Two Myths Of The Left - Iraq Has Increased Terrorism Worldwide and Made Iran Stronger

We have heard for years the arguments that the American invasion of Iraq has only increased worldwide jihadi recruitment and, as repeated most recently by Obama, that Iran is stronger today because of the "failed policies of Bush and McCain." But a look at both arguments in light of today's situation shows both to be demonstrably false.

______________________________________________________

A long favored claim of the left is that the Bush administration's war on terror and its invasion of Iraq has increased jihadi recruitment world wide. Human nature being what it is, that was probably true two years ago. One would expect that those with jihadi sympathies were energized by the 9-11 attack and then responded to bin Laden's calls when the U.S. fought back. Indeed, two years ago, it appeared that they were backing a "winning horse," to use bin Laden's words. But this is not 2006.

As General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker noted in their recent Congressional testimony, both believe that the defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq and the successful rejection of al Qaeda by the Sunni Awakening Movements are playing a signficant role in discrediting jihadism world-wide. While its impossible to verify that with the certainty of a Pew poll, the downward trajectory of jihadi attacks world wide strongly supports their argument. This from Reuters:

A study released on Wednesday reports a decline in fatal attacks of terrorism worldwide and says U.S. think-tank data showing sharp increases were distorted due to the inclusion of killings in Iraq.

"Even if the Iraq 'terrorism' data are included, there has still been a substantial decline in the global terrorism toll," said the 2007 Human Security Brief, an annual report funded by the governments of Canada, Norway, Switzerland, Sweden and Britain.

For example, global terrorism fatalities declined by 40 percent between July and September 2007, driven by a 55 percent decline in the "terrorism" death toll in Iraq after the so-called surge of new U.S. troops and a cease-fire by the Shi'ite militant Mehdi Army, the brief said. . . .

Read the entire article.

The second myth of the left is that Iran has been made stronger by the Bush administration's prosecution of the war on terror. That was Obama's message a few days ago. Certainly, as things stood in December, 2006, that was correct. Iran indirectly benefited from having the U.S. remove two implacable enemies, Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan, from its borders. Further, Iran had deeply invested in support for its creations, the Mahdi Army of Sadr and the Badr Brigades of SICI. As Michael Ledeen explained in an article written during the dark days of 2006, Iran was on the cusp of "Lebanizing" Iraq as the U.S. withdrew.

But then something happened on the way to the mosque. The President rolled the dice with the surge and all has been changed - Iran's incredibly bloody proxy war in Iraq has been exposed, the SICI changed its loyalties from Iran to Iraq's traditionalist Grand Ayatollah, Ali Sistani, and now Sadr's militia has been decimated. With the fall of both Basra and Sadr City, Iran's proxy is left without a base.

The greatest threat to Iran today comes from a democratic Iraq on its border that honors the traditional Shia practice of quietism - i.e., maintaining a wall between mosque and state, to put it in American terms. Iran is a deeply troubled country of 60 million people held under the rule of a medieval theocracy by ever greater repression. The theocracy itself is illegitimate when looked at in terms of a millenium of apolitical Shia tradition - a tradition shredded in 1979 by Ayatollah Khomeini and his velyat-e-faqi, a new philosophy justifying and requiring theocratic rule. And indeed, the most popular religious figure in both Iraq and Iran is now Grand Ayatolah Ali Sistani, an adherent to the quietist school. This is deeply problematic for Iran. As Reuel Marc Gerecht explained recently:

Although conscious of the fleeting loyalty of Iraqi Shiites who once took refuge in Iran from the wrath of Saddam Hussein and are now blessed with ever-larger Iraqi oil revenues, Tehran probably didn't anticipate how quickly Shiite sentiment in Iraq could change. The Iranians didn't see the rapid rise of the Iranian-born Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who has become the most popular ayatollah in Iran as well as the most powerful cleric in Iraq. Iranian and Iraqi clerical ties are old, complicated, intensely personal, and often quite affectionate--all of which now plays powerfully against the Iranian ruling elite's cynical politics in Mesopotamia.

It is a very good bet that Sistani and other prominent Iraqi clerics have remonstrated vociferously with their Iranian interlocutors in Qom against Iranian-fed violence among Iraqi Shiites. We can see the Iranian side of this in former president Mohammad Khatami's accusing [Iran's Supreme Guide] Khamenei virtually by name of spilling Shiite blood in Iraq and turning Iran's Islamic revolutionary message into a call for violence and upheaval beyond its borders. Khatami's recent speech at Gilan University is an astonishing sermon from a man not known for boldness.

Read the entire article. Since 2003, Iran has won tactical victories in both Gaza and, just days ago, Lebanon. But in Iraq, the theocracy of Iran is facing a mortal threat to its legitimacy and an enticing example of democracy to its deeply troubled populace that, not a decade ago, appeared on the edge of a counter-revolution. Obama's claim that Iran is stronger now could not be more false. Indeed, unless the U.S. leaves Iraq and allows the Iranians to resume their Lebanization of Iraq - something that would happen if troops are withdrawn too soon, as General Petraeus noted days ago in written testimony to the Senate - Iran's theocracy is far more threatened by their peaceful neighbor than by Saddam Hussein or the Taliban. Obama and the left need to find new arguments. The decision to invade Iraq may yet achieve its initial promises of reducing terrorism and provide a dangerous example of a Muslim democracy both in the heart of the Middle East and on the border of Iran.

Read More...

Summary only...

A High Squealing Noise & A Voice Of Sanity

Recently, our Senate Homeland Security Dept. issued a bi-partisan report on the dangers of home-grown Islamic terrorism, identifying as did the NYPD of two years ago the fact that Salafi-jihadism is the driver of virtually all Islamic terrorism in the West. That high squealing noise that you hear is emenating from the major Salafist Groups in America who are doing all they can to stop this report's statement of the obvious from becoming accepted and known by the U.S. public. The voice of sanity that you hear comes from Muslim and former U.S. Navy Officer Zhudi Jasser who point out, "To deny that political Islam and its permutations on the internet from Wahhabism to salafism to Al Qaedism to run of the mill Islamism have nothing to do with homegrown terror is patently absurd."
_______________________________________________________

It is no secret that Salafi-Jihadis want to see Western freedoms eroded and the triumph of Islam in the West through the imposition of Sharia law. Towards this end, these Salafist organizations whitewash Salafism and spend incredible sums of money lobbying Western governments to adopt the position, in whole contradiction to the tons of unambiguous evidence, that Salafism is not associated with terrorism and that terrorism itself is not associated with Islam.

Many in the West willingly drink that highly poisoned kool-aide, whether for votes (Pelosi/Conyers), money (academia), a "can't we all get along" fantasy (Homeland Security), a desire not to upset the Saudis who pump our oil (Bush), pure naivete (Pentagon/Hesham Islam), or simply out of marxian multicultural ethos that deems all cultures superior to our own and beyond judgment (Britain). Thank God for the few voices in government, such as Rep. Sue Myrick and Senator Joe Lieberman, and for the "moderate Muslim" stalwarts outside of government, such as Tawfiq Hamid, Zhuddi Jasser, Ibn Warraq and the Center For Islamic Pluralism, all of whom stand firmly and unflinchingly against this Salafi menace. And, of course, there is Dr. Bernard Lewis, the man who predicted the explosion of Salafi terrorism before 9-11, the man who coined the phrase "clash of civilizations" half a century ago, and the man who described the nature of Saudi Arabia's Salafism to America in his books by likening it to the most virulent sub-group within the KKK.

What set off the high squealing noise you hear was Sen. Joe Lieberman's release of a report by his committee on Homeland Security, Violent Islamist Extremism, The Internet, and the Homegrown Terrorist Threat. The report relies heavily on a prior work by the NYPD which analyzed how terrorists are made in the West - i.e., a several step process, the common thread at each step being exposure to Salafist/jihadia philosophy and propaganda.

The Senate Report is a bland but fair examination of the problem and the heretofore uncoordinated efforts in America to address it. In acknowledging the role of Salafi Islam as being at the core of Islamic terrorism in the West, it does nothing more than state the obvious. But the obvious is a message the Salafist organizations do not want America to hear - and CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, joined by the rest of the usual Salafi suspects, is in high squeal mode. They have drafted a letter to Senator Lieberman, in essence equating following the evidence of terrorism back to Salafi Islam as being the equal of profiling. You can read the letter here, or you can just read the response of Zhudi Jasser, Chairman of AIFD. It is so eloquent and articulate, I include it here in its entirity:

The American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) announced today that it congratulates the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on the release of its timely and insightful Report on "Violent Islamist Extremism, The Internet, and the Homegrown Terrorist Threat.

"The report lays out insightful research of the majority and minority staff and clearly lays out the reality and the vulnerability of the United States to Homegrown Islamist Terrorism citing several credible examples. "

AIFD has previously not only agreed with the conclusions of the NYPD Report upon which this Senate Committee report builds, but AIFD has also previously called upon American Muslim organizations to begin the work of countering the ideologies which feed homegrown terrorism," M. Zuhdi Jasser, M.D, founder and Chairman of the Board, The American Islamic Forum for Democracy.

The Senate Committee report cites many examples of homegrown terror threats. For example, AIFD has commented on the local Phoenix case of Hassan Abujihaad recently convicted of treason in federal court after a raid in London discovered that he was providing a terror cell with classified information on the whereabouts of his U.S. Navy ship to aid an act of terror against American troops.

The report's description of 'the path to radicalization', 'the terrorist internet campaign' and 'the virtual terrorist training camp' is an especially valuable contribution in the setting of mounting evidence of the threat of cyberjihad. The committee's investigation and identification of ways in which the Internet campaign can play a significant role- from 'pre-radicalization' to 'indoctrination' to 'jihadization' to 'the Lone Wolves' is also a particularly valuable contribution to the body of knowledge available today on this subject.

The report's description of the vulnerability of the U.S. and the potential of Islamists to "erode the effectiveness of our national defenses" should provide a particular warning to Americans to step-up our efforts at counter-radicalization.

AIFD would like to highlight the report's recognition of the need to coordinate a communications strategy against the homegrown threat- especially that flourishing on the internet. We would especially bring forward, the report's comment that "no longer is the threat just from abroad, as was the case with the attacks of 9-11; the threat is now increasingly from within, from homegrown terrorists who are inspired by violent Islamist ideology to plan and execute attacks where they live. One of the primary drivers of this new threat is the use of the internet to enlist individuals…"

AIFD is especially flabbergasted and chagrined as Americans and as Muslims by the scurrilous attacks upon this report and the Senate Committee under the leadership of Sens. Lieberman (CT) and Collins (ME) by the signatories to a letter of protest. This letter of protest does little other than expose the obstructionist techniques of the signatory organizations and their refusal to openly address necessary areas of ideological reform necessary in the Muslim community. If these Muslim organizations are unable to grasp the central ideological theological root causes of Islamist inspired terror, they are either participating in a grand denial, protecting the Islamist mindset, or simply obstructing the contest of ideas against political Islam.

Americans should ask - why isn't the work this committee completed not being done by Muslim NGO's? Rather than address the problems which reports like this address, many American Muslim and Arab organizations prefer to exaggerate their own victimization and ignore their own responsibility in countering the movements which this report fairly exposes.

It is particularly alarming that four of the largest Arab-American and Muslim-American advocacy organizations in the U.S (CAIR, MPAC, ADC, and Muslim Advocates) are discounting this valuable report and actually attempting to impede and delegitimize any honest attempt by Americans to dissect the 'real' causes and threats of homegrown Islamist terror. They cite the NYPD Report as "controversial" and "widely disputed" and "discredited" without any supporting evidence or credible sources for such an ad hominem assertion. By brushing off the N.Y.P.D. Report as "shoddy" and "now discredited" by "counter-terrorism experts and federal law enforcement officials … who have [privately} rejected the report's content and methodology" they operate in the typical Islamist fashion of using 'private' 'unnamed' unidentifiable sources with no substantive ideological counter arguments.

Where is the personal responsibility and regard for American security of these Muslim organizations that rather than focus their efforts on counterterrorism recklessly state: "so far … any potential terrorist threat involving Muslims has failed to materialize here in the United States …" They are entirely discounting the tireless and dedicated work of our intelligence and security agencies that have thwarted some thirty plus attacks against America. It seems that the facts in the report they criticize are of no use to them. If our Homeland Security had this type of lackadaisical attitude of denial, we would have most likely seen catastrophes greater than 9-11. When will Muslim organizations become part of the solution against militant Islamism rather than obstacles in any legitimate effort to study and understand its causes? To deny that political Islam and its permutations on the internet from Wahhabism to salafism to Al Qaedism to run of the mill Islamism have nothing to do with homegrown terror is patently absurd.

These four Arab and Muslim American advocacy organizations allege that there are sharp contrasts between integration and radicalization levels in the U.S. as opposed to Europe. Do they not realize how lack of integration and radicalization are gradual processes that take years to reach boiling points? While Muslims may be more integrated in the U.S., the growing examples of homegrown terrorism which continue to virally spread demonstrate that the only difference with Europe may be our trajectory toward radicalization. The end may be the same, but just delayed due to factors unique in America versus Europe.

How can studying a radical political ideology which cloaks itself in religion and which is separatist, violent, and theocratic be an act of discrimination? To us at AIFD, it's a noble necessary act of science, societal analysis, and of national security.

The N.Y.P.D. Report on Homegrown Terror before this Senate report was also a timely wake-up call to all Americans, and particularly to truly moderate Muslims who need to accept ownership and responsibility of this growing threat to Islam and to America.

Press releases and letters of complaint like that submitted by CAIR, MPAC, ADC, and Muslim Advocates on May 14, 2008, actually further the entrenchment of Islamist ideology on behalf of Muslims in the public square. Rather than distance themselves from Wahhabism, salafism, and other Islamist ideologies which feed the radicalism that this report illustrates, these organizations are acting in denial which only obstructs real reform and makes Muslims appear to be in support of these backward ideologies.

In their joint letter these organizations persist in their fear mongering, victimology, and divisiveness stating that the report is, "inaccurately labeling American Muslims as a suspect class …" when referring to the N.Y.P.D. Report's noble aims of protecting all Americans – Muslim and non-Muslim. In fact, if there is any appearance that Muslims are a suspect class, which has yet to be proven, it is most often because victim oriented organizations like CAIR, MPAC, ADC, and Muslim Advocates stay silent against the ideologies which threaten U.S. security. If Muslims were to lead the charge to reform our community and counter Islamist ideology no such label could ever stand in the court of public opinion.Rather than moving toward accepting Muslim responsibility and ownership of the issue, and becoming the Muslim frontline to terror, the focus of these four large Muslim organizations, within the Muslim community, is on stifling all criticism of political Islam, squelching all contradictory ideas, and most of all permitting no dissention. They prefer to label the critic of Islamist movements as outside what they set as the de-facto Muslim mainstream which in reality leaves them outside the American mainstream.The only area of agreement we have in their entire rant concerns American Muslim input into the Senate report. Certainly, it is also our hope that these types of investigations and reports solicit more Muslim input in order to get as many Arab and Muslim American organizations on record as possible about these central ideological issues. It is more important now than ever to get Muslim organizations on record regarding their stances on Wahhabism, Islamism, Salafism, governmental sharia and Caliphism, to name a few. "AIFD would also finally recommend that Muslim input to such investigations include anti-Islamist and anti-Wahhabi Muslims ready to ideologically counter the real sources of Islamist radicalism," adds Dr. Zuhdi Jasser.

For more information about the American Islamic Forum for Democracy please see http://www.aifdemocracy.org/null.

Well said, Dr. Jasser. Dr. Jasser's cause is an extremely worthy one, to take back his religion. When you hear someone ask "where are the moderate Muslims," point them to Dr. Jasser and ask them to give their full support, both in time and money. Better to give one's dollars to Dr. Jasser than to have it recycled through the oil wells of Saudi Arabia only to come back in support of CAIR and the cause of Salafi triumphalism.

Read More...

Summary only...

Fighting Terrorism & Extremism In UK Hits A Roadblock

Britian has a severe problem with radical Wahhabi / Salafi / Deobandi Islamists among its Muslim population. Moreover, a report today discusses how radical Islamists have deeply infiltrated the British government and jobs dealing with critical infrastructure. The Labour government refuses to face the larger problem of radical Islam directly, and instead has concentrated on using its criminal laws to proactively prevent terrorism. But that approach received a severe blow today in a decision by the British Court of Appeal. Britain should consider criminalizing the possession of Salafi-Jihadist literature, an act that can be justified using the logic of the child pornography laws.



I have written before that Britain has an extensive problem with its fastest growing demographic, its Muslim population:

Britain has the most radicalized Muslim population west of the Danube. The reasons for that are fourfold. The UK is being innundated with 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.”

Read the post. An article in today's Daily Mail further highlights the scope of that problem.

Islamist extremists have infiltrated Government and key public utilities to pass sensitive information to terrorists, the security services have warned.

. . . The development is detailed in intelligence reports circulated to the Home Office, police and Whitehall officials.

. . . Details of the threat emerged months after the Daily Mail revealed fears that Scotland Yard has been infiltrated by individuals linked to extremist groups including Al Qaeda.

Several police officers and civilian staff are being monitored amid claims they are long-term sleepers trying to gain sensitive information of use to terrorists.

Some are even believed to have attended terror training camps in Pakistan or Afghanistan.

. . . MI5 has warned in the past that suspects with "strong links" to Osama bin Laden have tried to join the British security services and, in January last year, exiled radical Omar Bakri claimed that Islamist extremists were infiltrating the police and other public sector organisations.

College teachers must be "vigilant" in tackling the threat posed by violent extremists who attempt to recruit teenage students to terrorism, ministers said yesterday.

Al Qaeda supporters seek to "groom" impressionable young people and staff should be prepared to tell the police if they have concerns, draft Government guidance said.

The guidance, published for consultation, is aimed at colleges teaching students aged 14 and over, including more than 700,000 aged 16 to 18, and follows similar guidelines for universities. . . .

Read the entire article.

How then, does Britain attempt to stem this tide of radical Islam? Because of its multicultural and socialist ethos, the Labour government refuses to take on the problem directly. Indeed, as I wrote two weeks ago, the Labour government has gone in the opposite direction, burying its head in the sand. Arguably the most effective way to deal with this scourge would be to educate everyone in Britain as to the identity, nature, goals and methods of that which constitutes "radical Islam." It would greatly strengthen the hand of the true "moderate" Muslims and it would bring to bear a free and democratic state's strongest weapons - the scrutiny and opinion of the general public, non-Muslim and Muslim alike. Educated people can bring great pressure to bear against the entire radicalization process, not just the final evolutionary step of radicalization - i.e, an act of terrorism.

One very recent and crystal clear example of the power of that approach - and the wages of ignorance - is the case of Hesham Islam, about which I blogged here. Hesham Islam was a member of the radical Muslim Brotherhood. He also held a sensitive position in the government and took actions that supported the radical agenda. He was exposed by knowledgable members of the public and will be resigning from his post.

But educating the public is simply beyond consideration for the multiculturalists running Britain today. Thus the Labour government is limited to doing what it can under the criminal law. The problem with using criminal law to deal with radical Islam is that criminal law is basically reactive, not proactive. Trying to use criminal law in a free society to proactively attack radical Islam before it culminates in a terrorist act runs into concerns of freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and so on. And that is precisely the situation the Labour government finds itself in today.

Britian's primary legal tool in the fight against terrorism is the Anti-Terror Act of 2000. Until today, the provisions of that act were interpreted to allow prosecution for the possession of terrorist literature if it could be shown that such was likely to contribute to a terrorist act. For example, not long ago, the so called Lyrical Terrorist, a young British Muslim woman, was convicted for collecting articles "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism". She was a promoter of the jihadi philosopy, penning prose supporting Osama Bin Laden, martyrdom and describing beheadings. In her house, she was found with an al Qaeda manual and the Mujahadeen Poisons Handbook. She never took an overt act towards actually committing an act of terrorism.

But then today there was an appeals court decision overturning the conviction of several young men who had been found in possession of jihadi sermons and literature. According to the evidence at trial, the Judge said that "the men were preparing to train in Pakistan and then fight in Afghanistan against its allies, which included British soldiers." One boy who left home to join the others for this junket left his parents a letter spelling out this intention.

The defense was two part. One argument was that the boys were merely researching their religion and the mere possession of jihadi literature could not be interpreted to mean that they intended to commit a terrorist act. The second argument was that the terms of the law should be construed very narrowly to require a direct link between the terrorist literature and the specific act of terrorism alleged. So for example, a person could not be convicted under this law if the literature in their possession did not specify the means of the particular terrorist attack under prosecution.

The law at issue, Section 57 of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2000 reads:

A person commits an offence if he possesses an article in circumstances which give rise to a reasonable suspicion that his possession is for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism”.

It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that his possession of the article was not for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism.

The Court accepted both arguments in overturning the convictions:

“We have concluded that, if section 57 is to have the certainty of meaning that the law requires, it must be interpreted in a way that requires a direct connection between the object possessed and the act of terrorism."

He added: “We do not consider that it was made plain to the jury, whether by the prosecution or by the Recorder, that the case that the appellants had to face was that they possessed the extremist material for use in the future to incite the commission of terrorist acts.

“We doubt whether the evidence supported such a case.”

. . . Mr Malik’s solicitor, Saghir Hussein, said later: “This is a landmark judgment in a test case over the innocent possession of materials, including books and speech.

. . . Imran Khan, solicitor for Mr Zafar, said that his client was "over the moon" at the ruling. Young Muslims seeking to explore the world of their religion should no longer be victimised, he said.

He said that the Government should look carefully at the judgment and reconsider the current legislation. “This is a good judgment for the Muslim community and the community at large,” he said.

Read the entire article. This is a good judgment only for the radical Muslims who dream of imposing Sharia law over Britain. The Court gave this law an incredibly narrow interpretation that does not seem to comport with the language of the statute. In any event, it has largely gutted Britain's ability to tackle this problem proactively.

What Britain should do is criminalize the possession of - or accessing of - jihadist literature. By that, I mean literature that "justifies, legitimizes, encourages, or supports violence against anything kufr, or un-Islamic, including the West, its citizens, its allies, or other Muslims whose opinions are contrary to the extremist agenda." Such literature plays a clear and major role in the radicalization process. The NYPD documented this in their report, Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat. As the NYPD notes:

Radicalization in the West is, first and foremost, driven by . . . Jihadi-Salafi Ideology.

What motivates young men and women, born or living in the West, to carry out “autonomous jihad” via acts of terrorism against their host countries? The answer is ideology. Ideology is the bedrock and catalyst for radicalization. It defines the conflict, guides movements, identifies the issues, drives recruitment, and is the basis for action. In many cases, ideology also determines target selection and informs what will be done and how it will be carried out.

The religious/political ideology responsible for driving this radicalization process is called jihadist or jihadi-Salafi ideology and it has served as the inspiration for all or nearly all of the homegrown groups including the Madrid 2004 bombers, the Hofstad Group, London’s 7/7 bombers, the Australians arrested as part of Operation Pendennis in 2005 and the Toronto 18, arrested in June 2006.

With that in mind, Britain could justify the criminalization of possessing or accessing jihadi literature using the same logic as that undergirding the criminalization of child pornography.

The justification for the child pornography laws are that they are necessary to protect children unable to protect themselves and who are abused in the process of making the porn. The prosecution of those people accessing child pornography is done on the grounds that they are promoting the scourge by their involvement, whether they actually take part in an act of child molestation themselves or not.

One could make a legitimate argument that no one is abused by the simple process of the making or transmission of Salafi - Jihadi literature. Nonetheless, Salafi and Khomeinist terrorist acts have been responsible for untold deaths and acts of torture, brutality and mayhem both in the Middle East and in every Western country. The objects of these acts of violence are usually innocents unable to defend themselves from the barbaric attacks and they suffer far worse than sexual exploitation. Protecting these victims of Salafi Jihadi violence is every bit as justified as the protection of children in logic of child pornography laws. And given the known connection between exposure to jihadist literature and the process of radicalization, criminalizing the mere access to this scourge serves much the same purpose as does criminalizing the accessing of child pornography.

With such a law, Britain could act proactively against the rise and spread of radicalism in the UK. Given the scope of Britain's problems, it might be the last hope to actually deal with this growing scourge before the next 7/7.

Read More...

Summary only...

"The Civilized World Ought To Recognize The Immense Danger That Salafi Islam Poses"

The title of this post is a quote from Dr. Tawfiq Hamid. Dr. Hamid is a Cairo born physician who eventually became a practitioner of Saudi Arabia's Wahhabi / Salafi Islam, a jihadist, and a member of the terrorist organization Jamaah Islamiyah (JI). JI was an organization led by Ayman al-Zawahiri that later merged with al Qaeda as Zawahiri became Osama bin Laden's executive officer. What follows is Dr. Hamid's autobiographical story. It is a condemnation of Saudi Arabia's brand of Islam being exported across the world today with billions of petrodollars. And it chronicles Dr. Hamid's own belief that the Koran can and should be reinterpreted to promote equality and non-violence. I have mentioned Dr. Hamid several times before as one of those brave men who seeks to evolve his religion at great personal risk. And here is his story:

What occupies the mind of a jihad-driven Muslim? How is such fervor planted in young and impressionable believers? Where does it originate? How did I - once an innocent child who grew up in a liberal, moderate and educated household - find myself a member of a radical Islamic group? These questions go to the root of Islamic violence and must be addressed if free societies are to combat radical Islam. To further this aim, I will explore the psychological development of a jihadi's mind through my own firsthand experience as a former member of a Muslim terrorist organization.

I was born in Cairo to a secular Muslim family. My father was an orthopedic surgeon and an agnostic at heart; my mother was a French teacher and a liberal. Both considered Islam to be, primarily, an integral part of our culture. With the exception of my father, we would fast on Ramadan. Even though my father was not religious, he understood our need to fit into the community and never forced his secular views on us. He espoused diverse philosophical ideas but encouraged us to follow our own convictions. Most importantly, he taught my brother and me to think critically rather than to learn by rote.

I never had any doubt, however, that we were Muslim - that Allah was our creator, Muhammad his messenger and the Koran our book. I believed that if I performed good deeds, I would be admitted to paradise where I could satisfy all my personal desires. I also knew, alternatively, that my transgressions would be punished by eternal torture in hell. I absorbed these beliefs largely from the surrounding environment rather than from my parents; they were shared by most children around me.

. . . When I was nine, I learned the following Koranic verse during one of our Arabic lessons: "But do not think of those that have been slain in God's cause as dead. Nay, they are alive! With their sustainer have they their sustenance. They are very happy with the reward they received from Allah [for dying as a shahid] and they rejoice for the sake of those who have not joined them [i.e., have not yet died for Allah]" (Koran 3:169-70).

It was the first time I was exposed to the concept of shahid (martyr), and naturally, I began to dream of becoming one. The thought of entering paradise very much appealed to me. There I could eat all the lollipops and chocolates I wanted, or play all day without anyone telling me to study.

What made the concept of shahid even more attractive was its power to quell the fear I experienced as a young boy - for we were taught that if we were not good Muslims (especially if we did not pray five times a day), a "bald snake" would attack us in the grave. The idea of dying as a martyr provided a perfect escape from the frightening anguish of eternal punishment. Dying as a shahid, in fact, was the only deed that fully guaranteed paradise after death.

In secondary school I watched films about the early Islamic conquest. These films promoted the notion that "true" Muslims were devoted to aggressive jihad. While jihadi seeds were thereby planted in my mind, they did not yet seriously influence my personality or behavior. . . In my early years of high school, I was also - as many teenagers are - preoccupied with sex and hobbies. A variety of religious and cultural constraints made it virtually impossible to experience sexual activity, however.

During my last year of high school, I began to ponder seriously the concept of God while reading about the molecular structure of DNA in a biology book.

These thoughts prompted me to learn more about Islam and to devote myself to serving Allah. I remember one particularly defining moment in an Arabic language class when I was sitting beside a Christian friend named Nagi Anton. I was reading a book entitled Alshaykhan by Taha Hussein that cited the Prophet Muhammad's words: "I have been ordered by Allah to fight and kill all people [non-Muslims] until they say, 'No God except Allah.'" Following the reading of this Hadith, I decisively turned toward Nagi and said to him, "If we are to apply Islam correctly, we should apply this Hadith to you." At that moment I suddenly started to view Nagi as an enemy rather than as a longtime friend.

What further hardened my attitude on this matter was the advice I received from many dedicated Muslim fellow students, who warned me against befriending Christians. They based their counsel on the following verse: "O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends: They are but friends to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them [for friendship] is of them [an infidel]. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust" (Koran 5:51).

In view of this verse and the previous one, I felt obliged as a Muslim to limit my relationships with my Christian friends. The love and friendship I once felt for them had been transformed into disrespect, merely because I wished to obey the commandments of my religion. The seductive ideas of my religious studies had diluted the influence of my secular upbringing. By restricting my contact with Christians, I felt that I was doing a great deed to satisfy Allah.

My high test scores enabled me to gain admission to the medical school at Cairo University in the late 1970s. At the time Islamism was proliferating rapidly. This was due in part to the money and textbooks Saudi Arabia's Wahhabi sect donated to promote Salafi Islam, but, more importantly, Islamism gained adherents because Egyptians attributed the growing wealth of Saudi Arabia to its strict practice of Salafism. We enviously lamented, "Look how Allah has blessed the Saudis with money and oil because they apply Shari'a." We believed that our economic problems would be solved if we did the same - just as Allah had blessed the Saudis, He would bless us.

At medical school I met members of Jamaah Islamiyah, an Islamic organization then approved by both the Egyptian government and the university, though later classified as a terrorist organization. Jamaah built a small prayer room in our medical school that later developed into a mosque with an associated library. The mosque was behind the physiology and biochemistry departments, and members of Jamaah came there daily before science classes to lecture us on Islam. They warned us about the punishments awaiting us after death if we did not follow Islam strictly and were effective in advancing Islamism among many of the students, including me.

Our fear of being punished after death was exacerbated by our work in the cadaver room, where we dissected dead bodies. Seeing death regularly during anatomy and physiology courses made us feel that the life of this world was meaningless compared to "real" life after death. Jamaah Islamiyah impressed that idea on us by citing the following Koranic verse: "Those who desire the life of the present and its glitter, to them we shall pay [the price of] their deeds therein, without diminution... [yet] it is they who, in the life to come, shall have nothing but the fire - for in vain shall be all good things that they have done in this [world], and worthless all that they ever did" (Koran 11:15-16). Indeed, the preachers used a range of verses to warn those who did not follow Muhammad and Islam rigorously that they would suffer in hell forever.

. . . The rising power of Jamaah Islamiyah inside the medical school was another critical factor in fostering my religious zealotry and that of my fellow students. Once Jamaah Islamiyah became influential, it prohibited such social events as listening to music, which it deemed un-Islamic. Female students were separated; they were not allowed to sit with males. Students were afraid to defy the group's hostile decrees. Its control reached the point where Christian professors were threatened. I will never forget when they attacked an anatomy professor, Dr. Edward, because he asked Jamaah leaders to end their "mandatory" daily sermon so that he could start his anatomy class. Jamaah Islamiyah's control of our medical school gradually limited our rights. Its members exploited the lack of restrictions on their conduct to deprive everybody else of freedom.

During my first year of medical school, a Jamaah member named Muchtar Muchtar invited me to join the organization. Muchtar was in his fourth year, and Jamaah had given him the title amir (prince or caliph) - a designation taken from early Islamic writings that is associated with the Islamic caliphate or amir almomenin (prince of the believers). I accepted his invitation, and we walked together to Jamaah's mosque for noon prayers. On the way there Muchtar emphasized the central importance in Islam of the concept of al-fikr kufr, the idea that the very act of thinking (fikr) makes one become an infidel (kufr). (In Arabic both words are derived from the same three root letters but have different meanings.) He told me, "Your brain is just like a donkey [a symbol of inferiority in the Arab culture] that can get you only to the palace door of the king [Allah]. To enter the palace once you have reached the door, you should leave the donkey [your inferior mind] outside." By this parable, Muchtar meant that a truly dedicated Muslim no longer thinks but automatically obeys the teachings of Islam.

Initially, I thought that I would experience an ordinary prayer session like those in other mosques. But before the prayers began, the participants were required to stand shoulder to shoulder and foot to foot. The leading cleric, Muhammad Omar, personally checked our arrangement for 15 minutes to make sure that there were no gaps between our shoulders or feet. The reason for this exercise became apparent when Omar recited the following verse: "Truly Allah loves those who fight in His cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure" (Koran 61:4). This militaristic attitude during prayers was the first step in preparing me for the concept of jihad against "the enemies of Allah," the non-Muslims.

Following the prayers, members of Jamaah welcomed me and introduced me to a "brother" named Magdi al-Mahdi, who advised me to start reading Salafi books. I followed his advice and became immersed in those texts. After a few months of listening to Jamaah's belligerent religious sermons and reading the materials they recommended, my personality was utterly transformed. I started to grow my beard. I stopped smiling and telling jokes. I adopted a serious look at all times and became very judgmental toward others. Bitter debates with my family ensued. My behavioral and intellectual transformation greatly alarmed my father. My mother was also concerned; she said that the Koran should be understood in a more moderate manner and advised me to stop reading Salafi materials.

Salafi teachings expressly forbid acting on sexual desire. They prohibit a man from touching any woman or even looking at one. Speaking to a woman on a personal level is not permitted. To be alone with a woman without relatives present, it is believed, would "invite Satan to be the third person." Women became for members of Jamaah, therefore, forbidden creatures. But while relations with women were strictly proscribed, the erotic passages in Salafi writings simultaneously aroused in us a powerful sexual desire. This dilemma led us to conclude that dying for Allah provided our only hope for satisfying our lust, because that lust could be satisfied only in paradise. It is not surprising that Osama bin Laden and other terrorist leaders sent letters to their suicide murderers that described to them the hur, or white ladies awaiting them in paradise.

In addition to its severe prohibitions governing sexual conduct, Salafi Islam also strictly limits most artistic expression, which it considers to be satanic. Music involving string instruments is haram (forbidden). Songs, especially romantic ones, are prohibited as well. It is haram to listen to a woman's singing voice. Even drawing is restricted. Such harsh prohibitions suppressed my ability to appreciate beauty and prepared my mind to accept the inhuman elements in Salafi doctrine. By way of contrast, it is interesting to note that Sufi Muslims enjoy music, singing and dancing, and they rarely, if ever, engage in terrorism.

Unfortunately, I followed Salafi Islam. My hatred toward non-Muslims increased dramatically, and jihadi doctrine became second nature to me. My goal of being a physician and healing the sick grew tainted, infected by my strong wish to subjugate non-Muslims and impose Shari'a.

At one afternoon prayer session, an imam I had never met before gave a sermon. He was one of the fiercest speakers I had ever heard. His passion for jihad was astonishing. He advocated complete Islamic dominance, urging us to pursue jihad against non-Muslims and subdue them to Shari'a - the duty of every true Muslim. His rhetoric inspired us to engage in war against the infidels, the enemies of Allah. He particularly condemned the West for the freedom of its women. He hated the fact that Western women were permitted to wear what they pleased, to work and to have the same opportunities as men.

He dreamt of forcing the West to conform to a Taliban-style system in which women were obliged to wear the Islamic hijab, were legally beaten by men to discipline them and were stoned to death for extramarital sex. After the imam's speech my friend, Tariq Abdul-Muhsin, asked me if I knew this speaker. When I said I did not, Tariq told me that he was Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri and, because I was a new member of Jamaah, offered to introduce us.

Zawahiri was exceptionally bright, one of the top postgraduate students in the medical school. We called him by his title and first name - Dr. Ayman.

He came from a well-known, highly-educated and wealthy family. As was customary for Jamaah members, he wore a beard and dressed occasionally in the Pakistani style of the Taliban. He disapproved of Egypt's secular government; he wanted Egypt to follow Shari'a law and Coptic Christians to be made dhimmis - second-class citizens submissive to Islam. To disparage secular Arab governments, he cited the following verse: "For they who do not judge in accordance with what God has bestowed from on high are, indeed, infidels" (Koran 5:44).

When I met him, Zawahiri welcomed me affectionately. He spoke quietly, gazing intently at me through his thick glasses. With a serious expression he placed his hand on my shoulder and said, "Young Muslims like you are the hope for the future return of khilafa [caliphate or Islamic global dominance]." I felt a great sense of gratitude and honor. I wanted to please him by contributing to his "noble" cause. Throughout my membership in Jamaah, I would meet with Zawahiri on six more occasions. He did not have much time to spare, however, for he was deeply involved in several Islamist organizations.

One of Zawahiri's significant achievements was to personalize jihad - that is, to have transformed it from a responsibility of the umma, the Islamic collective, to a duty of Muslim individuals. His goal is to spread the empire of Islam through the actions of individual radical Muslims, each of whom is incited to wage a personal jihad. This allows young Muslims to carry out suicide bombings without the endorsement of the collective body.

Zawahiri and his fellow jihadis base their philosophy on the verse that states, "Then fight in Allah's cause - you are held responsible only for yourself - and rouse the believers [to fight]" (Koran 4:84).

Within several months I was invited to travel to Afghanistan to join other young Muslims in training for jihad. It was fairly common to be recruited after the end of Friday prayers. Volunteering to train in Afghanistan was very simple: I only needed to register my name in certain mosques, and organizers would carry out all the logistical and financial arrangements. I was excited to go because I believed that I would be fulfilling "the command of Allah" to wage jihad. It seemed the easiest way to guarantee my salvation in the afterlife and to attain my purpose in life.

We viewed both the Soviets and the Americans as enemies. The Soviets were considered infidels because they did not believe in the existence of God, while the Americans did not follow Islam. Although we planned to fight the Soviets first, our ultimate objective was to destroy the United States - the greatest symbol of the infidel's freedom. My personal dream was to be an Islamic warrior, to kill the enemies of Islam, to smite their necks in accordance with the Koranic verse that read, "When ye meet the unbelievers smite at their necks" (Koran 47:4).

We considered the Prophet Muhammad to be our role model. The Koran commanded us to follow in his footsteps: "Ye have indeed in the messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern [of conduct] for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the final day, and who engages much in the praise of Allah" (Koran 33:21).

Salafi Islamic texts demonstrate Muhammad's uncompromising nature. They encourage devout Muslims to emulate the prophet's deeds and to accept and defend his actions in even the harshest passages. When confronted by outsiders, however, these same Muslims insist that such stories are misinterpreted because they are taken out of context - though they rarely, if ever, provide the context. This self-protective denial effectively paralyzes further criticism by the West. Meanwhile, these texts are taught and understood in a very literal way by both the young members of Jamaah and many other Muslims.

I was not allowed to question any established teaching of Salafi ideology. The Salafists consider any criticism of Islamic texts as redda (apostasy) punishable by death and eternal damnation. Out of simple fear, then, I attempted to idolize Muhammad and to emulate him as he is portrayed in the Sunna. The fear of such harsh punishment deters most other Muslims from criticizing Salafi teaching as well.

I increasingly felt at ease with death because I believed that I would either defeat the infidels on earth or enjoy paradise in the afterlife.

Jihad against non-Muslims seemed to me to be a win-win situation. The following verse, commonly cited by Jamaah members, validated my duty to die for Allah: "Allah has purchased the believers, their lives and their goods. For them [in return] is the garden [of paradise]. They fight in Allah's cause, and they slay and are slain; they kill and are killed... it [paradise] is the promise of Allah to them" (Koran 9:111).

I passed through three psychological stages to reach this level of comfort with death: hatred of non-Muslims or dissenting Muslims, suppression of my conscience and acceptance of violence in the service of Allah. Salafi religious indoctrination played a major role in this process. Salafists promoted our hatred for non-Muslims by emphasizing the Koranic verse that read, "Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah and the last day loving those who resist [i.e. do not follow] Allah and His messenger" (Koran 58:22).

Salafi writings also helped me to suppress my conscience by holding that many activities I had considered to be immoral were, instead, halal - that is, allowed by Allah and the prophet. My conscience would normally reject polygamy, for example, because of the severe psychological pain it would cause my future wife. Salafi teaching encourages polygamy, however, permitting up to four wives as halal: "Marry women of your choice, two or three or four" (Koran 4:3). I accepted such ideas - ideas that contradicted my moral outlook - because I came to believe that we cannot negotiate with God about his commandments: "He cannot be questioned for His acts, but they will be questioned [for theirs]" (Koran 21:23).

Once I was able to suppress my conscience, I was open to accepting violence without guilt - the third psychological stage. One Salafi method of generating this crucial attitude is to encourage violence against women, a first step in developing a brutal mentality. Salafists emphasize the following text: "Men are superior to women because Allah has given them more preference than to women, and because they financially support them. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part you fear that they do not obey you, admonish them, avoid making sex with them [as a form of punishment], and beat them; but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means [of annoyance]: For Allah is most high, great [above you all]" (Koran 4:34).

A mind that accepts violence against women is much more likely to be comfortable murdering hated infidels and responding to the verse that reads: "O prophet, strive hard [fight] against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be harsh with them. Their abode is hell, an evil refuge indeed" (Koran 9:73). It is clear that the three psychological stages in Salafism that I have described are deeply interconnected.

. . . It is unfortunate and disastrous that the theological underpinnings of Salafism are both powerful and prevalent in the approved, traditional Islamic books. These texts teach, moreover, that the Koran's later, more violent passages abrogate its earlier, peaceful ones. This concept, called nasikh wa-l-mansukh, has effectively diminished the influence of the peaceful verses.

When I discussed the implications of the violent passages with a few Sufi clergy, they suggested that one "should be good and peaceful to all mankind" and that "the understanding of the violent verses will be clarified on the day of judgment." These views were not based on rigorous Islamic eschatology, however, or on an objective analysis of the religious books.

They merely embodied a desired perception of Islam. My secular parents offered the same tolerant perspective, insisting that Islam is a religion of peace. But for me both responses were unsatisfactory because they suffered from the same problem - they were not theologically grounded. My difficulty was not resolved, and I continued to live with a complex dilemma.

My crisis of conscience was mostly internal, but I did share some of my doubts with my mother. On one occasion a fellow medical student named Abdul Latif Haseeb started a conversation with me about religion. We discussed whether it was right to kill apostates or stone women to death, as well as whether Muhammad could be considered a pedophile because he married the seven-year-old Aisha. We weighed the merits of declaring war on non-Muslims to spread Islam and agreed that it should be rejected because it is condoned only by supplemental Salafi books rather than by the Koran itself.

Haseeb belonged to a sect known as Koranist, which strictly adhered to the teachings of the Koran but rejected other writings. This opened my eyes. I was impressed that my new friend disagreed with many Salafi teachings. I also realized that Haseeb was not alone in his beliefs; his father and several mutual acquaintances shared the same ideas. They relied on new interpretations of the Koran and spurned the traditional Salafi textbooks.

They accepted and tolerated different views within Islam and, in most circumstances, had a peaceful analysis of the verses.

Haseeb invited me to join the sect, and I accepted his invitation in order to examine the Koranists' ideas more thoroughly. Though not without problems, the sect possessed at least some rigor and was more moderate than Salafism. It provided me with a protected sanctuary that allowed me to keep my identity as a Muslim while giving me the flexibility to reinterpret Koranic verses in a nonviolent way. The group counted among its members the liberal peace activist Mahmoud Mohamed Taha, whom I met on one occasion.

Mahmoud was later murdered in Sudan by exponents of Salafi doctrine for the crime of "apostasy" because his teaching clashed with theirs. I eventually built on the Koranists' ideas in developing a fresh understanding of the Koran that is compatible with the values of human rights and modernity.

By immersing myself in Salafi ideology, I was better able to judge the impact of its violent tenets on the minds of its followers. Among the more appalling notions it supports are the enslavement and rape of female war prisoners and the beating of women to discipline them. It permits polygamy and pedophilia. It refers to Jews as "pigs and monkeys" and exhorts believers to kill them before the end of days: Say: "Shall I tell you who, in the sight of God, deserves a yet worse retribution than these? Those [the Jews] whom God has rejected and whom He has condemned, and whom He has turned into monkeys and pigs because they worshiped the powers of evil: these are yet worse in station, and farther astray from the right path [than the mockers]" (Koran 5:60). Homosexuals are to be killed as well; to cite one of many examples, on July 19, 2000, two gay teenagers were hanged in Iran for no other crime than being gay.

These doctrines are not taken out of context, as many apologists for Islamism argue: They are central to the faith and ethics of millions of Muslims, and are currently being taught as part of the standard curriculum in many Islamic educational systems in the Middle East as well in the West.

Moreover, there is no single approved Islamic textbook that contradicts or provides an alternative to the passages I have cited. It has thus become clear to me that Salafi ideology is what is largely responsible for the so-called "clash of civilizations." Consequently, I have chosen to combat Salafism by exposing it and by providing an alternative, peaceful and theologically rigorous interpretation of the Koran.

My reformist approach naturally challenges well-established Salafi tenets, and leads Muslims who follow Salafi Islam to reject me. Why? I have not altered the Koran itself. My system is simply one of inline commentary, in which dangerous passages are flagged and reinterpreted to be nonviolent. I have added these inline interpretations to key Koranic passages and examples of the commentary are freely and easily available.

For over 15 years I have tried to preach my views in mosques in the Middle East, as well as to my local community in the West, but have faced the unwavering hostility of most Salafi Muslims in both regions. Muslims who live in the West - who insist to outsiders that Islam is a "religion of peace" and who enjoy freedom of expression, which they demand from their Western hosts - have threatened me with murder and arson. I have had to choose between accepting violent Salafi views and being rejected by the overwhelming majority of my fellow Muslims.

Even though radical Islam began to reassert itself in the 1970s, it did not become widely pervasive until quite recently. In the early 1990s many people were intrigued by my ideas, and only a few militants threatened me with violence. One day, after I gave a peaceful Friday sermon, I walked home with a friend. To my surprise, several men ran up and threw stones at us from behind to intimidate me from returning and speaking in their mosques. As time has passed, this violent and threatening behavior has become more common: Dr. Wafa Sultan in the US, Abdul Fatah in Egypt and many others have received and continue to receive death threats. Recently, Dr. Nawal al-Sadawi, a liberal Muslim thinker and women's rights activist, was forced to flee Egypt because of her public statements. Dr. Rashad Khalifa was murdered in the United States after he published his own reinterpretation of the Koran which was less violent than was traditional.

In Egypt, Dr. Faraq Fuddah was shot to death after publishing condemnations of Jihadists. Egyptian Nobel Prize winner Najib Mahfouz was stabbed in the neck for writing his novel, Awlad Haretna, perceived by Salafists as blasphemous. The list goes on. Still, the majority of members in many Muslim communities have adopted the violent teachings of the Islamists.

Salafi indoctrination operates through written words and careful coaching. It is enormously seductive. It rapidly changed me into a jihadi. Salafi sacred texts exert a powerful influence on millions of Muslim followers throughout the world, and terrorism is only one symptom of the Salafi disease. Salafi doctrine, which is at the root of the West's confrontation with Islamism, poses an existential threat to us all - including Muslims.

Indeed, Salafism robs young Muslims of their soul, it turns Western communities against them, and it can end in civil war as Muslims attempt to implement shari'a in their host countries. A peaceful interpretation of Islam is possible, but the Salafi establishment is currently blocking moderate theological reform. The civilized world ought to recognize the immense danger that Salafi Islam poses; it must become informed, courageous and united if it is to protect both a generation of young Muslims and the rest of humanity from the disastrous consequences of this militant ideology.

Read the article.

Read More...

Summary only...