Showing posts with label Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Show all posts

Saturday, December 15, 2007

Counter-Jihad: Zhudi Jasser at the NRO

Dr. M. Zhudi Jasser is a physician, a former U.S. Naval Officer, a Muslim reformist and the President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD). He and others like him, devout Muslims, are doing all they can to wrest control of Islam from the Salafi juggernaught that is being funded through billions of Saudi petrodollars and used to control the teaching and politics of Islam in the West. Those masses of funds go to build Mosques, to train orthodox Salafi clerics, to fund academics at our universities and to fund organizations such as CAIR as the "political voice" of Salafi Islam. Against these seemingly endless resources, Dr. Jasser is the lonely voice in the wilderness. But it is a voice whose importance cannot possibly be underestimated, because if Dr. Jasser succeeds, Salafism and radical Islam end.

It is not enough for we who are not Muslims to criticize the brutal excesses of Salafi Islam, nor is it enough to take up arms against radical Islam in foreign lands, for as long as the poisonous ideas that define Salafi Islam are the dominant interpretation within the Islamic community, than shall we always be faced with the spector of radical Islam. Ultimately, the best counter to an idea is, itself, an idea. And that is what makes Dr. Jasser's work so critically important to all people who believe in freedom. Dr. Jasser seeks to push Islam to evolve through its period of "Enlightenment." That means changing the accepted interpretation of a religion of a billion or so people - a daunting task. He will not succeed alone. We owe him our support in all facets.

That said, Dr. Jasser appears this week in a three part interview at National Review Online in which we learn a lot more about his impresive background, his philosophy and motivation. Part One is below. Parts Two and Three are linked at the end.

. . . Kathryn Jean Lopez: You’re a medical doctor, aren’t you? Do you still practice? When did you start talking about Islam and terror?

M. Zuhdi Jasser: Yes, I’m a physician in solo-practice specializing in internal medicine and nuclear cardiology in Phoenix, Arizona. My primary dream and most of my days are spent in the practice of medicine and in dedication to the primary care of my patients and the medical profession in Arizona. I just finished my term as president of the Arizona Medical Association in June 2007, and I chair the bioethics committee of a large downtown Phoenix hospital. I graduated from the Medical College of Wisconsin in 1992 on a full U.S. Navy medical scholarship and completed my specialty training in internal medicine at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md. in 1996. I served operational tours of duty on the USS El Paso as medical department head participating in Operation Restore Hope, and I also served a tour of duty as an internist at the Office of the Attending Physician for the U.S. Congress and Supreme Court Justices from 1997-1999.

A native of Wisconsin and the son of Syrian immigrants, joining the United States military was natural. I was raised to appreciate American freedom which guaranteed my right to life, liberty, and the practice of my personal faith of Islam, like in no so-called Muslim country. My grandfather used to talk about how the devastation of Syria brought by the military coups . . .

I have always been a devout practicing Muslim maintaining a central personal spiritual relationship with God in my life. I have also held true to the importance of spiritual practices in my life including fasting, daily prayer, scriptural recitation, charity, community worship, and personal integrity. As a result, I have often been asked by the local communities in which I have lived, to speak about Islam, its role in my life, and my understanding of its history. Well, before 9/11, in the 1980s, as I found myself frustrated by the politicization of many but not all of the Muslim communities in which I participated, I began to focus on the main problem I experienced — the harmful impact of political Islam upon the practice of Islam in America. I slowly began to absorb as much information as I could about Salafism, Wahhabism, and its associated extremist ideology. I looked into the history and workings of the Muslim Brotherhood in America and realized that at some point anti-Islamists were going to need to take them on to rescue our faith from their clutches.

While I have never heard violence preached in any mosque I attended, I did hear conspiracy theories, anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism, and radical politics which often predominated instead of a focus on spirituality, humility, and moral courage. This led to a regular struggle with many, but not all, of the clerical leadership in many of the Muslim communities in which I have lived and participated. My refrain for decades has been to them, “why do you impose your Islamist agenda upon the congregants of your mosque who come to worship God, atone, and learn God’s scripture. Most of us don’t come to mosque to blame the world for our own maladies or to listen to your own political agenda.” I tried to intellectually counter them from within the community, but did so to no avail. For who was I to question clerical authority and interpretations? Who was I to take away their bully pulpit for Islamism?

After 9/11, it was immediately clear to me and a few other close friends in the Muslim business community in Arizona, that the Islamist agenda was the root cause of terrorism and Muslim radicalism. It was obvious to me that the only treatment of this cancer within was for devout Muslims who love America and love the spirituality of Islam to reclaim the mantle of faith from the Islamists. Our faith needed an expression which can be brought through an enlightenment process which separates mosque and state or separates the affairs of God and spirituality from the affairs of this world and our government. We formed the American Islamic Forum for Democracy in the Spring of 2003 as the early mitotic divisions of an institution which over the following years and decades we hoped would be a leading anti-Islamist force pushing for that separation, modernization, and counter-jihad.

While I don’t have a degree in Islamic law or Islamic affairs, I believe that a lifetime of internal political struggle and spiritual and theological investigation has prepared me quite adequately to take on Islamists intellectually and publicly as we struggle for the soul of our faith. It seems that at this point, the lifetime theologians or ulemaa (scholars) of the Muslim community appear to be the problem more than the solution.

I just couldn’t take any more local or national interviews from Muslims who espoused apologia and victimization while espousing Islamic supremacy and anti-American vitriol. I was moved to write an occasional column for our local Arizona Republic on Islamic Affairs after their reporters printed a few post 9/11 stories which quoted some local Muslims and imams defending the USS Cole bombing, and invoking conspiracy theories about 9-11, to name just a few of their offensive comments said on behalf of all American Muslims. My columns began my anti-Islamist foundation. I wrote about the synergy of being Muslim and believing in American ideas of pluralism. That platform led to a growing audience of readers starving for alternative Muslim viewpoints. AIFD then decided to sponsor and organize America’s first major Muslim rally against terrorism held in Phoenix on April 24, 2004 — Standing with Muslims Against Terrorism. That was just the beginning…

Lopez: Have you found that to be a dangerous thing to do?

Jasser: The power of minority politics to cloud the judgment of the masses cannot be overstated. One of the great achievements of classical liberalism and Western Enlightenment of our Founding Fathers was the appreciation of the need for our communities to always lift up the rights of the individual over that of the community. Western freedom is maintained in a tradition which questions authority, and rejects collectivism and tribalism. That tradition, while occasionally threatened and violated by various obvious political interests in the U.S. is still a central part of our behavior and character as Americans.

Our liberty-culture will turn itself upside-down to help one child, one victim who immediately captures the hearts of Americans. This mindset is the greatest antidote to Islamist tribalism and collectivism. With my work since 9/11 in combating political Islam, I would have been much less concerned about my safety and that of my family if only the vast majority of my Islamist enemies would simply address the ideas which I raise and debate me in an open respectful forum. However, endemic tribalism, corruption, and often fascism drive a political propaganda machine which would much rather demonize its adversaries than actually address the substance of the issues raised. When they are not demonizing me and other anti-Islamists, or portraying false exaggerated associations, Islamists prefer to just run and hide from open respectful debate about the issue of Islamism. Islamists would rather continue wallowing in denial. They prefer to project responsibility for terrorism upon everyone else in the world, rather than placing the responsibility upon the ideology of political Islam and the toxicity of the dreams of an Islamic state. They would much rather debate non-Muslims or former Muslims, because they can change the debate focus to Islamophobia, rather than the central issue of Islamism.

While I often receive disgusting hate mail, it is far outweighed by the volumes of gratitude and appreciation from Muslims and non-Muslims alike. So many in America have been hungry to hear about devotional Muslims unafraid to build institutions which are leading a counter-jihad. America is hungry to hear Muslims condemn apologetics for terrorism, identify terrorists and their organizations by name, and lead the effort to deconstruct the religious legitimacy of the Islamic state.

This is why I founded the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. We are not only “at home with American liberty” but, we recognize that our nation is under God and we are all American first and everything else second. We refuse to accept Muslim, Arabic, or any minority collectivism. We look at ourselves as Americans who happen to be Muslim rather than Muslims who demand to be Americans. Our political activism is not about being Muslim, but is guided by the platforms of our individual political party affiliation — not by the agenda of clerics who seek a theocracy. For these beliefs, the Islamist activists ignore real debate and prefer to call me an ‘Uncle Tom’, ‘a sellout’, or a ‘tool of some made up conspiracy theory.”

I’ve never been threatened physically. But if I allow such frivolous attacks or fear of them to modify the intensity of my work, I would dishonor the freedoms which our serviceman and women are fighting to preserve and I might as well take my family back to their motherland of Syria where there are no freedoms and the masses are silent out of fear of the ruling despots. If I stay silent I would no longer be an American.

Lopez: What do you think of the word Islamofascism?

Jasser: I find the term “Islamofascism” to be quite accurate when defining the ideological goals of Islamist militants. Yes, as a devout Muslim who believes that Islam is a faith from the God of Abraham, and could never be fascistic, the existence of Islamofascism saddens me. But it is not the term that saddens me but rather the Muslim supremacist organizations who employ fascism in the name of Islam. They are real and their Islamofascism is real whether I deny it or not. The longevity of this term will depend upon how long moderate Muslims continue to sit on their hands rather than fight the real fascists Muslims — like the Wahhabis, the Taliban, al Qaeda, or a host of other militant Islamist organizations and ideologies.

My love for my faith should drive me to wage a counter-jihad, and not blame the messenger (users of this term) and demand that the term be stricken so that I can live in denial. These thugs spread an evil in the name of a warped version of the faith they believe is Islam. However, I become like “al Qaeda” if I refuse to call them “Muslim” and commit takfir (determining who is and who is not a Muslim) by saying they are not “Muslim.” Their Muslim or Islamic identity is between them and God as it is for every Muslim. Once we open the door to debate who is and who is not a Muslim it empowers a theological hierarchy which will purport to speak for the faith community. I will never subscribe to that. As a moral human being and as an American, it is obvious that their actions are evil and barbaric and we should do everything we can to destroy them and defeat them wherever we find them.

A moral, pluralistic, spiritual Islam is the only way to defeat Islamofascism. We saw with the London plots this summer, perpetrated by Muslim physicians, that this ideology utilizes terror as a tactic to achieve fascistic political ends blind to the professional training or level of education of the individual foot soldiers. The ends which these militants seek, is a warped, utopian dream of a caliphate or some form of so-called Islamic state, which imposes their despotic theocratic interpretation of Islamic law upon citizens. The Nazis had physicians and professionals of all walks of life helping them to commit genocide against the Jews through a supremacist dehumanization of their enemies — true fascism. So too do militant Islamists dehumanize their enemies (anti-Islamists) and exact their barbaric punishments upon innocents in an evil torn right out of the pages of every fascist regime in history.

This is why the anti-Islamist work of organizations like AIFD is so vital. The only way to destroy the Islamofascists is to de-link their theological interpretation of the supremacy and exclusivism of the Islamic state over every other form of government. This de-linking will take some real work. Once devout Muslims can deconstruct the goal of the Islamic state and prove to our fellow co-religionists that the most pious form of society is one where government and religion are separate and faith practice is allowed only to be judged by God in a laboratory of free will, Islamofascism will die in the dustbin of history.

I will finally add a caveat that my only fear is that many exposed to the term will have little prior knowledge of Islam or contact with Muslims and will carry away a belief that Islam as a spiritual faith is fascistic in its ideology. That cannot be further from the truth of the Islam which I teach my children and so many of the vast majority of Muslims teach their families. But that should stimulate Muslims to even more actively defeat the Islamists who have hijacked our faith for their own political agenda. In fact we can also cannot forget that the Islamofascists are a subset of a much larger ideological threat to the west of the Islamists. The Islamists include all those who believe in political Islam from the fascists of Al Qaeda to the rank and file political Islamists who believe in democracy, elections, and parliaments but still hold tight to a theocratically exclusivist Islamic state.

Dr. Jasser addresses the nature of Islam and what he hopes will be the basis for its Enlightenment in Part II of his interview. Of note in this interview:

There is no doubt that Muslims need to build American institutions, which flood the public space after every evil pronouncement from militant Islamists with a counter-jihad interpretation — — a jihad against jihad. Nonviolent re-interpretations of the passages in today’s context to counter Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda’s twisted injunctions to war against the west are very prevalent in the Muslim community, but unfortunately, difficult to find in the theological academia since that was abandoned by the pious masses around the 14th century. It should be the work of organizations like AIFD to respond directly to Bin Laden, the Wahhabis, salafists, deobandis, the Taliban, and other extremists when they interpret our scripture in a way that is violent or incompatible with our citizenship pledge or loyalty to our nation.

Dr. Jasser addresses non-Muslims, our politicians and what's at stake the War in Iraq in Part III of his interview. Of note is his assessment that:

By focusing on a tactic or ‘counterterrorism’, we miss the far more lethal and insidious threat to America and the west of the political Islamic state. . .

It is long overdue for all those in the public sphere whether media or government or otherwise to clearly understand that the root cause of terror is political Islam and the national aspirations of Islamists.

Do read the entire interview. Almost a year ago, having immersed myself in an obsessive study of Islam and its history for a period of years and before I had the opportunity of knowing of Dr. Jasser's existence, I wrote a fairly lengthy essay. That essay, which you can find here, was on the need for Islam to go through its period of Enlighenment and was composed in response to calls from Islamists at the UN to shut off all criticism of Salafi Islam. My knowledge of the situation is far from complete, but all that I see in Dr. Jasser seems precisely the prescription for Islamofacism / political Islam / Salafism / Wahhabism or whatever other "-ism" you choose to label the poison of radicalized Islam. For all that non-Muslisms can do to counter the threat, it is ultimately Dr. Jasser's ideas that will extinguish it. Do give him your full support.


Read More...

Saturday, December 8, 2007

Ayaan Hirsi Ali & "Moderate" Muslims


Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a staunch critic of "radical" Islam. She believes that there is no such thing as a "moderate" Muslim. Rather, she refers to those of whom we would call moderates are "partial" Muslims who ignore, consciously or in the breech, many of the tenets of Islam that a "good" Muslim - i.e., a radical Islamist - does not. Today, she writes in the NYT:

The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, flog each of them with 100 stripes: Let no compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. (Koran 24:2)

IN the last few weeks, in three widely publicized episodes, we have seen Islamic justice enacted in ways that should make Muslim moderates rise up in horror.

A 20-year-old woman from Qatif, Saudi Arabia, reported that she had been abducted by several men and repeatedly raped. But judges found the victim herself to be guilty. Her crime is called “mingling”: when she was abducted, she was in a car with a man not related to her by blood or marriage, and in Saudi Arabia, that is illegal. Last month, she was sentenced to six months in prison and 200 lashes with a bamboo cane.

Two hundred lashes are enough to kill a strong man. Women usually receive no more than 30 lashes at a time, which means that for seven weeks the “girl from Qatif,” as she’s usually described in news articles, will dread her next session with Islamic justice. When she is released, her life will certainly never return to normal: already there have been reports that her brother has tried to kill her because her “crime” has tarnished her family’s honor.

We also saw Islamic justice in action in Sudan, when a 54-year-old British teacher named Gillian Gibbons was sentenced to 15 days in jail before the government pardoned her this week; she could have faced 40 lashes. When she began a reading project with her class involving a teddy bear, Ms. Gibbons suggested the children choose a name for it. They chose Muhammad; she let them do it. This was deemed to be blasphemy.

Then there’s Taslima Nasreen, the 45-year-old Bangladeshi writer who bravely defends women’s rights in the Muslim world. Forced to flee Bangladesh, she has been living in India. But Muslim groups there want her expelled, and one has offered 500,000 rupees for her head. In August she was assaulted by Muslim militants in Hyderabad, and in recent weeks she has had to leave Calcutta and then Rajasthan. Taslima Nasreen’s visa expires next year, and she fears she will not be allowed to live in India again.

It is often said that Islam has been “hijacked” by a small extremist group of radical fundamentalists. The vast majority of Muslims are said to be moderates.

But where are the moderates? Where are the Muslim voices raised over the terrible injustice of incidents like these? How many Muslims are willing to stand up and say, in the case of the girl from Qatif, that this manner of justice is appalling, brutal and bigoted — and that no matter who said it was the right thing to do, and how long ago it was said, this should no longer be done?

Usually, Muslim groups like the Organization of the Islamic Conference are quick to defend any affront to the image of Islam. The organization, which represents 57 Muslim states, sent four ambassadors to the leader of my political party in the Netherlands asking him to expel me from Parliament after I gave a newspaper interview in 2003 noting that by Western standards some of the Prophet Muhammad’s behavior would be unconscionable. A few years later, Muslim ambassadors to Denmark protested the cartoons of Muhammad and demanded that their perpetrators be prosecuted.

But while the incidents in Saudi Arabia, Sudan and India have done more to damage the image of Islamic justice than a dozen cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad, the organizations that lined up to protest the hideous Danish offense to Islam are quiet now.

I wish there were more Islamic moderates. For example, I would welcome some guidance from that famous Muslim theologian of moderation, Tariq Ramadan. But when there is true suffering, real cruelty in the name of Islam, we hear, first, denial from all these organizations that are so concerned about Islam’s image. We hear that violence is not in the Koran, that Islam means peace, that this is a hijacking by extremists and a smear campaign and so on. But the evidence mounts up. . . .

Read the entire article here.

As I wrote in another essay:

The black letter of the Koran and methods of interpretation of Salafi Islam . . . lead directly back to 7th century Arabia. As I have written extensively here, if the systemic issues are ever to be addressesd, Islam must evolve and go through its period of Enlightenment. . . . There are Muslims in the world today like Tawfiq Hamid and Zuhdi Jasser, voices in the wilderness at the moment, who are trying to evolve their faith. They need our full support.
(Hattip: Iraqpundit) I would note that Iraqpundit, in his comments, expresses a bit of distaste for what he apparently perceives as an attempt by Ms. Ali to rely on shock value for self-promotion. In answer to her question of where are the "moderate Muslims," he replies: "If they would pay more attention to Asra Nomani, Mona Eltahawy, and Khalid Abou El Fadhel, people would not ask where the moderate voices are."


Read More...

Saturday, December 1, 2007

Of Islamist Foxes and British Chickens

One could analogize the utter insanity in Britain this week to putting the foxes in charge of the hen house, but that comparison falls far short of reality. The only danger of that fact pattern is that the farmer is out a few chickens. One needs instead to analogize to a fact pattern where the foxes radicalize the chickens and establish a heniphate on the entire farm.

The background to this story is that Britain has the most radicalized Muslim population west of the Danube. The reasons for that are fourfold. The UK is being innundated with Wahhabi Salafi Islam via countless sources; Britain's multicultural ethic forestalls any reasoned criticism of Islam; Britain has made criticism of Islam potentially criminal by passage of the Hate Speech laws; and, Britain's permissive immigration laws have allowed "radical" Islamists into the country. Polls taken last year show that “nearly 25% of British Muslims said the July 7, 2005, terror bombings in London, which killed 52 innocent commuters, were justified. Another 30% said they would prefer to live under strict Islamic Sharia law rather than England's democratic system.”

In a country that has a Muslim population of almost two million and growing, that is a real problem. There needs to be reform. But things break down right there for Labour. What will they reform? The multicultural ethos will not allow the chattering classes to analyze the problems presented by Islam and make critical judgments. Labour assumes that the problem cannot be systemic to Islam – because by default the culture itself must be equal to Western culture - and therefore must be the result of some anamoly. Thus unable to identify why their population is becoming increasingly radicalized, Labour has acted out of sheer, suicidal ignorance.

What I am refering to is yesterday's launch in Britain of the Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board (MINAB). This highly influential group created by the government is supposed to help Labour get a handle on its Mosques. Specifically, MINAB is tasked with advising the government on the “suitability of Imams and scholars coming from abroad for employment in the UK” and producing the Islamic religious educational “standards.”

So who does Labour appoint to lead MINAB?

Two of the four organizations appointed to the MINAB are the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) and the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). They are the Islamic foxes just set down amongst the British chickens.

The MAB was founded by Dr Kamal Helbawy, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood – itself a “Salafi jihadist organization” and the precursor to al Qaeda. The differences between the Brotherhood and al Qaeda are not in philosophy, goals, or objectives, but rather just methods (Walid Phares, Future Jihad, p. 64-65). Dr. Helbway is one of many Islamists Britain has welcomed with open arms whom the U.S. will not allow to enter the country. As to the leader of the MAB today, it is Dr Azzam Tamini. He is an equally qualified person to preside over all of Islam in Britain. He is a proponent of Hamas who has praised suicide bombings.

The MCB is no better. It is run by Dr. Mohammed Bari, a man about whom I have blogged recently for his outrageous remarks in an interview published in the Telegraph. His organization actively seeks to keep Muslims from integrating into British society and he is a proponent of implementing Sharia law in Britain, to include outlawing the public sale of alcohol and the stoning of adulterers. Moreover Dr. Bari and the leadership of the Muslim Council are linked to conservative Islamist movements in the Muslim world and in particular Pakistan's Jamaat-i-Islami, a radical party committed to the establishment of an Islamic state in Pakistan ruled by sharia law. Jamaat-I-Islami is itself an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood (Phares, Future Jihad, p. 65).

And these are the people that Labour has just put in charge of the nation’s Muslims in an attempt to stop the process of radicalization? The sheer insanity of this is mind boggling. The only way to make the MINAB more of a radicaling force would be to add bin Laden to the board.

What the Labour government is missing is that there is no such thing as a “moderate” Muslim. The issues that are "radicalizing" a substantial minority of the British Muslim population are systemic to the dominant forms of Islam. They are not anamolies. Ayaan Hirsi Ali talked about this recently, and it is perhaps the most critical point our leadership on both sides of the pond needs to understand. When asked about “moderate” Muslims in a recent interview, she said:

‘I find the word “moderate” very misleading.’ There’s a touch of steel in Hirsi Ali’s voice. ‘I don’t believe there is such a thing as “moderate Islam”. I think it’s better to talk about degrees of belief and degrees of practice. The Koran is quite clear that it should control every area of life. If a Muslim chooses to obey only some of the Prophet’s commandments, he is only a partial Muslim. If he is a good Muslim, he will wish to establish Sharia law.’

Read the interview. I believe that is true, at least in as much as her observations pertain to Salafi Islam and Khomeinist Shia'ism. If you talk to "moderate" Muslims - the people you want as your friends and neighbors - they invariably talk about the "essence" of Islam as being both good and positive. I believe them completely. But it is clear that they are looking to the generalities and ignoring many of the orthodox interpretations. The black letter of the Koran and methods of interpretation of Salafi Islam go beyond this "essence" and lead directly back to 7th century Arabia. As I have written extensively here, if the systemic issues are ever to be addressesd, Islam must evolve and go through its period of Enlightenment.

Assuming the polls are accurate, the good news for Britain at the moment is that a majority of her Muslims fall into that category of “partial Muslims.” But putting the MAB and MCB in a position to influence Britain’s Muslim population is a sure guarantee that there will be no evolution of Islam in Britain, but there will be an ever growing population of “good Muslims.”

There are Muslims in the world today like Tawfiq Hamid and Zuhdi Jasser, voices in the wilderness at the moment, who are trying to evolve their faith. They need our full support. And they need to be the people who are appointed to MINAB. What Labour has just done is compound its problems with Islam exponentially. A few more decisions like that and, well, it may be time to get sized for that burkah.



Update: Robert Spencer makes a point similar to Ayaan Hirsi Ali in this article.

Update: And Ed Husain, a former member of Jamaat-i-Islami and friend of terrorist spiritual leader Omar Bakri, makes a similar point in an essay written in the Guardian stating:

. . . in Muslim scripture there are some unpalatable references. But these are to be seen in the context of their time. What remain valid are the eternal truths that Shatibi, Locke and others enunciated. Our humanity must transcend adherence to scriptural literalism, especially if it leads to mayhem and loss of innocent lives. . .

Read the article here. I do not know if Husain's suggetion of just ignoring parts of the Koran is workable, altough that is precisely what the "partial" or "moderate" Muslims do today. Those who seek a true evolution of their religion seek to do it through a formal process of ijtihad.

Update: And here is yet another article speaking to the problem of Koranic interpretation. This from the Washington Post about a young cleric in Egypt who is challenging the traditional interpretation of the Koran:

Masoud advocates adherence to prayer five times a day, peace toward all and abstinence from alcohol, sex outside of marriage and violence. Beyond those principles, he said, Islam is suffering from a "crisis of interpretation."

Read the article.


Read More...

Friday, November 30, 2007

Interesting News From Around the Web

They are calling it a “dirty-bomb plot” thwarted. Police caught two Hungarians and a Ukrainian with a pound of weapons grade powdered uranium. Uranium is considered weapons grade when it consists of 85% or greater uranium 235. The uranium recovered by the police was 98.6% uranium 235.

‘The Prophet would have not have disapproved of 9/11, because it was carried out in his example. When he came to Medina, the Prophet had a revelation, of jihad. After that, it became an obligation for Muslims to convert others, and to establish an Islamic state, by the sword if necessary.” An interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

The choice of questions and questioners approved by CNN amounts to a fiasco. Gateway Pundit tells the sordid tale.

Some problems are surfacing in Britain’s NHS. More than 90,000 patients die and almost one million are harmed each year because of hospital blunders, according to a just released report.

Al Qaeda and Iran are the wolves at the door. China is not far behind, and poses a much more potent threat.

And in the “working hard for a good cause” category, one enterprising Chilean prostitute has auctioned off 27 hours of sex for approximately $4,000 to be donated to a charity for poor children. To break that down, that’s about $150 per hour or . . . well, probably best to stop the itemization there . . .

According to Sarkozy, the cause of the riots in the Parisian suburbs were the result more of a “thugocracy” than social problems. As to the social problems, Sarkozy seems likely to beat the unions in France as he seeks to reform the French economy.

Read More...