulated among them titled "THE LAST NIGHT." "They have dressed in their most beautiful clothing."

But are the virgins scriptural or apocryphal? French documentarian Pierre Rehov, who interviewed the families of suicide bombers and would-be bombers in an attempt to find out why they do it, says it's not a myth or fantasy of heretics.

He says there's no doubt the Quran "promises virgins" to Muslim men who die while fighting infidels in jihad, and it's a key motivating factor behind suicide terrorism.

"It's obviously connected to religion," said Rehov, who features his interviews with Muslims in a recently released film, "Suicide Killers." "They really believe they are going to get the virgins."

He says would-be Muslim suicide bombers he's interviewed have shown him passages in the Quran "in which it's absolutely written that they're going to get the girls in the afterlife."

Muslim clerics do not disavow the virgins-for-martyrs reward as a perverted interpretation of the Quran.

And even Muslim leaders in the West condone suicide bombings. British scholar Azzam Tamimi recently told 8,000 Muslims in Manchester, England, that dying while fighting "George Bush and Tony Blair" is "just" and "the greatest act of martyrdom." Earlier, he said it's "the straight way to pleasing Allah."

And the founder of an allegedly mainstream Muslim group in Washington – the Council on American-Islamic Relations – also has given his blessing to suicide bombings.

Addressing a youth session at the 1999 Islamic Association for Palestine's annual convention in Chicago, CAIR founder Omar Ahmad praised suicide bombers who "kill themselves for Islam," according to a transcript provided by terror expert Steve Emerson's Investigative Project.

"Fighting for freedom, fighting for Islam, that is not suicide," Ahmad asserted. "They kill themselves for Islam."

Osama bin Laden has encouraged "Muslims brothers" to defeat the U.S. and U.K. with suicide attacks.

"I tell you to act upon the orders of Allah," he said in 2003, "be united against Bush and Blair and defeat them through suicide attacks so that you may be successful before Allah."

Where's the Muslim apology?

Many have been asking for my thoughts on the comments made by Pope Benedict XVI at the University of Regensburg, Germany, Sept. 12. Never let it be said that from time to time "you ask for it, you get it."

I think the Islamic actions immediately following and since show the depth of depravity and the breadth of evil in a way that far supersedes the words of 14th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus – a man, by the way, who viewed firsthand the savagery of the Ottoman Turk (i.e., Muslim) barbarism.

A synopsis of the textbook "The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe" by Daniel Goffman of Indiana's Ball State University reads:

The Ottoman Empire … its militarism, its barbarism, its tyranny, the sexual appetites of its rulers and its pervasive exoticism has led historians to measure the Ottoman world against a Western standard and find it lacking.

I would insert "find it woefully and demonstrably lacking."

(Column continues below)

Here's my point. Muslim apologists and modern-day appeasers (like Russ Feingold, D-Wis.) are perfectly within their right in attempting to spin a genteel, pastoral image of the practitioners of this group – but this group's actions make that image more akin to a sanious discharge than they do a Degas or Monet.

Keep in mind that Paleologus was quoting from an experiential point of view when he wrote, "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." My question is: To what ends today have those, who now cry foul, gone to diminish said factual 14th century point of view?

Members of this group intentionally flew planes into buildings for the express purpose of murder and mayhem. Provocation for same rested only in their diseased minds. Was there an outcry or denouncement from those living and practicing Islam's tenets here? There was not – but there was rejoicing in the streets in New Jersey, Washington state and on certain college campuses. How did that attack, and the one in 1993, make a positive statement about Islam?

Paleologus was correct in saying: "Violence is indeed incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul." How can any person of a reasonable mind not question the validity of a religion that practices ritualistic beheadings and disembowelment in the 21st century? Cultists who practice ritualistic killings of animals are arrested here. But murderers from this group are applauded and deified by their own.

For the sake of discussion, it would be one thing if all of the atrocities were carried out several centuries ago – but such is not the case. Bodies found in mass graves are unearthed mutilated and beheaded. Women are gang raped while their fathers look on, as punishment for getting college educations. Women are partially buried in the ground and stoned to death. However, they are only permitted to be stoned with certain-sized stones so as to prolong their agony. If the stones are too large, death would be too quick. Fathers and family members kill their daughters and sisters for marrying a Christian or for daring to leave their religion.

I am still waiting for all of those pastoral worshippers to lift a united voice in opposition to such practices. Instead, we witness calls for the pontiff to be killed. We hear them say his apology is not enough. Have they apologized for 9-11? We hear them compare the pontiff to Hitler. What should we compare them to? Have they expressed any remorse for the kidnappings and beheadings of innocent people? I submit their outrage is indicative of their duplicitous, evil double standards.

People in civilized religions don't attack and burn churches. And in America, when they have in the past, they have been arrested and punished. People in civilized religions don't murder the choir director because they disagree with the pastor. But with these people – be it cartoon or intellectual discourse – threats, murder and mayhem are the only way they know how to resolve issues. They are loath to debate and/or reform from within. Their idea of reformation is murdering people in Manila.

Thousands upon thousands are murdered every year by practitioners of Islam. There is no organized outrage, only the installation of another religious leader, worse than the one before.

These people will go to whatever lengths necessary to obfuscate the truth of their history and secure their Magdalenian ambitions. There are only so many things that can be said of a group that uses strong-arm tactics, weapons and threats of death – not only as evangelistic tools, but to retain membership. Tragically, they are the only ones who fail to see it.

Any religion that believes itself above debate and/or above criticism, and adheres to dark oppressive dictatorial governance, is not one of faith – it is an assemblage borne out of constraint and constriction based on fear.

This is something that obviously escapes James Zogby and Russ Feingold, both of whom have castigated the pontiff while completely ignoring the truth of his words – which categorically proves that neither Democrats nor Muslims can handle debate if it means exposing the truth about them.

'Religion of peace' followers torch Christian churches
Hundreds seek refuge as mobs riot over alleged 'insult' to Muhammad

Nearly a dozen Christian churches have been burned and hundreds of people forced to seek refuge in a police station by Muslims who rioted through the Nigerian city of Dutse, and they blamed their actions on a "comment" made by a Christian woman.

According to a Reuters report, authorities in the city imposed a night curfew this week to try to quell the violence allegedly triggered by a statement by a woman that Muslims said was a blasphemy to Mohammad.

Scores of houses and shops owned by Christians also were burned in the Jigawa state capital city, police spokesman Haz Iwendi reported. There also were some injuries, but no fatalities, he said.

"Eleven churches and so many houses and shops were burned," he told Reuters. "The house of the Anglican bishop also was ransacked."

(Story continues below)

Another report from Africa News quoted police spokesman Kieran Dudari as saying the situation was "unfortunate."

The Christian aid organization Barnabas Fund said the conflagration destroyed two-thirds of all Christian churches in the area, including St. Peter's Anglican Cathedral, and there were reports that the state's governor himself was attacked when he tried to calm the mob.

Hundreds of heavily armed police officers were called in to patrol the city, eventually providing some calm amidst the ashes, the organization said.

The Barnabas Fund noted Muslims already were in an uproar worldwide because of a recent comment from the pope where he cited a historic document that describes Islam as violent.

"There have been attacks against Christians in the Palestinian territories, Somalia and Iraq," the group said.

"There have also been many verbal protests. The Islamic cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a so-called moderate who had justified violence in the past, called for 22nd September to be a 'day of rational anger' across the world and warned Muslims not to attack churches," the Fund said. "Sadly his warning against violence does not seem to have been heeded."

Al-Qaida in Iraq has publicly threatened Christians, saying, "We will destroy the cross … then all that will be accepted will be conversion or the sword. May God enable us to slit their throats, and make their money and descendants the bounty of the mujahideen," according to the Fund.

"Muslims are always saying that Islam is a religion of peace," said Fund International Director Patrick Sookhdeo. "But many Christians in the Muslim world know differently. For them, Islam has been and remains a religion which metes out violence."

The organization said it is launching an online drive to raise funds for the victims of the violence, as well as the eventual reconstruction of the burned church facilities.

Joseph Hayab, of the Christian Association of Nigeria, told Reuters that the woman's comment was a tit-for-tat remark after a derogatory comment was made about Christianity.

"Her comment was in retaliation to uncomplimentary remarks made by her colleague about Jesus," he told the news service. The woman was detained briefly by police, then released, and that's what triggered the rioting, he said.

According to a report, more than 1,000 Dutse residents remained camped in an open field at state police headquarters a day later, too terrified to return to their homes.

The comments from the pope that have left the Muslim world calling either for his death or his conversion to Islam came as he quoted 14th-century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus.

"He said, I quote, 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached," the pope quoted, according to a CNN report.

The Organization of the Islamic Conference said that statement shows a "deep ignorance" of Islam.

The pope apologized that people were offended by his quotation, but he stopped short of denying its truthfulness.

'Green flag of Allah will fly over Vatican'
Sheik rejects pope's gestures to Muslims,
calls for holy war against 'this little racist'

JERUSALEM – Pope Benedict XVI's apologies for worldwide reaction to his remarks about Islam and his invitation today for Muslim leaders to meet with him next week are "mere diplomatic acts" and prove the pontiff does not really regret his words, a prominent Gaza Strip preacher told WorldNetDaily.

Sheik Abu Saqer, leader of Gaza's Jihadia Salafiya Islamic outreach movement, which seeks to make secular Muslims more religious, called for holy war against the pope.

He said Christian leaders such as Benedict are "afraid" because they realize Islam is Allah's favorite religion and they are going to hell unless they convert. The Gaza preacher declared the "green flag of Muhammad" would soon be raised over the Vatican.

"We did not need the words of the pope in order to understand that this is a Crusader war against Islam and it is our holy duty to fight all those who support the pope, who follow him and who did not condemn what this small racist had to say," said Abu Saqer, speaking to WND from the southern Gaza city of Khan Yunis.

"The day will soon come when the green flag of La Illah Illah Allah (There is no god but Allah) and Muhammad Rasul Allah (Muhammad is the Prophet of Allah) will be raised upon the Vatican and all around the world and on the fortresses of those who want to destroy Islam, because they know that this religion obliges them to face the truth that Islam is Allah's favorite religion. And until they join Islam, hell is their last station," Abu Saqer said.

(Story continues below)

The Gaza imam was responding to a speech last week in which the 79-year-old pope quoted Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, who wrote, "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

The pontiff last Sunday said he was "deeply sorry" for the reaction to his comments and said Wednesday the emperor's words did not reflect how he himself felt. He said the intent of his remarks were to call for a dialogue on the role of religions in modern life.

The Vatican this morning reportedly invited ambassadors from Muslim nations to meet the pope Monday in a bid to calm anger that has spilled over into international Muslim protests.

Last weekend, Palestinians wielding guns and firebombs attacked five churches in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, including Anglican and Greek Orthodox churches in the north Samaria city of Nablus and a Greek Orthodox church in Gaza City. A group calling itself the "Lions of Monotheism" claimed responsibility for the church attacks, saying they were carried out to protest the pope's remarks.

Abu Saqer said he rejected the pope's stated apologies.

"He did not apologize. He said everything but an apology, which proves these are diplomatic acts and not a feeling of being sorry."

Abu Saqer claimed he did not condone violence. He blamed the pope for recent anti-Christian attacks in the Palestinian territories.

"We are deeply sorry for these acts that we condemn," he said. "But I am sorry that this little racist did not think of the consequences upon the Christians in the Arab world when he insulted our prophet. It is an open war – the Muslims against all the others."

Asked to respond directly to Paleologus' observations about Muhammad and Islam, Abu Saqer replied, "About your stupid question about our contribution to civilization, did not you read about who were the pioneers in medicine, in mathematics, in astronomy? Did not you hear about Averroes and others?

"I am not reading poetry, I am saying the truth. Islam, it is not the source of violence. Who is occupying by force and violence Iraq and Afghanistan? Who is occupying Palestine? Who occupied for years the black people and turned them into slaves while one of the first leaders of Islam was the black Bilal Ibn Rabah?"

Continued Abu Saqer: "Violence is a result of lack of faith. See the Western society and culture. See what free sex brings to your Western world and then see the family cell in Islam. Even our problems in Islam come when some parts of the Islamic population want to imitate your way of life."

The Gaza preacher said the pope and the Christian world are "panicking" because they realize "who is winning."

"See how Islam is progressing and gaining more and more members and see the moral crisis in the West. See today the support of Islam in the Arab and Muslim world and how Islam is gaining more and more adherents in Europe and even in the United States and you understand that Islam is the future and that this dwarf pope was wrong. But I can sympathize with him. He is frustrated because he understands where things are heading."


Al-Qaida warning: Muslims leave U.S.
Afghan terror commander hints at big attack on N.Y., Washington

e new al-Qaida field commander in Afghanistan is calling for Muslims to leave the U.S. – particularly Washington and New York – in anticipation of a major terror attack to rival Sept. 11, according to an interview by a Pakistani journalist.

Abu Dawood told Hamid Mir, a reporter who has covered al-Qaida and met with Osama bin Laden, the attack is being coordinated by Adnan el-Shukrijumah and suggests it may involve some form of weapon of mass destruction smuggled across the Mexican border.

(Story continues below)

"Our brothers are ready to attack inside America. We will breach their security again," he is quoted as saying. "There is no timeframe for our attack inside America; we can do it any time."

As WND has previously reported, el-Shukrijumah is a trained nuclear technician and accomplished pilot who has been singled out by bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri to serve as the field commander for the next terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

The terrorist was last seen in Mexico, where, on Nov. 1, 2004, he allegedly hijacked a Piper PA Pawnee cropduster from Ejido Queretaro near Mexicali to transport a nuclear weapon and nuclear equipment into the U.S., according to Paul Williams, a former FBI consultant and author of "The Dunces of Doomsday."

"He is an American and a friend of Muhammad Atta, who led 9/11 attacks five years ago," said Dawood. "We call him 'Jaffer al Tayyar' (Jafer the Pilot); he is very brave and intelligent. (President) Bush is aware that brother Adnan has smuggled deadly materials inside America from the Mexican border. Bush is silent about him, because he doesn’t want to panic his people. Sheikh Osama bin Laden has completed his cycle of warnings. You know, he is man of his words, he is not a politician; he always does what he says. If he said it many times that Americans will see new attacks, they will definitely see new attacks. He is a real mujahid. Americans will not win this war, which they have started against Muslims. Americans are the biggest supporters of the biggest terrorist in the world, which is Israel."

Dawood said he was currently conducting operations in Afghanistan under the leadership of the Taliban. He warned of a series of upcoming suicide bombings there directed against government and coalition forces during Ramadan.

He is also quoted as saying the next attack in America will not be conducted by people like Atta.

"We have a different plan for the next attack," he told Mir. "You will see. Americans will hardly find out any Muslim names, after the next attack. Most of our brothers are living in Western countries, with Jewish and Christian names, with passports of Western countries. This time, someone with the name of Mohamed Atta will not attack inside America, it would be some David, Richard or Peter."

He said there will be another audio message from bin Laden aired within the next two weeks.

Mir reportedly interviewed Dawood Sept. 12 at the tomb of Sultan Mehmud Ghaznawi on the outskirts of Kabul. Dawood and the al-Qaida leaders who accompanied him were clean-shaven and dressed as Western reporters. The al-Qaida commander had contacted Mir by cell phone to arrange the meeting.

"You have witnessed the brutality of the Israelis in the recent 34-day war against Lebanese civilians," said Dawood. "9/11 was a revenge of Palestinian children, killed by the U.S.-made weapons, supplied to Israel. The next attack on America would be a revenge of Lebanese children killed by U.S.-made cluster bombs. Bush and (British Prime Minister Tony) Blair are the Crusaders, and Muslim leaders, like (Pakistani President Pervez) Musharraf and (Afghani President Hamid) Karzai are their collaborators. We will teach a lesson to all of them."

El-Shukrijumah was born in Guyana Aug. 4, 1975 – the firstborn of Gulshair el-Shukrijumah, a 44-year-old radical Muslim cleric, and his 16-year-old wife. In 1985, Gulshair migrated to the United States, where he assumed duties as the imam of the Farouq Mosque in Brooklyn.

The mosque, located at 554 Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn, has served as a hive for terrorist activities. It has raised millions for the jihad and has served as a recruiting station for al-Qaida. Many of the planners of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, including blind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, were prominent members of this notorious "house of worship."

In 1995, the Shukrijumah family relocated to Miramar, Fla., where Gulshair became the spiritual leader of the radical Masjid al-Hijah Mosque, and where Adnan became friends with Jose Padilla, who planned to detonate a radiological bomb in midtown Manhattan; Mandhai Jokhan, who was convicted of attempting to blow up nuclear power plants in southern Florida; and a group of other home-grown terrorists.

Adnan Shukrijumah attended flight schools in Florida and Norman, Oklahoma, along with Mohammad Atta and the other 9/11 operatives, and he became a highly skilled commercial jet pilot, although he, like Atta and the other terrorists, never applied for a license with the Federal Aviation Commission.

In April 2001, Shukrijumah spent 10 days in Panama, where he reportedly met with al-Qaida officials to assist in the planning of 9/11. He also traveled to Trinidad and Guyana, where virulent al-Qaida cells have been established. The following month, he obtained an associate's degree in computer engineering from Broward Community College.

During this time, he managed to get passports from Guyana, Trinidad, Saudi Arabia, Canada and the United States, according to Williams. He also began to adopt a number of aliases, including Abu Arifi, Jafar al-Tayyar, Jaafar At Yayyar, Ja'far al-Tayar, and Mohammed Sher Mohammed Khan (the name that appeared on his official FBI file). He traveled to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, where he met with Ramzi Binalshibh, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and other members of the al-Qaida high command. He also spent considerable time within al-Qaida camps in Afghanistan, where he received training in explosives and special operations.

Following 9/11, el-Shukrijumah was reportedly singled out by bin Laden and al-Zawahiri to spearhead the next great attack on America. One plan was for a nuclear attack that would take place simultaneously in seven U.S. cities, leaving millions dead and the richest and most powerful nation on earth in ashes.

"Muslims should leave America," said Dawood. "We cannot stop our attack just because of the American Muslims; they must realize that American forces are killing innocent Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq; we have the right to respond back, in the same manner, in the enemy's homeland. The American Muslims are like a human shield for our enemy; they must leave New York and Washington."

Mir, the journalist, has reported previously that al-Qaida has smuggled nuclear weapons and uranium into the U.S.

"I am saying that Muslims must leave America, but we can attack America anytime," he said. "Our cycle of warnings has been completed, now we have fresh edicts from some prominent Muslim scholars to destroy our enemy, this is our defending of Jihad; the enemy has entered in our homes and we have the right to enter in their homes, they are killing us, we will kill them."

'Hezbollah youth scouts' train in terrorism
Thousands of children, teens prepare for apocalyptic battle against 'evil'

TEL AVIV – Hezbollah leads a youth movement that instructs tens of thousands of children and teenagers in military tactics and indoctrinates them with radical Shia Islam beliefs – including the waging of a final, apocalyptic world battle against "evil," according to materials found by Israel during last month's war in Lebanon.

"Hezbollah established its Imam Mahdi Scouts to attract Shiite children and adolescents, to influence their hearts and minds and to prepare new generations of youth indoctrinated with radical Shiite Islam, which propounds the idea of the return of the Mahdi (messiah) as one of Hezbollah's central principles," states a report by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at Israel's Center for Special Studies.

"Hezbollah wants to create a new generation of operatives for its own ranks who will take part in its violent campaign against Israel," the report states.

(Story continues below)

The Center for Special Studies, a think tank here specializing in terrorism information, analyzed scores of documents and material captured last month by the Israeli Defense Forces during military confrontation's with Hezbollah. The documents relating to Hezbollah's Mahdi Scouts evidence the recruitment of youth to fight eventually alongside Hezbollah, the center stated.

Hezbollah's Mahdi Scouts was established by the terror group in 1982 and operates under the jurisdiction of the Lebanese Ministry of Education. According to the Center for Special Studies, the Scouts have about 42,000 Lebanese males and females between the ages of 8-16 organized into 499 groups.

The scouts' namesake comes from a decedent of Muhammad, the founder of Islam. Shia Muslims believe Muhammad's immediate decedents – a series of 12 imams, or Muslim leaders – are the most trusted carriers of Islamic tradition.

Most Shia Muslims believe the 12th Imam, Mahdi, is still alive but cannot be seen until Allah determines it is time to prepare the faithful for Judgment Day. They believe Mahdi will eventually reveal himself and lead the forces of righteousness against the forces of evil in a final, apocalyptic world battle.

Hezbollah's Mahdi Scouts reportedly undergo military training at summer camps in Shiite communities in Beirut, the Beqaa Valley and south Lebanon.

The Center for Special Studies stated major activities at Mahdi Scouts summer camps, including sports and social programs, aim to inculcate Hezbollah and Islamic revolutionary principles into scout members.

The center's report said there are camps in which youth learn the basic use of arms along with physical training and march exercises while dressed in scout uniforms or camouflage suits. The center reviewed dozens of captured pictures of Mahdi Scouts in military uniforms holding plastic assault rifles.

An investigative report published in August by the Egyptian daily Ruz al-Yusuf claimed the scout movement trains “armed militias” in south Lebanon made up of children aged 10-15.

Lesson one: Destroy Israel

The first lesson Hezbollah teaches scouts, stated the Egyptian article, is the destruction of Israel.

“(This lesson) is always an important part of the curriculum and is always aimed at children and adolescents who are new to the program. (The objective is to train a) high-caliber Islamic generation of children who would be willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of Allah in the campaign against Israel."

The Center for Special Studies noted evidence of Iranian involvement in the scouting program. The center's report states Iranian Revolutionary Guard units played a central role in establishing the Mahdi Scouts and its regular programs and summer camps

The report says a large volume of materials collected in Lebanon by the IDF "illustrates how members of Hezbollah's youth movement had been indoctrinated with the principles of the Iranian Islamic revolution and the personality cult of (Supreme Iranian leader) Ali Khamenei."

Among the scouting literature discovered were books and magazines glorifying Khamenei as a hero worthy of emulation.

The center also found a Mahdi Scouts calendar in which dates considered important to Hezbollah were highlighted. Dates marked for celebration in September, for example, include Imam Mahdi's birthday and the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United States.

According to the center report, when male Mahdi scouts turn 17 they make their way into Hezbollah's fighting ranks.

Several previous scouts reportedly died during confrontations with Israel in July and August. Hezbollah member Hassan Qassem Hamid, head of the scout branch in the south Lebanese Hezbollah stronghold of Bint Jbail, was killed after he attempted to attack Israeli troops.

The Mahdi Scouts calendar boasts more than 120 of the movement's members died during Hezbollah actions, including suicide bombings against Israeli targets.

Many Western analysts fear the Shia belief in Mahdi's return is a driving force behind Iran's suspected pursuit of nuclear weapons. Iran is the primary sponsor of Hezbollah.

Some contend Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may be pursuing nuclear weapons in part to precipitate the final, Mahdi-led battle.

In a speech in Tehran in November, Ahmadinejad reportedly said his main mission is to "pave the path for the glorious reappearance of Imam Mahdi, may Allah hasten his reappearance."

Ahmadinejad's cabinet reportedly has given $17 million to the Jamkaran mosque, site of a well at which Shia Muslims believe Mahdi disappeared over 1,000 years ago.

Christian beaten for drinking water
Man suffers broken collarbone, dislocated shoulder

A Christian man is recovering from a beating that left him with a broken collarbone and dislocated shoulder after he drank water from a glass reserved for the poor at a construction site in Pakistan.

The report comes from Voice of the Martyrs, the Christian aid organization with a vision for working around the world to help those who are facing persecution for their Christian faith.

The report said Nasir Ashraf, a Christian stonemason, was working on the construction of a room at a school near Manga Mandi outside of Lahore when he got thirsty and took a break.

"He drew water and drank from a glass chained to a cemented public water tank next to a mosque, which was reserved for 'all' poor people," the VOM report said. "Returning to the construction site, a Muslim man asked him, 'Why did you drink water from this glass since you are a Christian?'"

The man then accused Nasir of polluting the glass, yanked the glass off the iron chain, broke it and threw it in a garbage can.

He also summoned other militant Muslims nearby.

"This man polluted our glass," he told them.

The result was an incensed mob that beat Nasir, yelling that a "Christian dog" drank from their glass.

Bystanders encouraged the beating, because it would be a "good" deed that would help them in heaven, the report said.

"The attackers pushed Nasir off a ledge onto the ground, and the fall dislocated his shoulder and broke his collarbone in two places," the VOM report said.

He was unconscious until he was taken to a clinic, the report said, and the physician who said some people had brought him in also told him never to make that mistake again.

Nasir's father took him home and a VOM representative was alerted so that VOMedical could help with his medical treatment and recovery, officials said.

VOM was launched by Rev. Richard Wurmbrand, who wrote "Tortured for Christ" about his experiences representing Christ in war-torn Europe. His testimony, and ministry's work, has spread around the globe.

'China-level' Christian persecution coming
Pastors say court's ruling in Houston Bible case 'breath-taking'
A few more court decisions like this week's over a display of a Bible in Houston and the United States will be approaching the "China-level" for Christian persecution, according to a leader in the midst of that battle.

The ruling from the Fifth Court of Appeals said the display of a Bible on public ground in Houston to honor the founder of a mission has to go, not because it was unconstitutional itself, but because it became unconstitutional when a Christian group rallied around it.

The pastor's group said that means any monument, building, or even feature of nature is an illegal "establishment of religion" if a church ceremony is held there.

"Connecting the dots between the eminent domain case, which says all of your churches are up for grabs if a town wants a mall, secondly you now have been told you do not have constitutional rights in the public square," Dave Welch, executive director of the Houston Area Pastors Conference, told WorldNetDaily.

"Any kind of an event is okay, as long as you didn't express any religious faith. What is that telling you?

"We're not persecuted yet, we know that. But we're on our way there. Add that to the surprising acceptance of militant Islam, the fear of speaking against that from a Christian standpoint and then we're dangerously approaching the point where we have literally given away and yielded our freedoms that were earned," Welch said.

"We have history, law and the founding fathers who adopted the Constitution collectively affirming the truth expressed by revered Justice Joseph Story in 1840 that, 'We are not to attribute this prohibition of a national religious establishment to an indifference to religion in general, and especially to Christianity,'" said a statement issued by the pastor's group.

Welch told WND that the court's conclusion was "ludicrous" and if followed logically, could mean that a religious rally at any public building would therefore make the building unconstitutional so it would have to be removed.

The Bible was installed on county property about five decades ago in honor of William Mosher, the founder of Star of Hope Mission, and was replaced in 1996 with donated funds. However, an atheist challenged the monument, and on an appeal from the District Court decision that the Bible was unconstitutional, the appeals court carried the argument further.

Its ruling said that the monument became an unconstitutional "establishment" after a 2003 rally was held by Christians to defend the display. That rally involved prayers and clergy, the court noted.

"The ramifications of this tortured decision are breath-taking and without any historic or legitimate Constitutional rationale," said the pastors' organization. "For the court to state that if a private citizen exercises his or her First Amendment rights of religious expression and assembly on public property, that any monument, building or fixed item of any kind that contains religious references becomes 'establishment of religion' is simply irrational."

The conclusion, if applied nationwide, would result in the sandblasting of hundreds of monuments and buildings "including the capstone on the Washington Monument, which reads, 'Laus Deo,' or 'Praise be to God,'" the pastors group continued.

"For this panel majority of two justices to claim that words and actions by private citizens or elected officials with religious content, expressed about a building or monument, convert it from 'secular' and constitutional to 'sacred' and unconstitutional amounts to an act of blatant judicial activism against the freedoms and Constitution," the HAPC said.

The group Battle For The Bible also is working on the case, and Welch said there are experts on constitutional law who have been and plan to continue assisting the county in its fight over the representation of the Bible.

"They are of the opinion this needs to be appealed directly to the Supreme Court, and we're working on that right now," Welch told WND.

He called the logic "twisted" that could conclude the monument once was constitutional, but since "some action by a private citizen" it now becomes unconstitutional.

Because the atheist's lawsuit was against the county over the monument on county land, the pastors and their advisors have been assisting County Attorney Michael Stafford in the fight.

Muslims team up with Marxists for D.C. protest
Massive 'emergency' rally on 'predicament' of Islamic people abroad and at home'

A radical anti-war coalition is joining forces with a U.S. Islamic lobby organization to stage a demonstration in front of the White House to protest "the current predicament of Muslims abroad and at home."

A.N.S.W.E.R., a coalition led by socialist and communist activists, and Muslim American Society's Freedom Foundation are co-sponsoring the "National Emergency March" Aug. 12 at Lafayette Park at 12 noon.

A third co-sponsor is the National Council of Arab Americans.

A number of leaders for A.N.S.W.E.R. – Act Now to Stop War and End Racism – were members of the Workers World Party and now belong to the Party for Socialism and Liberation , a Marxist-Leninist organization founded in 2004

Along with the "plight of the Palestinian people and the recent atrocities in Gaza and Lebanon," the Muslim group says it will focus on the war in Iraq and "the continuous violation of civil rights and civil liberties within the American Muslim community."

The Muslim American Society, or MAS, says it's sponsoring buses to transport people from outside the Washington area.

In Detroit, which has one of the country's largest Muslim communities, 25 buses already have been arranged for the event.

The Freedom Foundation is the public affairs arm of the Muslim American Society, which calls itself the largest grassroots Muslim organization in the country, with more than 50 chapters nationwide.

As WorldNetDaily reported, the Muslim American Society held a rally last month during which a Jewish activist was physically assaulted and threatened.

The event at Boston's City Hall Plaza was the group's "Justice for Palestine and Lebanon Protest." Signs brought by participants included some including some calling for "victory" for the terrorist group Hezbollah and the "Palestinian Resistance."

In a WND interview, the group's executive director, Mahdi Bray, blamed the United States and President Bush for the war between Hezbollah and Israel.

Bray said that while there are "no clean hands" in the escalating violence, the United States has failed completely.

"We have the … capability of doing something," he said. "Our position is not defensible that we have not used our leverage to obtain a cease-fire."

House-church leader gets 7-1/2 years in prison
Family members concerned over prominent Chinese pastor's health

A prominent Chinese house movement leader, Pastor Zhang Rongliang, has been sentenced to seven-and-a- half years in prison.

According to China Aid Association, the July 4 verdict was issued by Zhongmu County People's Court, though CAA reported that neither Zhang's wife nor other members of his immediate family received a formal notification. Zhang was arrested Dec. 1, 2004.

The China Aid Association was told by one of its sources that Zhang, 55, was arrested at Xuzhai village, Zhengzhou city, Henan province in a rented apartment. The apartment was searched and all of Zhang's Christian DVDs, materials and photos revealing relationships with foreigners and foreign agencies were confiscated.

Zhang's wife and their two sons have been deeply concerned for his welfare and safety, especially as he has suffered from serious diabetes for seven years. His disease was so serious that he was admitted to the Xinmi City People's Hospital while at his detention center from Dec. 19, 2005, until Jan. 23, 2006, for emergency treatment. He was seen handcuffed and chained to his hospital bed while there.

The popular Christian pastor was charged with "attaining a passport through cheating" and with "illegal border crossing" for his international traveling including to the U.S., Australia, Egypt and Singapore for world mission conferences.

Zhang is the leader of the Fangcheng Mother Church, Henan, and the leader of the China for Christ Church, which is one of the largest house-church networks estimated to have more than 10 million members. He has been well known by the international community, CAA stated, as one of the house-church patriarchs.

He is a co-author of the book "House Churches of China's Confession of Faith and Declaration" in 1999. He has been featured in a number of international articles and books, including "Jesus in Beijing" (2003) by former Time magazine writer David Aikman, Newsweek (May 12, 2004), Charisma and Christianity Today. Last year, the European Parliament passed a resolution demanding Zhang's release.

Zhang has been wanted for many years since his last imprisonment in August 1999. He has already spent 12 years in prison for his faith since his secret baptism in 1969 during five separate detentions. CAA reported that he has experienced extreme torture, including electric shocks, during his prison terms.

Bob Fu, who is the president of China Aid and personally knows Zhang and his family, said in a news release: "We are deeply disappointed for this extraordinary harsh verdict given the fact that the Chinese authorities often deny passports and other travel documents to well-known religious leaders like Pastor Zhang."

He added, "This is yet another case showing the Chinese government's new tactic of religious persecution in the name of criminal charges."

Editor's note: Those wanting to assist Pastor Zhang can contact: Embassy of the People's Republic of China, 2300 Connecticut Ave NW., Washington, D.C. 20008. Tel: (202) 328-2500, Fax: (202) 588-0032, or the director of religious affairs: (202) 328-2512.

Does anyone own property any more?

It's getting to the point in America when it just doesn't pay to own property any more.

The latest eminent-domain nightmare in New Jersey illustrates that no matter how long an American lives and works and pays taxes on his real estate, it can be taken away by the government for many reasons or no good reason at all.

Larry and Clara Halper first learned of the town's interest in their 75-acre farm about seven years ago, when officials held a press conference across the street from their property, announcing to the whole world that they were buying it to maintain open space in the increasingly developed area.

Imagine what that does to property values!

No one had consulted with the Halpers on a price or even asked if they were interested in selling – which they were not.

That began a series of court battles – all of which were lost by the property owners. Finally, the New Jersey Supreme Court refused to overturn lower court rulings demanding the Halpers hand over their property. Now they are just awaiting the arrival of the sheriff with eviction orders.

"The whole system has disappointed us," said Clara Halper. "These people have really overturned our government. I'm sorry, this is not the American government the way I was brought up. People call it the politics of corruption. Call it whatever you want to – it's stealing."

The whole ordeal is like a sick joke. The Halpers, preferring the simple life they have known all their lives, living and working on the small farm, have no interest in moving. They have no interest in starting over. They like the life they have built for themselves on a property first purchased by Larry Halper's grandfather in 1922.

If the town of Piscataway truly wants to ensure that it has some open space, what better way than to leave the Halpers alone. The Halpers have no plans to do anything with their farmland but raise pumpkins for sale each fall and fresh vegetables for local residents who prefer homegrown produce.

But owning land doesn't mean what it once meant in America.

So, to permit the massive development of other parcels of open land in the town, officials are seizing the Halpers' land. But there are no guarantees they will keep the land open. The agreement the town forced upon the Halpers clearly states that officials can do whatever they choose to do with the land in the future.

Imagine seizing the home and business of law-abiding Americans even when there are no clear plans for the property. That's what is happening in Piscataway.

And where can this American couple turn now? Can they fight this all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, knowing the court has already ruled that governments have an absolute right to seize property from homeowners even if it is solely to squeeze more tax revenue out of the real estate?

Is this what our founders fought off a colonial power to leave us?

Is this what our sons, brothers, fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers sacrificed and died in foreign wars to bring us?

Is this what the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence mean in 2006?

Where are we to turn for relief?

Are we truly the freest people in the world any more when we are all subject to this kind of tyranny?

And make no mistake about it. If this can happen to the Halpers, it can happen to any of us. Americans are no longer a self-governing sovereign people who shape their own destiny. We are all subjects. We are all serfs. We are not safe and secure in our homes and businesses. We are all simply awaiting that knock on the door.

Let the executions begin

On June 29, the United States Supreme Court, in its usual weird wisdom, cleared the way for the execution of 14 detainees that were to be brought before a tribunal for their links to terrorists and terrorist acts. In the 5-3 decision and a stroke of the pen, the justices found, in essence, that the detainees have the rights afforded normal signatories to the Geneva Conventions, and that is just fine with me. May the executions begin today? Before you think I have lost my mind, let me explain.

The court ruled that the plan to use tribunals, in the case of Salim Hamdan, is a violation of the U.S. Military Code of Justice and the Geneva Conventions in dealing with detainees. Hamdan, currently detained at Gitmo, is accused of delivering weapons to al-Qaida and being a guard for Osama bin Laden. Now that the court sees Hamdan and apparently the other detainees as "prisoners of war" under the Geneva Conventions, they should be afforded all the conditions of the Geneva Conventions – not just the current provisions such as clean rooms, special dietary meals and free religious practices.

If you've never read the Geneva Conventions, I suggest you do so. It is a fascinating document. Henri Dunant, the founder of the Red Cross, inspired the Conventions in 1864. It went through additions in 1929 and 1949. In 1949, the Geneva Conventions extended protections to those shipwrecked at sea and civilians. It is the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 that are most referred to when dealing with modern day conflicts.

There is an article in Geneva Conventions IV that should be applied immediately given the Supreme Court ruling. I see it only fair now that the detainees have all the provisions of the Conventions afforded them that we not fall into the trap of picking and choosing which ones apply. All or none.

Here is the article direct from the Conventions that needs immediate attention:

Article 68. Protected persons who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offenses, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offenses were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.

The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance. In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced on a protected person who was under 18 years of age at the time of the offense.

So, what is the issue? It is clear as a bell from what I read. The penalty for any "protected person" (i.e., Salim Hamdan), according to the Supreme Court, that is guilty of espionage or sabotage against military installations of the occupying forces (that is U.S. and Coalition forces for my Berkeley readers) is death. Not a clean room, fresh clothing and lamb and rice three times a week. They should receive a date with the hangman's noose.

This holds true for the 14 other detainees the Bush administration wished to place before a tribunal. I'm not a lawyer but I do have a bit of common sense. The way I read the ruling and the Geneva Conventions, the justices of the Supreme Court just signed these guys' death warrants. Hallelujah! There may have been great wisdom on behalf of the administration to agree to this insane ruling. It clears the way for this human garbage to get a one-way ticket to Allah tonight. That is if the administration has the stomach to put up with the whining that will come from the left. Man, do they hate this president.

I would encourage our president to abide by the ruling and announce he will sign the order to proceed with the executions. This will allow the legal scholars at the New York Times and CNBC to debate, attack and attempt to find all the loopholes so that one of their heroes (Hamdan) won't face the executioner. No, that would appear too much like justice.

I can hear the spirit of Tookie screaming from the flames as I write. Hamdan and Tookie. Now that makes a great pair of modern-day deities for the libs to worship. Why, to make a person like Tookie or Hamdan pay for the crimes they committed would not be fair. After all, we Americans brought it on ourselves. It is our fault that Islamic terrorists are killing thousands of innocent people daily and attacking the "occupiers" with car bombs and 747s into tall buildings. All they are doing is fighting the imperialists. I'm so sick of hearing that line of reasoning I could scream. John Kerry and Cindy Sheehan believe we are the terrorists, not al-Qaida. They claim George Bush is a far greater threat then Osama. Heck, Cindy believes Bush is a "bigger" terrorist than OBL. He killed her son after all. The son she didn't even raise.

Fact is we are at war. We have an enemy and the time has long passed for us to coddle and offer "rights" to bloodthirsty animals that kill and maim innocent people as a way of life and religious calling. We need to listen to the Geneva Conventions and apply them immediately. The writers knew that those who would use sabotage and espionage would stop at nothing to achieve their goals and must be eliminated in any "humane" war. So let the executions begin, and I promise not to rejoice the way the Arab world did the day 3,000 innocent Americans were slaughtered at the hands of these animals. Time to appease and negotiate? No. Time to execute? YES! It is the law.

Al-Qaida: Destroy Denmark, France
Escaped member issues video urging
vengeance for Muhammad cartoons

Responding to the publishing of cartoons depicting Islam's prophet Muhammad, a video posted on the Internet by an al-Qaida member calls on Muslims to attack Denmark, France and Norway.

"Muslims avenge your prophet," said Libyan Muhammad Hassan, who escaped from U.S. custody in Afghanistan last July.

"We deeply desire that the small state of Denmark, Norway and France ... are struck hard and destroyed," he declared, according to Agence France-Presse.

Earlier this year, 12 cartoons depicting Muhammad published in Denmark's Jyllands-Posten newspaper became an international controversy, prompting the torching of embassies, slaughter of Christians and fatwas issued against those responsible.

In the 35-minute video, Hassan, dressed in military fatigues, is holding an assault rifle.

"Destroy their buildings, make their ground shake and transform them into a sea of blood," said Hassan, also known as Sheikh Abu Yahia al-Libi.

Hassan was one of four Arab terror suspects who broke out of the U.S.'s high-security detention facility at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan.

Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, in his most recent audio communiqué, aired on Al-Jazeera late last month, called for a global Muslim boycott of American goods similar to the recent boycott of Danish products. He also said the artists who drew the offending cartoons should be handed over to him for trial and punishment.

As Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin reported, a dozen young terrorists have departed Afghanistan, bound first for Iran and then Europe, where their mission will be to hunt down the Danish cartoonists.

The report was passed on by Hamid Mir, the Pakistani journalist who has interviewed bin Laden and assistant Ayman al-Zawahiri and who just visited the no-man's land along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

While there, he was told by Taliban sources in south Waziristan that 12 young men – nine Afghans and three Pakistanis – are on their way to Europe to kill the Danish cartoonists. While some carry Afghan passports and others carry Iranian passports, all will travel through Iran on their way to Europe, he reports.

Days before that television broadcast, Mir predicted an imminent communiqué from bin Laden to be released on the Arab television network.

Exposing the Muslim lobby

Paul Sperry's shoe-leather investigative journalism is showcased to its fullest in "Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington," in which he sets out to prove that, for the past 30 years, the burgeoning Muslim community's representatives in the United States

have been working clandestinely to undermine America's constitutional government and the Judeo-Christian ethics on which it was built ... Their goal, quite simply, is to replace the U.S. Constitution with the Quran, the Muslim sacred book, and turn America into an Islamic state.

Given the gravity of the claim, the prospective reader may rightly ask: Is this book just another conspiracy theory, akin to those who bang on about "Illuminati Jews From the Center of the Earth" and their manipulation of world affairs? Or has Sperry met his evidentiary obligations?

You bet he has. In fact, the mass of evidence Sperry provides is staggering. His findings are based on interviews with some two dozen law enforcement and intelligence officials from the FBI, the Departments of Homeland Security and Defense, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, as well as local law enforcement – including the Fairfax County Police Department in Virginia, the heart of the Wahhabi corridor in America. Some of these sources are cited in the book, while others have requested anonymity for fear of reprisals from headquarters for speaking out on classified cases.

In addition to these sources, Sperry cites more than 50 sensitive internal government documents, some classified, and many posted on the book's companion website (sperryfiles.com). If the strength of ideas rests on their relationship to reality, then Sperry has struck a chord with the men in the trenches. Both the NYPD and the DOD have ordered copies of "Infiltration" for training field investigators charged with protecting U.S. military installations across the country. And after reading "Infiltration," one senior member of the federal National Counterterrorism Center in McLean, Va., who had investigated many of the key Saudi-connected cases along the Wahhabi corridor in the Washington suburbs, said: "Sperry has catalogued the last three years of our lives."

Sperry's most controversial claim is that the radical Islamist assault on the West is based not on some perverse interpretation of Islam, but is rooted in Islam itself. I happen to agree with him, while realizing that this point is subject to considerable debate. However, Sperry's unmasking of radical Islamist subversion in America does not hinge on whether the militants constitute Islam's fringe or its mainstream: Either way, the threat they pose is ominous enough.

The book begins by exposing the countless U.S. Muslim leaders who masquerade as moderates, forswear terrorism, but then do what the Quran commands: "instill terror in the hearts of unbelievers" (Surah 8:12). Embraced by American presidents, the likes of Sami Al-Arian, Abdurahman M. Alamoudi, and Muzammil H. Siddiqi – to name but a few – represent the creme de la creme of "moderate" Islam in America. Sperry traces the career trajectories of these (and other) faux moderates as they've gone from "the White House to the Big House": The first was tried for heading the U.S branch of Islamic Jihad; the second "pleaded guilty of plotting terrorist acts with Libya"; the third, president of the Fiqh Council of North America and the flower of the flock, has confined himself mercifully to merely cussing the United States.

Consider the "moderate" Council on American-Islamic Relations – the media-savvy mouthpiece for militant Islam in America. One CAIR leader, Omar M. Ahmad, is quoted as saying that "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran ... should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth." Says Ibrahim Hooper, another low-key chap from CAIR: "I want to see the U.S. become an Islamic nation." This "mainstream" Islamic group has seen three of its top leaders – Ghassan Elashi, Bassem K. Khafagi, and Randall Todd "Ismail" Royer – convicted on terrorism-related charges.

Even more dispiriting, we learn that there is nothing extraordinary about the characters whose unpleasant acquaintance we make. When addressing gullible Americans and their votes-vying leaders, too many of America's imams are "the picture of piety," observes Sperry. They talk a good game about Islam's devotion to peace and co-existence and they've offered (sham) sympathies for 9-11. However, while whispering sweet nothings in naïve American ears, in private and from their pulpits, revered religious pillars of the Muslim community have been caught advocating violence, advising their followers to work to impose the strict Islamic code of sharia in the U.S., and swearing allegiances to al-Qaida's capo di tutti capi.

Take imams Siraj Wahhaj and Muzammil H. Siddiqi as examples. In 1992, a year after Wahhaj gave the invocation to Congress, no less, he "suggested to a Muslim audience in New Jersey that Muslims had the numbers to take control of the United States in a political coup." For his part, Siddiqi was given the "solemn honor of representing the Muslim faith during the prayer service for [9-11] victims at the national Cathedral in Washington." This, apparently, did nothing to detract from his desire to consolidate a caliphate. In a 2003 fatwa, he reminded the faithful that "Allah's rules have to be established in all lands, and all our efforts lead to that direction." According to Sperry, such duplicity is in keeping with Taqiyya – the seldom-discussed Islamic practice of lying to non-Muslims in order to win political battles and protect Islam.

Thanks to multiculturalist efforts to appease the Islamist lobby, it has infiltrated deep into American society. A Muslim chaplain corps has been created in the U.S. military and a Saudi-based front for al-Qaida employed to minister to the approximately 20,000 Muslim soldiers. The same religious recruiters are active in penitentiaries, where there are 200,000 Muslim inmates. In fact, U.S. prisons are now the top recruiting ground for al-Qaida in the United States.

Then there are radical Islam's apologists in academia. Leading the pack is Professor John Esposito, director of the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, who "argues American heritage can be more accurately defined as 'Judeo-Christian-Islamic.'" Esposito's well-funded, academically credentialed "interfaith phoniness," as Sperry puts it, has gone a long way toward mainstreaming Islam. By sheer fluke, of course, Esposito also "lionizes Palestinian terrorists as leaders of a political movement and the late PLO chief Yasir [sic] Arafat as a statesman. And he urges Washington to distance itself from Israel." Sperry traced Esposito's backers through IRS tax records, and – wouldn't you have guessed it? – Esposito is in the pay of a wealthy Palestinian who hates Israel.

Readers who don't have a dog in the interfaith rivalry will suppress a yawn as our deeply religious author attempts to show that Muslims do not worship the same God as Christians and Jews do – they do not believe Jesus is the son of God. I realize Sperry doesn't write to please the unfaithful. Still, he might have placed a greater emphasis on philosophical rather than theological one-upmanship and juxtaposed the significant ethical and philosophical differences between the Judeo-Christian and the Islamic traditions. For example: universal concepts of justice vs. ruthless particularism; the sanctity and rights of all human beings vs. dominance for some and dhimmitude for others, etc.

Courtesy of an administration that has anesthetized Americans to the essential Islam (and thus continued its predecessor's multicultural mission), Muslims with ominous beliefs and agendas have managed to infiltrate every security agency, from the FBI to the Pentagon. Sperry warns that the FBI, freighted by anti-discrimination laws and pathological political correctness, now harbors Muslim translators with ties to "various foreign military and intelligence agencies in Syria, Egypt, Pakistan, and Turkey." (Could this help explain why urgent intercepts are often left untranslated or are mistranslated?) Easily the most scandalous anecdote in the book is that of FBI agent Sibel Edmonds walking into the Washington field office after 9-11, to find the Middle Eastern linguists making merry – passing around date-stuffed cookies to celebrate the occasion on which America got its just deserts. Were they fired? Stripped of their top-secret security clearances? Au contraire! More of their ilk were hired. Meanwhile, Arabic-speaking Sephardic Jews have been rejected for the job. There were "loyalty concerns," or so the bureau said.

Subversive Muslims and Arabs have also received top-secret clearances at the Homeland Security Department and even the White House, where, according to Sperry, they've "successfully run influence operations against our political system with the help of both Democrats and Republicans, not least in order to badger corporate boards into Islamizing the work place."

So to the big question: What role does Islam itself play in this subversive effort? Sperry has read the CAIR-approved translation of the Quran, as well as the hadiths ("sacred supplements to the Quran"), and concludes – as have scholars such as Robert Spencer (author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam" (and the Crusades)) and Serge Trifkovic (of "The Sword of the Prophet" fame) – that "sadly, much of Western terrorism is simply Islam in practice, the text of the Quran in action." Judging by the Quran, Islam is "an inherently violent and intolerant faith," around which a politically correct mythology has been molded.

Osama has heeded, not hijacked, Islam.

In the event that doubts linger, "Infiltration's," "Top 10 Myths Of Islam" blows an even bigger hole in the heart of the Religion-of-Peace fable. Terrorism is an excrescence of Islam, Sperry argues, because while the murder of "innocents" might be prohibited, "orthodox Muslims do not consider Jews and Christians [much less Israeli civilians] necessarily innocent." In other words, "What the public recognizes as murder, these Muslims recognize as justice." The Quran, after all, doesn't teach tolerance toward other faiths, but inveighs against the Jewish "apes and swine" and the Christian blasphemers. Sperry backs his debunking by quoting copiously from the Quran. Here a word about Quranic literalism might have been instructive. Unlike the Jewish and Christian holy texts, which have been reinterpreted by the sages over the centuries, Islam has changed little in 1,400 years – its decrees are not debatable and are taken very literally.

Well, then, what of moderate Muslim leaders and interpreters? Hasn't Sperry given short shrift to the many who promote a more benign version of Islam? The Muslim community, he observes, is divided into Shiites, Sunnis, and more moderate Sufis. The reformers and the moderates come from the ranks of the Shiite and Sufi, but are

not considered part of the established Muslim leadership in America, and have only minor voices in the national debate. Why? Mainly because the vast majority of mosques in America practice Sunnism, Islam's main sect, and as many as eight out of 10 are under Saudi Wahhabi control.

The extent to which the community's Wahhabi-dominated organizations coordinate their schemes is revealed in a chapter titled "The Muslim Mafia." Practically all Muslim groups in America are united under the umbrella of the American Muslim Political Coordinated Council, whose goal, in Sperry's words, is "rolling back U.S. support for Israel and weakening U.S. anti-terrorism laws." A CIA internal report that Sperry references reveals that "at least one-third of the fifty Islamic nongovernmental organizations in existence 'support terrorist groups or employ individuals who are suspected of having terrorist connections.'"

Further FBI investigations have unveiled organizations with "interlocking boards of directors," and an elaborate maze of shell companies and fronts – religious charities and think tanks included – set up to launder terrorist-bound funds. The Holy Land Foundation, a facade for Hamas (recently catapulted into government power by the Palestinians) has since become a synonym for terrorism. Many of these groups' leaders are under indictment, having pled guilty to ties to terrorists. Again, Sperry emphasizes that these leaders and their syndicates are not fringe elements, skulking on the outskirts of the American Islamic community, but are among "the best the Muslim community has to offer."

So what is to be done? The book's Afterword offers pragmatic recommendations that Sperry – a bare-knuckled but beguiling writer – prefaces with a call for us to better understand the nature of the threat:

America is a beautiful, fun, and vibrant place. Its people are friendly and hospitable. Why didn't any of the hijackers have second thoughts? Why didn't they say, 'You know, this place isn't so bad after all. Osama can go pound sand up his nightgown; we're gonna chill here for a while'?

The short answer is a toxic yet intoxicating trinity: Allah, the Quran, and the Pearly Gates that beckon. Yet Washington refuses to grapple with the enemy's inspirations and motives. Our ostensible protectors have not even read, let along understood, the founding document that fuels jihad. Coming to terms with the true Islam and with what drives its foot soldiers is imperative, insists Sperry.

Other more concrete recommendations include investing in mastering Arabic and cracking down on terrorism-supporting charities. The least promising of Sperry's recommendations is the enforcement of the oath of allegiance. Given what our author has told us about deception vis-a-vis Taqiyya, it's naive to hope that prohibiting dual citizenship and enforcing an oath will dissolve the pledge of allegiance to Islam and the greater Ummah.

Then there's the issue of "profiling." Next time you shake in your socks on an American airplane as Middle Eastern men on a suspected dry run strut up and down the isles unhindered, duck into toilets with cell phones and cameras, flout flight rules, and intimidate terrified travelers with menacing gestures, thank the Muslim lobby groups for the experience. (This incident actually occurred last year on a Northwest Airlines flight.) However, you owe deeper gratitude to our elected representatives for legally prohibiting commonsense profiling and other "minimally observant" screening safeguards.

After all, Muslim identity groups are not paid to protect Americans – the government is. Yet it appears stone deaf to our fate, while all ears to the bellyaching of resentful Muslim advocacy groups. Sperry, our epistolary Jack Bauer, exposes many former and present government officials, such as the FBI's Robert Mueller, the CIA's George Tenet, and Transportation's Norman Mineta – all of whom opted for multicultural outreach and sensitivity training to the detriment of counterterrorism and counterintelligence. Considering the severity of their transgressions – and the stakes – the words "gullible" and "politically correct" do not begin to describe their dereliction.

In the final analysis, Sperry's book constitutes a withering indictment of an administration that has not only failed in its constitutional duty to uproot America's enemies on the home front, but has done its best to accommodate and appease them.

World Net Daily
May, 2006




'We're on the eve of World War III'
Ex-Mossad chief urges West to unite, warns of Muslims imposing ideology

JERUSALEM � Global civilization is on the verge of "World War III," a massive conflict in which the Islamic world will attempt to impose its ideology on Western nations, according to Meir Amit, a former director of Israel's Mossad intelligence agency.

Amit, one of the most esteemed figures in the international defense establishment, warned Islamic nations and global Islamist groups will continue launching "all kinds of attacks" against Western states. He urged the international community to immediately unite and coordinate a strategy to fight against the "Islamic war."

"We are on the eve of war with the Islamic world, which will wage a war and all kinds of actions and attacks against the Western world. We already noticed the terrorists in the world hit Spain, England, France. I call it World War III. You must look at it from this angle and treat it wider, not as a problem of terrorism here and there," said Amit, speaking during an exclusive interview with WND's Aaron Klein and ABC Radio's John Batchelor broadcast on Batchelor's national program, for which Klein serves as a co-host. (Listen to the Amit interview.)

Amit served as Mossad chief from 1963 to 1968. He directed some of the most notorious Mossad operations during that time and pioneered many of the tactics currently used by intelligence agencies worldwide. The subject of multiple books and movies, Amit is routinely described as a "living legend." Now in his mid-80s, Amit serves as chairman of Israel's Center for Special Studies.

The former intelligence chief referenced recent terror attacks against Israel, Europe and the United States; Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions; the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan; and worldwide Muslim riots.

"It looks to me like it is a kind of coordinated or contemplated problem to somehow impose the Islamic idea all over the world," Amit said.

Israel is routinely attacked by Palestinian terror groups. Since December 2000, 993 Israelis have been killed. Spain in March 2004 was struck by a series of coordinated bombings on its commuter train system, killing 192 people. London was rocked last July by bombings on its transportation system. France has been the scene of violent Muslim riots and attacks. And on Sept. 11, 2001, 2,986 people were killed when the U.S. was hit with coordinated terror attacks.

Violent Muslim riots erupted last month in the West Bank, Syria and Lebanon after cartoon images of Muhammad were printed in a Danish newspaper. The riots spread across the Middle East and throughout Europe.

At least 40 people were killed yesterday in a blast north of Mosul in Iraq. Iran and Syria have been accused of aiding the insurgency there and in Afghanistan against U.S. and European troops.

Amit urged Western nations to "unite and work together. Unfortunately, the world is not uniting. China and Russia are problems. This should be taken into consideration."

Both China and Russia have been aiding Iran's nuclear program, which Tehran claims is intended for peaceful purposes only. Russia last month received a delegation of Hamas leaders, and pledged to maintain diplomatic relations with the terror group in spite of efforts by the U.S. and Israel to isolate the newly elected Hamas-led Palestinian government.

Amit said Iran currently poses the most serious threat to the international community.

"The Iranians [are] financing terrorists in Israel and sending money," Amit said. "This is [my country's] immediate problem. But I think the most serious problem is Iran developing nuclear power."

Amit said Israel should not lead a military attack against Iran's suspected nuclear facilities, instead urging support for the course of diplomacy and sanctions.

"The problem of [Iranian] nuclear armaments is not an Israeli problem; it is a worldwide problem. Your question refers to what Israel can do. It shouldn't do anything by itself. It should maybe throw the idea that this is a world problem and all the Western world should unite, join hands and work together," said Amit.

"I am not sure whether a military operation would be the best solution. At least not the first solution. But you can put sanctions on Iran."

With regard to his warnings of a new world war, Amit clarified he was not advocating the international community take measures against all Arab countries:

"I know very well the Arab world. I have many friends in Arab world leaders. Not all of them think the same. They are also split in different groups. ... Although I think they will wage an Islamic war against the Western world, we must take into account they are not one piece. Somehow we must learn the differences between different sections and parts of the Arab world."

World Net Daily
March, 2006


Man faces death penalty
for becoming Christian

Despite ouster of Taliban by U.S., court still prosecutes ex-Muslim

Despite the fact the hardline Taliban regime is no longer in power, an Afghan man faces possible execution for allegedly abandoning his Islamic roots and becoming a Christian.

"Yes that's true, a man has converted to Christianity. He's being tried in one of our courts," Supreme Court judge Ansarullah Mawlavizada told the Middle East Times.

The case centers on Abdul Rahman, believed to be 41, who converted from Islam to Christianity some 16 years ago. His relatives reportedly notified authorities about the conversion.

The constitution in Afghanistan is based on Shariah law, which states any Muslim who rejects his or her religion should be sentenced to death.

"We are not against any particular religion in the world. But in Afghanistan, this sort of thing is against the law," the judge told the Associated Press. "It is an attack on Islam. ... The prosecutor is asking for the death penalty."

If he indeed is sentenced, Rahman would be the first person punished for leaving Islam since the Taliban was ousted by American-led forces in late 2001, in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the U.S.

Prosecutor Abdul Wasi says he offered to drop the charges if Rahman made the switch back to Islam, but the defendant is maintaining his Christian beliefs. The judge is expected to rule within two months.

About 99 percent of Afghanistan's 28 million people are Muslims, with the rest mostly Hindus.

World Net Daily
March, 2006



Other related articles from other sources:

Intimidating the West, from Rushdie to Benedict

  The violence by Muslims responding to comments by the pope fit a pattern that has been building and accelerating since 1989. Six times since then, Westerners did or said something that triggered death threats and violence in the Muslim world. Looking at them in the aggregate offers useful insights.
  • 1989 – Salman Rushdie's novel, The Satanic Verses prompted Ayatollah Khomeini to issue a death edict against him and his publishers, on the grounds that the book "is against Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran." Subsequent rioting led to over 20 deaths, mostly in India.

  • 1997 – The U.S. Supreme Court refused to remove a 1930s frieze showing Muhammad as lawgiver that decorates the main court chamber; the Council on American-Islamic Relations made an issue of this, leading to riots and injuries in India.

  • 2002 – The American evangelical leader Jerry Falwell calls Muhammad a "terrorist," leading to church burnings and at least 10 deaths in India.

  • 2005 – An incorrect story in Newsweek, reporting that American interrogators at Guantánamo Bay, "in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a Qur'an down a toilet," is picked up by the famous Pakistani cricketer, Imran Khan, and prompts protests around the Muslim world, leading to at least 15 deaths..

  • February 2006 – The Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten publishes twelve cartoons of Muhammad, spurring a Palestinian Arab imam in Copenhagen, Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban, to excite Muslim opinion against the Danish government. He succeeds so well, hundreds die, mostly in Nigeria.

  • September 2006 – Pope Benedict XVI quotes a Byzantine emperor's views that what is new in Islam is "evil and inhuman," prompting the firebombing of churches and the murder of several Christians.

These six rounds show a near-doubling in frequency: 8 years between the first and second rounds, then 5, then 3, 1, and ½.

The first instance – Ayatollah Khomeini's edict against Mr. Rushdie – came as a complete shock, for no one had hitherto imagined that a Muslim dictator could tell a British citizen living in London what he could not write about. Seventeen years later, calls for the execution of the pope (including one at the Westminster Cathedral in London) had acquired a too-familiar quality. The outrageous had become routine, almost predictable. As Muslim sensibilities grew more excited, Western ones became more phlegmatic.

The Muhammad frieze in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Incidents started in Europe (Mr. Rushdie, Danish cartoons, Pope Benedict) have grown much larger than those based in the United States (Supreme Court, Rev. Falwell, Koran flushing), reflecting the greater efficacy of Islamist aggression against Europeans than against Americans.

Islamists ignore subtleties. Mr. Rushdie's magical realism, the positive intent of the Supreme Court frieze, the falsehood of the Koran-flushing story (ever tried putting a book down the toilet?), the benign nature of the Danish cartoons, or the subtleties of Benedict's speech – none of these mattered.

What rouses Muslim crowds and what does not is somewhat unpredictable. The Satanic Verses was not nearly as offensive to Muslim sensibilities as a host of other writings, medieval, modern, and contemporary. Other American Evangelists said worse things about Muhammad than Rev. Falwell did; the southern preacher Jerry Vines called the Muslim prophet "a demon-possessed pedophile who had 12 wives," without violence ensuing. Why did Norwegian preacher Runar Søgaard's deeming Muhammad "a confused pedophile" remain a local dispute while the Danish cartoons went global?

One answer is that Islamists with an international reach (Ayatollah Khomeini, CAIR, Mr. Khan, Abu Laban) usually play a key role in transforming a general sense of displeasure into an operational fury. If no Islamist agitates, the issue stays relatively quiet.

The extent of the violence is even more unpredictable – one could not anticipate the cartoons causing the most fatalities and the pope's quote the fewest. And why so much violence in India?

These incidents also spotlight a total lack of reciprocity by Muslims. The Saudi government bans Bibles, crosses, and Stars of David, while Muslims routinely publish disgusting cartoons of Jews.

No conspiracy lies behind these six rounds of inflammation and aggression, but examined in retrospect, they coalesce and form a single, prolonged campaign of intimidation, with surely more to come. The basic message – "You Westerners no longer have the privilege to say what you will about Islam, the Prophet, and the Qur'an, Islamic law rules you too" – will return again and again until Westerners either do submit or Muslims realize their effort has failed.

September, 2006



Monitor the mosques!


On June 2 and 3, Canadian law enforcement in Toronto arrested 17 Muslim men for planning terrorist attacks on Canadian targets. The leader of the group, Qayyum Abdul Jamal, 43, recruited young Muslim males by speaking at Al-Rahman Islamic Center for Islamic Education, a storefront mosque in Mississauga. Law enforcement officials across the globe are searching for suspects connected to the Toronto 17; American law enforcement has already discovered at least two terrorism suspects who spoke with members of the Canadian terrorist cell.

In May 2004, London authorities arrested hook-handed, one-eyed imam Abu Hamza al-Masri. The United States immediately filed charges against al-Masri and asked that Britain expedite him for trial. Among other terrorist acts, the indictment charged al-Masri with attempting to set up a terrorist cell in Oregon. Al-Masri was also linked to terrorists Zacarias Moussaoui, who was involved in the Sept. 11 plot, and Richard Reid (a.k.a. Tariq Raja and Abdul Rahim), the shoebomber. Al-Masri was the imam of the Finsbury Park Mosque in London, where he used his pulpit to recruit terrorists and preach hate.

In September 2002, American law enforcement arrested six members of a larger terrorist cell in Buffalo, N.Y. All six were young Muslim men, and all six had attended terrorist training in Afghanistan. The leader of the group, Kamal Derwish, had recruited all the arrested members by speaking at his local mosque in Lackawanna. All six men pled guilty to terrorism charges.

Mohamed Atta, one of the Sept. 11 hijackers, used a mosque in Hamburg, Germany, to network with potential recruits, including Ramzi Binalshibh, who would act as a coordinator for the attacks. Two of the potential Sept. 11 terrorists, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, hooked up with an imam at Rabat Mosque, Anwar Aulaqi; Aulaqi would later aid al-Hazmi and Mihdhar's replacement, Hani Hanjour, in relocating east as Sept. 11 approached.

Mosques across the globe have provided material aid to terrorist groups ranging from al-Qaida to Islamic Jihad to Hezbollah to Hamas. Muslim terrorists use mosques as networking sites and often as recruitment centers for future terrorist comrades. There is no doubt that law enforcement should be heavily scrutinizing the membership and administration of mosques. Doing so before Sept. 11 could have prevented that catastrophe, just as scrutiny of a small, seemingly insignificant storefront mosque may have prevented major terrorist attacks in Canada. Muslim terrorists are, above all, religious. They will attend mosques, even if only to pray. Forget racial profiling – monitoring mosques is simple common sense.

Leaders in the Muslim community don't seem to get it. "People are suspicious and there's anger," complains Aly Hindy, imam at the Toronto-based Salaheddin Islamic Center in Scarborough. "We are being targeted not because of what we've done, but because of who we are and what we believe in."

No doubt this is true to some extent. But that is the difference between prevention of crime and after-the-fact investigation of crime. For attempts to remain attempts, suspects must be stopped in the inchoate processes leading up to attacks. Prevention is undoubtedly the only option if civilized nations wish to preserve their citizenries from the sadistic barbarism of our enemies. Monitoring mosques is the simplest and most effective way of preventing terrorist attacks. Many imams are trustworthy; many mosques are clean. Nonetheless, law enforcement must pursue a strategy of "trust, but verify." Lives depend on it.

2006 Creators Syndicate Inc.

A Defeat for Islamism in America

Frontpage Interviewed Reed Rubinstein, the Washington, D.C., attorney who successfully represented Andrew Whitehead of Anti-CAIR in CAIR's libel suit against him.

FP: Reed Rubinstein, welcome to Frontpage Interview.


Rubinstein: Thanks, Jamie. It is a real pleasure to be here.


FP: First, tell us briefly what this libel suit was about.


Rubinstein: CAIR filed suit against Andrew Whitehead, claiming Mr. Whitehead’s statements on the Anti-CAIR website (www.anti-cair-net.org) were false and defamatory. The main statements were that CAIR is a terrorist supporting front organization, that CAIR was founded by Hamas supporters seeking to overthrow Constitutional government in the United States and replace it with an Islamist theocracy, and that CAIR receives funding from Islamic terrorist supporting countries. In other words, this case was about CAIR’s connections to and support for radical Islam.


FP: CAIR clearly had something to hide by not wanting to open up its records right?


Rubinstein: Well, I think that this is one conclusion that could be fairly drawn. It would be logical to assume CAIR did not want to expose its finances, its connections to foreign interests, and possibly the beliefs and intentions of its key leadership to legal process. My guess, based on the information we obtained during this case from a variety of sources, is that CAIR may have been most concerned about protecting its funding sources and its foreign backers. In truth, its leadership has been pretty open about ideology and goals.


FP: Tell us some people that have been found to be connected to CAIR.


Rubinstein: As stated in papers filed with the court, CAIR has been connected to the Islamic Association of Palestine (which has been held civilly liable for the Hamas murder of an American teenager), convicted Hamas financier Ghashan Elashi, Saudi interests, and radical groups, among others. The court papers state:


*CAIR is connected to Musa Abu Marzook ("Marzook"), a key Hamas operative. Marzook was named a terrorist and deported from the United States. On May 10, 1996, CAIR's Omar Awad organized a press conference to support Marzook at which Awad said, "[T]he arrest, detention and extradition is politically motivated...[and] this campaign has been orchestrated to serve as a wedge between America and Islamic countries." In June 1996, CAIR signed an open letter to then Secretary of State Warren Christopher that railed against “the injustice that has prevailed Dr. Marzook" and alleged that “our judicial system has been kidnapped by Israeli interests."


*CAIR is connected to Ghassan Elashi, a founder both of CAIR’s Austin, Texas, chapter and the notorious Holy Land Foundation (Hamas’ U.S.-based fundraising front), was convicted in July 2004 of having illegally shipped computers to Libya and Syria. He was convicted in April 2005 for conspiracy and money laundering with a known terrorist. Elashi has also been charged with providing more than $12.4 million to Hamas through HLF. Before 9/11, CAIR issued an e-mail “alert” stating the federal action against HLF and its principals was part of an “anti-Muslim witch hunt” promoted by “the pro-Israel lobby in America." After 9/11, CAIR used its website to knowingly funnel money, under false pretenses, to Elashi’s Holy Land Foundation.


*CAIR is connected to a variety of foreign funding sources, primarily Saudis. For example, a press release from the Saudi Arabian embassy in Washington states that in August 1999, the Islamic Development Bank (IDB) – functionally controlled by the Saudi government – gave CAIR $250,000 to help purchase its Washington, D.C., headquarters, which was acquired through an unusual lease-purchase transaction with the United Bank of Kuwait. In September 2002, CAIR bought out the Kuwaiti bank with funds from the Al-Maktoum Foundation, based in Dubai. The markings on the deed indicate that the foundation provided “purchase money to the extent of $978,031.34” to CAIR, or roughly one-third the value of the property. CAIR also received $500,000 from Saudi Prince Al Waleed Bin Talal to distribute Islamist literature throughout the United States. The centerpiece of the distribution was an English version of the Koran that had been banned by the Los Angeles School District because it was, as one Moslem scholar put it, “a polemic against the Jews.” A Senate Judiciary subcommittee report noted “Saudi Arabia’s long history of sympathy, coordination and support for terrorist groups” and found “CAIR receives hundreds of thousands of dollars from Saudi individuals and organizations.”


*CAIR is connected to the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY). In December 1999, WAMY announced at a press conference in Saudi Arabia that it “was extending both moral and financial support to CAIR.” WAMY also agreed to “introduce CAIR to Saudi philanthropists and recommend their financial support for the headquarters project.” In 2002, CAIR and WAMY announced, again from Saudi Arabia, their cooperation on a $1 million public relations campaign. At that time, and to this day, WAMY, and its leader Sheikh Saleh Al-Sheikh, the Saudi minister of Islamic affairs, have been linked to terror. Both Indian officials and the Philippine military have cited WAMY for funding terrorist groups and militant Islamists. Osama Bin-Laden’s brother was WAMY’s treasurer. The Saudi Gazette, which reported the story, said that Awad “had already met leading Saudi businessmen” in order to “brief them about the projects and raise funds.”


*CAIR is connected to the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), which gave CAIR $14,000 in 2003. IIIT is part of an interwoven group of terror-financing conduits that sent money to, among others, Islamic Jihad leader Sami Al-Arian.


*CAIR is connected to the IAP, a radical Islamic organization that preached the inevitability of conflict between “divinely inspired” Islamic civilization and the materialistic, God-less West. Its website stated there “is a civilizational conflict waged between, on the one land (sic) Islamic civilization with its divinely inspired laws and mission to create on this earth the society of justice and freedom which has been ordained by God; and on the other hand, Western civilization with its materialistic culture, worship of ethnicity and the state, and denial of God’s supremacy."


*CAIR Founder and Executive Director Awad was IAP’s public relations director. He complained to the Simon Wiesenthal Center because it placed a picture of the notorious Ayatollah Khomeini on a “wall of demagogues.” Awad wrote in the Muslim World Monitor that the World Trade Center trial, which ended in the conviction in 1994 of four Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, was “a travesty of justice” and that there was “ample evidence indicating that both the Mossad and the Egyptian intelligence played a role in the explosion.” He is an admitted supporter of “the Hamas movement.”


*CAIR Founder and Board Chairman Ahmad, also a former IAP official, was heard on FBI surveillance tapes of Hamas meetings in the United States during 1993 explaining that for political reasons the IAP could not admit its support for Hamas, and then discussing how the Hamas agenda could be cloaked and advanced in the United States. Ahmad’s practice while at IAP was to bring Hamas representatives to speak at IAP conferences.


*Mohammed Nimer, a CAIR official, was on the board of the United Association for Studies and Research, a Hamas front founded by Marzook.


*Doug AKA “Ibrahim” Hooper (“Hooper”), CAIR’s director of Communications, also worked for the IAP before joining CAIR. He has said, “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future…” On the Michael Medved radio show in 2003, he said that if Muslims ever become a majority in the United States, it would be safe to assume that they would want to replace the U.S. Constitution with Islamic law, as most Muslims believe that God’s law is superior to man-made law.”


*Ihsan Bagby, a CAIR board member, has written Moslems “can never be full citizens” of the United States “because there is no way we can be fully committed to the institutions and ideologies of this country” as the United States is not a Moslem country.


*Randall (“Ismail”) Royer, CAIR’s communications specialist and civil rights coordinator, is serving a 20-year prison term, having pled guilty after being charged with conspiring to help Al Qaida and the Taliban kill Americans in Afghanistan. When arrested, CAIR’s Royer had: “AK-47-style rifles, telescopic lenses, hundreds of rounds of ammunition and tracer rounds, documents on undertaking jihad and martyrdom, [and] a copy of the terrorist handbook containing instructions on how to manufacture and use explosives and chemicals as weapons.”


*Bassem Khafagi, CAIR’s community relations director, pled guilty in September 2003 to lying on his visa application and passing bad checks, and was deported. Khafagi was also a founding member and president of the Islamic Assembly of North America (IANA), a radical organization under federal investigation for terror-related activities.


*Rabih Haddad, a CAIR fundraiser, was arrested on terror-related charges and deported from the United States.


*Siraj Wahaj, a CAIR advisory board member, is a former member of the Nation of Islam (NOI) who supports polygamy and full implementation of Islamic law in the United States. In 1991, speaking to the Islamic Association of North Texas, Wahaj called Operation Desert Storm “one of the most diabolical plots ever in the annals of history,” and that the war was “part of a larger plan, to destroy the greatest challenge to the Western world, and that’s Islam.” In 1995, he was named an un-indicted co-conspirator in the plot to blow up the World Trade Center that was led by the “blind sheikh,” Omar Abdul Rahman. CAIR described Wahaj as “one of the most respected Muslim leaders in America.”


FP: Let's talk about the importance of this libel suit to free speech. CAIR has used the courts as a tactic to stifle criticism of the Islamist threat to America. This is a tactic that was first used by the Saudis in Great Britain and it appears to have been imported here. How do you think the Whitehead case has counteracted this?


Rubinstein: The Whitehead case has counteracted the tactic of using U.S. courts to stifle free speech by demonstrating that the blowback from a defamation lawsuit – properly defended – is generally far worse than the harm caused by the original statements themselves. Defamation plaintiffs that take on a defendant with a good legal team often lose in two ways: First, the act of filing suit results in the original statements becoming more widely circulated. Second, anything less than either a plaintiff’s verdict, a retraction or a correction, is quite rightly perceived as an affirmation that the challenged statements are in fact true in all respects. Because U.S. laws reflect respect for robust free speech, filing a defamation suit to chill criticism is a very risky tactic, and can work only if the target refuses to fight back. Mr. Whitehead fought back.


FP: What are some lessons learned from this case?


Rubinstein: Lessons learned include:


1) As Justice Brandeis once said, the sunlight of public disclosure is the best disinfectant. For example, in its responses to our discovery requests, CAIR refused to admit Hamas murders innocent civilians. Now, we uncovered evidence – all of it in the public record, by the way – showing CAIR’s relationship with Hamas and its supporting entities. But if anyone still had questions regarding CAIR’s true views on this matter, this answer should put all doubts to rest.


2) CAIR avoids critical scrutiny, and its leaders are especially thin-skinned. To me, these traits suggest CAIR is vulnerable. It’s important to remember that parties who resort to using lawsuits as a substitute for open debate generally do so for two reasons: First, they have the money to do so, and second, they recognize they can’t win a fair exchange of ideas. CAIR apparently had the economic resources available to support its litigation campaign. But I can only speculate why CAIR tried to silence Mr. Whitehead. My sense is that every time a CAIR official appears on television, more of the truth seeps out, and CAIR alienates more and more Americans. In fact, I believe that if the mainstream media subjected CAIR to a fraction of the scrutiny given to the Duke Lacrosse team case, CAIR would be totally discredited.


3) More needs to be done to expose and make public CAIR’s funding sources and financial practices. There are stories in the Arab press on CAIR’s foreign donors. Why these articles have not been printed in the U.S. press is something of a mystery to me.


4) Don’t back down. Ever. CAIR’s only hope of success is if Americans fail to stand up for what makes this country great.


FP: The record clearly shows that CAIR does have extensive and significant ties to Saudi funding sources, that it does promote fundamentalist Islam, and that it does promote and advocate the termination of the State of Israel. Now the worry is: does CAIR genuinely reflect the views of Muslims in the US? If it does, we have a serious problem, no?


Rubinstein: I believe CAIR most assuredly does not speak for all Muslims, for I know there are American Muslims who oppose the policies of CAIR’s current leadership. Nevertheless, I have come to the conclusion that the world view of CAIR’s current leaders – at least the one I found reflected in over a decade’s worth of public statements and activities – has traction among key Muslim elites (e.g. clerics and community activists) who have come to this country from the Mid-East, Pakistan, Malaysia, and India, and among certain Muslim converts. As I went through CAIR’s paper and Internet trail back to approximately 1994, it seemed to me CAIR’s world view, its “meta-message” as it were, can be broken down into three key themes. The first is terrible fear. It seems from reading their material that Islam is under intense assault. The second is triumphalist confidence. It seemed to me that the authors of CAIR’s e-mail alerts and website texts and written reports believe that Mohamed said that Islam is the only true faith, so Muslim control and domination are eventually assured. The third is that Jews and Zionists are apparently a source of and explanation for Muslim problems and failures. The conclusion seems to be Muslims will reap the benefits if Jewish “power” is reduced.


The reason I think this world view has traction among many Mid-Eastern and South Asian Muslim elites, is that I saw these same themes reappear over and over again on a variety of Muslim websites, that I explored, and in many mosque sermons and Islamic publications that I read. In the course of defending Mr. Whitehead, we engaged in a great deal of wide-ranging research, and I must tell you that I found entering the Islamic Internet world was like walking through a sewer. The contempt and intolerance for difference and dissent (even by other Muslims) is shocking. Anti-Americanism and disdain for Western civilization is a given. The oppression of women seems to be a basic cultural norm. And, of course, raw, eliminationist anti-Semitism is ubiquitous. Frankly, the obsessive fixation on Jews, Jewish control of the United States, and Jewish worldwide plots at times led me to believe there is some sort of mass psychosis at work. By comparison, CAIR’s use of language is more restrained. However, the fact that CAIR might genuinely reflect the views of many Muslims in the United States does not necessarily mean we have a serious problem. Muslims are a tiny minority in this country, and it is important to remember the Muslim community is not a monolith. In my view, we will have a serious problem only if the truth is hidden, ignored, or whitewashed, if our leaders fail to take appropriate measures, and if the American majority fails to aggressively defend its values.


FP: Reed Rubinstein, thank you for joining us today.

Rubinstein: Thank you, Jamie. FrontPage's work is critically important, and most appreciated.


May, 2006



Silencing Dissent at Michigan State

On April 27, the State News of Michigan State University carried an editorial titled, "Poor choice, professor" in which a professor named Indrek Wichman was castigated for comments he made in a private e-mail to the Muslim Students Association (MSA).

In the e-mail, Wichman gave his opinion of a protest led by the MSA. The e-mail read, in part:

Dear Moslem Association:

As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU I intened to protest your protest. I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders, murders of Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey!), burnings of Christian chirches, the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims, the rapes of Scandinavain girls and women (called "whores" in your culture), the murder of film directors in Holland, and the rioting and looting in Paris France.

Professor Wichman later explained: "I used strong language in a private communication that I would certainly not have used if this communication would have gone public."

But this failed to satisfy the leaders of the MSA. They wanted blood in the form of a letter of reprimand; diversity training for faculty; and a mandatory freshman seminar on hate and discrimination.

The Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations had to get its shot at Wichman in as well. Executive director, Dawud Walid, had this to say: "It was upsetting, yet sad…it's scary when you think about the power that this gentleman has." Walid then added that the university should denounce the e-mail, conduct a formal investigation, and, of course, conduct "sensitivity training" on how to deal with Muslims on campus.

However, before the MSA demands anything, let’s look at some of its history.

  • In 2003, the MSA of Penn State invited the chairman of a racist and anti-Semitic organization, the Populist Party, to speak at events celebrating "Islam Awareness Week".
  • In 2002, during a protest in front of the Israeli consulate in Los Angeles, former MSA president Ahmed Shama shouted, "Victory to Islam! Death to the Jews!..."
  • Prior to the Islamic terrorist attacks of 9-11, the MSA formally assisted the Holy Land Foundation, Global Relief, and the Benevolence Foundation in fundraising. Following the attacks, all three so-called "charities" were ordered closed. The reaction of the MSA? "How three of the nation's largest Muslim charities could be made inoperable at the peak of the giving season of Ramadan seemed unbelievable." Never mind that these three groups were providing funds to Islamic terrorist groups.

Notwithstanding its self-serving claims, the MSA is not a "Muslim civil rights" organization. The MSA is here to promote the intolerant, bigoted, and hateful cult of Islam known as "Wahhabism". From inviting bigots to speak; calling for the death of Jews, and denouncing the closing of Islamic terrorist linked "charities", the MSA has clearly shown that they are on the wrong side in the battle against Islamist terror.

Were Professor Wichman’s words a little strong? In light of the facts about Wahhabi Islam, he is telling the truth. The Wahhabis are one of the most intolerant sects of Islam and have a very brutal history that includes neglect for basic human rights, misogyny toward their own women, the imposition of the most strict forms of Sharia Islamic law and a hatred for Western culture that borders on fanatical. In calling attention to this reality, the professor made the right choice.

May, 2006



Sami Al-Arian gets 18 months more in terror case
TAMPA -- A judge sentenced former professor Sami Al-Arian on Monday to another year and a half in prison before he will be deported in his terrorism conspiracy case.

Al-Arian, 48, was sentenced to four years and nine months, but he will get credit for the three years and three months he already has served while being held before and after his trial.

His lawyer, Linda Moreno, asked the judge to release her client now, but the judge refused and called Al-Arian "a master manipulator."

Al-Arian signed a plea agreement April 14 in which he admitted providing support to members of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a State Department-designated terrorist group responsible for hundreds of deaths in Israel and the Palestinian territories.

The former University of South Florida computer engineering professor took the plea deal despite a jury failing to convict him of any of the 17 charges against him after a six-month trial last year. His family said he took the deal to get out of jail and end their suffering.

As part of the plea agreement, Al-Arian admitted to being associated with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad from the late 1980s and providing "services" for the group, which included filing for immigration benefits for key members, hiding the identities of those men and lying about his involvement.

It was not immediately clear where Al-Arian will be sent once he is deported. Born in Kuwait to Palestinian refugee parents, he was reared mostly in Egypt before coming to the United States 30 years ago. He has been jailed since his arrest in February 2003.

May, 2006



Al-Arian deal: He admits ties to terror group

The federal plea agreement links him to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Details of Sami Al-Arian's plea agreement emerged Monday after a federal judge unsealed documents related to hearings held last week out of public view.

In it, the fired University of South Florida professor admits being a member of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and helping others associated with the terrorist group -- including his deported brother-in-law Mazen Al-Najjar -- in immigration matters and lying to conceal their ties.

Al-Arian pleaded guilty to one count of "conspiracy to make or receive contributions of funds, goods or services to or for the benefit of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad." In exchange for his guilty plea, prosecutors dropped eight outstanding terrorism-related charges on which jurors deadlocked during a six-month trial.

Prosecutors also agreed to recommend that immigration officials "expedite" Al-Arian's expulsion after his sentencing. His family has previously said their first stop may be Egypt before they try to begin anew in the Palestinian territories.

Department of Justice officials on Monday praised the guilty plea as vindication of their anti-terrorism policies, while Al-Arian's supporters sought to distance the professor from the more serious terrorism charges he once faced.

"We have a responsibility not to allow our nation to be a safe haven for those who provide assistance to the activity of terrorists," U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said.

Ahmed Bedier, a Tampa-based spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said the "plea has nothing to do with violence, and it has nothing to do with financing terrorism."

Two other co-defendants, ex-USF graduate student Sameeh Hammoudeh and Chicago-area businessman Ghassan Ballut, were acquitted. Hammoudeh, a Palestinian, has been held at a Bradenton jail awaiting deportation after pleading guilty in an unrelated tax case.

A fourth defendant, U.S. citizen Hatem Fariz of Spring Hill, still faces a retrial after jurors deadlocked in his case, too. Federal Public Defender R. Fletcher Peacock, whose office represents Fariz, on Monday said plea negotiations are ongoing.

"I think that Dr. Al-Arian's resolution is showing that the government is doing a good-faith effort to resolve the case," Peacock said. "I think that will be reflected in the outcome for our client as well."

Signed Feb. 28, Al-Arian's plea recommends a prison sentence of 46 to 57 months. However, prosecutors have hinted that they will not oppose a lower term, or even a sentence of time served that considers Al-Arian's three years of incarceration.

Al-Arian and his associates were arrested in February 2003 in a case the government once hailed as an example of the controversial USA Patriot Act.

In a jail interview with the Sentinel on Feb. 22, Al-Arian said he would sign a plea deal if there was any way that could be "respectable."

His wife, Nahla Al-Arian, later spoke of her desire for a family reunion.

"Anywhere my husband goes, I will go with him," Nahla said. "I believe that the situation is so suffocating. . . . I don't feel free anymore. Yes, I want to leave. I love America. It breaks my heart to leave everyone here.

"What I want to see is see this suffering end -- for my husband, my kids and myself."

Orlando Sentinel
May, 2006



CAIR Beaten in Court Again
By Andrew Whitehead and Lee Kaplan

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has suffered another setback in its effort to gag all those who would criticize its cozy relationship with Hamas and radical Islam.  The Canadian branch of CAIR was forced this week to back off its defamation suit against David Harris, Director of the International and Terrorist Intelligence Program (INSIGNIS), a strategic intelligence research corporation based in Ottawa. This retreat comes on the heels of a similar lawsuit that the US division of CAIR filed against Andrew Whitehead, the head of Anti-CAIR in the United States, and was forced recently to withdraw.

Harris had appeared on an Ottawa radio station, CFRA radio, and during an interview made some remarks about the need for Canadian authorities to take a hard look at CAIR-CAN and the fact that some 70% of the funds it raises goes to the American chapter of the organization. He was then hit by a SLAPP lawsuit launched by Dr. Sheema Kahn and Riad Saloojee, the Executive Director of CAIR-CAN. (Both CAIR-CAN leaders have since lost their jobs.)

According to Harris, CAIR-CAN "dropped the suit cold" with no damages, costs, and, as with its dismissed $1.35 million action against ACAIR in the U.S., with no apologies or detailed clarification.  A lawyer involved in criminal and national security matters who has testified before the Congress and is a former chief of strategic planning for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, and who appears frequently on radio, Harris said in a prepared press statement:

"As a commentator on national security affairs, my guiding principle throughout CAIR-CAN's lawsuit was never to compromise hard-won rights of media and media commentators to their exercise of responsible free expression under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  I viewed this as a responsibility at a time when Canadians in Afghanistan and elsewhere are dying for such rights, and when civil liberties must be vigorously defended at home.”    

He added, "It is unknown whether this unease [on the part of the court] stemmed from concern about the detailed review and disclosures that would derive from such proceedings.  Or
whether the collapse of its mother organization's US$1.35 million libel case against the American Anti-CAIR organization played a part.  We do not know whether it was the unearthing of a December 2003 court document in which Dr. Khan had sworn to CAIR-CAN's subsidiary status in relation to the troubling US CAIR group.  Perhaps it was a concern that, on the witness stand, CAIR-CAN officials would be asked to answer the questions I had asked about that relationship on CFRA radio."

Just as with the Anti-CAIR case, CAIR-CAN sought to spin its loss in a press release stating that Harris, who was a regular "security consultant" on CFRA -radio, would not be invited back as a guest. (He has in fact appeared several times on the channel as a guest since the instigation of the lawsuit.) CAIR-CAN has also suggested that it had silenced its Canadian critics by its legal action, just as it had silenced its critics in the U.S.  But the Anti-CAIR group has become even more relentless in its pursuit of CAIR since the lawsuit was dropped.  

This is actually the third round in the battle against CAIR and its effort to destabilize the domestic War on Terror that has been won by its opponents.

The first loss came when CAIR-CAN dropped its suit against columnist David Frum of the National Post.  Frum, a former White House speechwriter for the Bush administration who is credited with the "axis of evil" phrase, was sued by CAIR-CAN because of his suggestion in a (Canadian) National Post article that CAIR-CAN had terrorist affiliations. Frum issued this statement about his own case after the David Harris victory:  "The lawsuit against the National Post and myself was settled with an editor's note that likewise offered no apology or retraction.  The settlement of the Harris lawsuit should be of special interest to Canadians. David Harris is one of Canada's leading experts on terrorism: a former chief of strategic planning for CSIS and now president of the IINSIGNIS consulting firm. His views are regularly heard on television and radio. Now he has recovered his full freedom to speak and to alert Canadians to the dangers in their midst.”
What lessons will CAIR take from the reverses it has suffered in these three court actions?  Will the organization moderate its support of Hamas and other radical Islamist organizations?  Will there be a shakeup in CAIR's leadership, as there has been with CAIR-CAN? And most importantly, will the "rank and file" membership of CAIR finally recognize that this organization is not a “civil rights” group and represents radical Islamists overseas and not ordinary Muslims here at home?

April, 2006



CAIR Backs Down from Anti-CAIR

In a stunning setback, the Council on American-Islamic Relations defamation suit against Andrew Whitehead of Anti-CAIR has been dismissed with prejudice.  The Anti-CAIR website, www.anti-cair-net.org, reports a mutually agreeable settlement, the terms of which are confidential. However, Whitehead notes that he issued no public apology to CAIR, made no retractions or corrections, and left the Anti-CAIR website unchanged, so that it continues to post the statements that triggered CAIRs suit. Specifically, CAIR had complained about Whitehead calling it a terrorist supporting front organization  founded by Hamas supporters that aims to make radical Islam the dominant religion in the United States. It also objected to being described as dedicated to the overthrow of the United States Constitution and the installation of an Islamic theocracy in America.

That clears the decks; no additional actions are pending between these two parties. In brief, Whitehead won a sweet victory, while CAIR suffered a humiliating defeat.


CAIR initially filed suit in a Virginia Circuit Court on March 31, 2004, claiming six of Whiteheads statements were false, that Whitehead made them with knowledge of their falsity, and that the statements were actionable because they impute the commission of a criminal offense. CAIR further claimed injury to its standing and reputation throughout the United States and elsewhere, and sought $1 million in compensatory damages, $350,000 in punitive damages, plus legal fees and interest.  It did so despite Whiteheads telling a reporter I haven't got any [money].


The original five statements as quoted in CAIRs complaint were:   

        Let their [sic] be no doubt that CAIR is a terrorist supporting front organization that is partially funded by terrorists, and that CAIR wishes nothing more than the implementation of Sharia law in America.

        CAIR is an organization founded by Hamas supporters which seeks to overthrow Constitutional government in the United States and replace it with an Islamist theocracy using our own Constitution as protection.

        ACAIR reminds our readers that CAIR was started by Hamas members and is supported by terrorist supporting individuals, groups and countries.

        Why oppose CAIR? CAIR has proven links to, and was founded by, Islamic terrorists. CAIR is not in the United States to promote the civil rights of Muslims. CAIR is here to make radical Islam the dominant religion in the United States and convert our country into an Islamic theocracy along the lines of Iran. In addition, CAIR has managed, through the adroit manipulation of the popular media, to present itself as the moderate face of Islam in the United States. CAIR succeeded to the point that the majority of its members are not aware that CAIR actively supports terrorists and terrorist supporting groups and nations. In addition, CAIR receives direct funding from Islamic terrorists supporting countries.

        CAIR is a fundamentalist organization dedicated to the overthrow of the United States Constitution and the installation of an Islamic theocracy in America.


In January 2005, Whiteheads counsel, Reed D. Rubinstein of Greenberg Traurig LLPs Washington, D.C. office, submitted 327 discovery requests of CAIR; I have posted this important, well-informed discovery document at http://www.danielpipes.org/rr/3511_1.pdf. Whitehead sought extensive information regarding CAIRs finances, its relationship to Hamas, its ties to Saudi Arabia, and ties to other Islamists.


Signs of CAIRs problems came in June 2005, when  perhaps realizing how much was available in the public record about its activities, perhaps wishing to curtail some of the discovery process  it amended its complaint by dropping nearly all of its original claims. The amended complaint alleged only two brief statements to be false and defamatory:

        Let their [sic] be no doubt that CAIR is a terrorist supporting front organization.

        CAIR seeks to overthrow constitutional government in the United States.

(For an analysis of this amended complaint, see Sharon Chadha and my article, CAIR Founded by Islamic Terrorists?)


In anticipation of a court hearing regarding discovery, Rubinstein filed papers in the Virginia Circuit Court in October 2005 and December 2005 alleging extensive links between CAIRs organizers and control group with Hamas and other foreign and domestic Islamists. Among other things, these papers alleged:

        CAIRs lineage goes back to a key Hamas leader (Musa Abu Marzook), and that CAIR has long been connected with, and exploited the 9/11 attacks to raise money for the Holy Land Foundation, a Hamas front group.

        CAIR is heavily supported, financially and otherwise, by suspect Saudi and UAE-based individuals and groups.

        CAIR states that the U.S. judicial system has been kidnapped by Israeli interests, and claims that anti-terror law enforcement action against the Holy Land Foundation was an anti-Muslim witch hunt promoted by the pro-Israel lobby in America.

CAIR refused to respond to Anti-CAIRs discovery requests in its November 2005 response to Rubinstein. For example, it did not admit that Hamas murders innocent civilians, it refused to disclose the identities of its Saudi donors, it declined to answer whether it aims to convert American Christians to Islam, and it avoided questions about the anti-Semitic and anti-American activities of its founder and executive director, Nihad Awad, including his communications with Hamas terrorists, speeches supporting suicide bombings, and advocacy of violence against Jews.


In March 2006, shortly before a scheduled court hearing to decide on several of Whiteheads requests (compelling CAIR to disclose its financial data, to answer questions about its relationship with Hamas and other Islamists, and to provide information regarding its leaders activities and intentions), the case was settled and then dismissed with prejudice by stipulation (meaning, the plaintiff has agreed to forever drop all of the claims that were in, or could have been in, the complaint).


Asked about these developments, CAIRs spokesman, Ibrahim Hooper, confirmed to the New York Sun that the libel case was dismissed at the request of both parties and added that It was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount. Asked if he implied that Whitehead had paid the organization to drop the case, Hooper replied, We filed the suit. Asked the same question again, Hooper repeated the same answer.




(1) I had a role in this story, for it was my article, Why Is CAIR Suing Anti-CAIR? published only a week after CAIRs initial filing, that brought this case to Reed Rubinsteins attention and led to Greenberg Traurig LLPs serving as Whiteheads wonderfully capable, pro-bono legal counsel.


(2) In that initial article, I expressed puzzlement why CAIR would voluntarily expose itself to discovery. Did it file this case expecting to steamroll Whitehead, whom CAIR may have perceived as an easy target, and thereby intimidate its critics? What seemed early on to be a mistake by CAIR is now confirmed as such; it ran into a litigation buzz-saw, and it seems to have cut and run. CAIR preferred the ignominy of walking away from the case it initiated rather than open to public scrutiny its finances, its list of supporters, and the beliefs and intentions of its key leaders.


(3) CAIRs November 2005 brief to the court contains several statements of note:

        CAIR has established a status of enviable prestige within highest echelons [sic] of the Washington establishment (p. 3). That is correct and it neatly sums up Sharon Chadhas and my extensive analysis in CAIR: Islamists Fooling the Establishment.

        CAIR stands up for America and speaks out against terrorism in pronouncements to the general public, thereby earning the enmity of the very terrorists Whitehead claims CAIR supports (p. 6). Sounds good, but CAIR did not provide any evidence in its brief of such enmity.

        CAIR has communicated with various members of the United States Senate concerning both the Holy Land Foundation and the Global Relief Foundation. (pp. 27-8) This comes as news. One wonders what information on these two terrorism-funding groups CAIR provided.

        CAIR states that it advised Frontpagemag.com of possible legal action concerning a doctored photograph it employed to illustrate an article written by Whitehead (p. 28). Its amusing that CAIR, which itself famously doctored a photograph, accuses FPM of doing this; in fact, FPM merely posted a graphic, as it often does, one showing Hooper with Hamas figures in the background.

(4) Hooper stated the case settled for an undisclosed amount but did not disclose in which direction that amount went. The terms being confidential, one can only speculate. Perhaps CAIR desperately wanted out of the burdensome, embarrassing, and harmful case it foolishly had initiated? Rubenstein hinted as much when he observed that CAIR became more disposed to settle in late 2005, when a judge was considering what CAIR would have to divulge about its financing and its ties to Hamas and other terrorist groups. Rubenstein told the New York Sun that the lawsuit would have opened up CAIRs finances and their relationships and their principles, their ideological motivations in a way they did not want to be made public.


(5) According to CAIRs own analysis of Whiteheads initial statements, they impute the commission of a criminal offense by CAIR, in that these suggest CAIR actively supports terrorists, and advocates the overthrow of the U.S. Constitution in favor of Islamic law. It bears noting that none of these words were found to be false, they were not retracted, and they remain posted on Anti-CAIRs website.


(6) The collapse of this lawsuit, combined with the even more recent ending of two other CAIR legal actions (versus Cass Ballenger and David Harris), suggests that CAIR is no longer the plaintiff in any court cases; more broadly, what I in 2004 called its pattern of growing litigiousness seems finished.


(7) With CAIRs hopes of defeating its opponents in the legal arena at least temporarily defeated, the next step for those of us in North America unwilling to live under Islamic law is to thwart the organizations social and political ambitions. I am doing my part by announcing today the establishment of Islamist Watch, a new project to combat the ideas and institutions of nonviolent, radical Islam in the United States and other Western countries.


April, 2006