Jihad Watch

The thoroughly mendacious Zahra Billoo of Hamas-linked CAIR says that it's a "misconception" that jihad means "armed struggle or holy war." She doesn't bother to explain why so many Muslims worldwide every day buy into this "misconception."

Jihad in Arabic does indeed mean “struggle,” and the Arabic word carries as many connotations as the English one. One may struggle to lose weight or to exercise regularly, and the same word is used for great struggles, such as those against Nazism and Communism. The Islamic Republic of Iran has a Department of Agricultural Jihad, which has nothing to do with blowing up farm implements, but merely concerns itself with the struggle to increase crop yields.

However, the principal meaning of jihad throughout Islamic history and in Islamic law is armed struggle against unbelievers to subjugate them as inferiors under the rule of Sharia. The four schools of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence are clear about jihad:

Shafi'i school: A Shafi'i manual of Islamic law that was certified in 1991 by the clerics at Al-Azhar University, one of the leading authorities in the Islamic world, as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy, stipulates about jihad that “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians...until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It adds a comment by Sheikh Nuh ‘Ali Salman, a Jordanian expert on Islamic jurisprudence: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)...while remaining in their ancestral religions.” ('Umdat al-Salik, o9.8).

Of course, there is no caliph today, and hence the oft-repeated claim that Osama et al are waging jihad illegitimately, as no state authority has authorized their jihad. But they explain their actions in terms of defensive jihad, which needs no state authority to call it, and becomes "obligatory for everyone" ('Umdat al-Salik, o9.3) if a Muslim land is attacked. The end of the defensive jihad, however, is not peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims as equals: 'Umdat al-Salik specifies that the warfare against non-Muslims must continue until "the final descent of Jesus." After that, "nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus' descent" (o9.8).

Hanafi school: A Hanafi manual of Islamic law repeats the same injunctions. It insists that people must be called to embrace Islam before being fought, “because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith.” It emphasizes that jihad must not be waged for economic gain, but solely for religious reasons: from the call to Islam “the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war.”

However, “if the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax [jizya], it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.” (Al-Hidayah, II.140)

Maliki school: Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”

Hanbali school: The great medieval theorist of what is commonly known today as radical or fundamentalist Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, 1263-1328), was a Hanbali jurist. He directed that “since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.”

Majid Khadduri was an Iraqi scholar of Islamic law of international renown. In his book War and Peace in the Law of Islam, which was published in 1955 and remains one of the most lucid and illuminating works on the subject, Khadduri says this about jihad:

The state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state. The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God's law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world....The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state. (P. 51)

Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Assistant Professor on the Faculty of Shari'ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad. In his 1994 book The Methodology of Ijtihad, he quotes the twelfth century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd: "Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book...is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah." Nyazee concludes: "This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation" of non-Muslims.

"SF buses help teach what 'jihad' really means," by Ama Daetz for ABC7 News, January 3 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- Buses in San Francisco are carrying messages of jihad, but it's not what you might think. It's a campaign to educate residents about the real meaning of the word. It's a campaign that began in Chicago and has now reached the Bay Area.

One statement on the side of a Muni bus reads: "My jihad is to stay fit despite my busy schedule. What's yours?"

It's part of an educational campaign created by CAIR -- the Council on American-Islamic Relations. The group has put 35 ads on buses rolling through the streets of San Francisco.

"The intention of the campaign is to educate our fellow Americans about what the word jihad means," said Zahra Billoo, the executive director of the Bay Area office for the Council on American-Islamic Relations. She said, "A common misconception of the word jihad is that it means armed struggle or holy war and that is something that has been perpetrated by many who've made careers out of pushing anti-Muslim sentiment."

We asked some Muni riders if they knew the definition of jihad. Most of the answers we got were "a religious war" and "a holy war".

Miriam Webster also defines it as a holy war, but it lists a second definition -- one that Billoo says is much more appropriate.

"The proper meaning of jihad as many of us frequently describe it is to struggle. And that's it. For many, that is anything from building relationships with their neighbors to making it to work on time or doing better on their diets," said Billoo.

It's a meaning many don't know.

"I didn't know the definition either. It's interesting to be educated on it," said one Muni rider.

But Muni rider Nicholas Thomas doesn't know how big an impact the ads will make. He said, "I think for so long it's been ingrained in people's heads that it has such negative connotation, that I think that's sort of rooted in people and that for that idea to change, it would probably take a little bit more than just people talking about it."

Yes, it would take peaceful Muslims taking some real action against their coreligionists who further violent jihad. Meanwhile, the ads we have developed telling the truth about jihad are still awaiting approval in Chicago -- doubtless dhimmi officials are trying to figure out a way to block them:

The Leftist/jihadist alliance becomes official. I discuss it at FrontPage today:

Al Gore has sold his failing Current TV network to Al Jazeera, which plans to rename it Al Jazeera America – and so the Leftist/jihadist alliance is now official. While the American Left has been cooperating and collaborating with forces of the global jihad and Islamic supremacism for years, now their alliance is open and indisputable. Gore is even slated for a spot on Al Jazeera America’s advisory board.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Current TV’s co-founder and CEO, Joel Hyatt, explained that Al Jazeera was a perfect fit for the sale. Al Jazeera, he said, “was founded with the same goals we had for Current.” Among those goals were “to give voice to those whose voices are not typically heard” and “to speak truth to power.”

Some of the voices that would not typically have been heard but for Al Jazeera have included some of the world’s foremost jihad terrorists. Pamela Geller has noted that Al Jazeera has “for years been the recipient of numerous Al Qaeda videos featuring bin Laden, Zawahiri, and American traitor Adam Gadahn. Yet they never seem to be able to trace where these videos are coming from. They have repeatedly been set up at the point of attack right before a bomb went off, so that they could take the picture of the slaughtered, dismembered bodies.” What’s more, “Al Jazeera is the leading terrorist propaganda organization in the world. Jihad murder mastermind Anwar al-Awlaki has praised Al Jazeera, and several years ago one of its most prominent reporters was arrested on terror charges.”

Judea Pearl, father of the journalist Daniel Pearl who was murdered by jihadists in Pakistan, has dubbed Al Jazeera “the most powerful voice of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

This is the organization that Joel Hyatt says has the “same goals we had for Current.” Meanwhile, another group had also approached Current with an offer to buy the struggling network, but was refused – according to the Journal, they were “told on initial calls that [Current] wouldn’t sell to someone they weren’t ideologically in line with.” A Current official explained that “the legacy of who the network goes to is important to us and we are sensitive to networks not aligned with our point of view.”

The group that was not ideologically in line with Current was Glenn Beck’s media company, The Blaze, which, the Journal said, “would have replaced Current programming with The Blaze programming.”

So a Qatari network that consistently presents a favorable view of jihad terrorists who are sworn enemies of the United States is “ideologically in line” with Al Gore’s network, but a conservative American one is not. Transforming Current TV into Al Jazeera America is so satisfying to Gore that he is going to serve on its advisory board; turning it into The Blaze would have been an unacceptable ideological deviation, a betrayal of its core principles.

Gore and Hyatt have thus confirmed the charges that conservatives have made against the Left for years, and that Leftists, when they have deigned to acknowledge them at all, have dismissed as baseless slanders: above all, that the Left hates America and traditional American values so much that it will sooner ally with the sworn enemies of this nation and its guiding principles than with any group that is dedicated in any way to preserving and protecting them.

This peculiar and suicidal impulse results from a variety of factors.

There is more.

From Democracy Broadcasting:

Pastor Paulus Wiratno of Mercy Indonesia ran an orphanage and taught Christianity by radio from his Bible School- until neighbor Muslims bombed their dormitories while they slept. Why? He explains Muslims' violent intolerance towards non-Muslims in this exclusive DemoCast video interview.

Videos thanks to Scott.

At The American Thinker today I discuss the Left's increasingly thuggery and fascism. Meanwhile, new evidence of this has come in today, in the form of a New Hampshire state representative who wants to restrict the freedom of conservatives.

As Michael Walsh noted last week at PJ Media, the Westchester Journal News has published the name and addresses of legal gun owners in Westchester County, New York. While many have rightly upbraided the paper for endangering innocent people and giving criminals a map of homes without guns, the paper has stuck to its guns (so to speak!), not only defending its action but warning that more gun owners will soon be outed. And thus in a nutshell we see the Left's narcissistic, solipsistic and savage new moralism.

The Journal News editors believe that they are in the right to victimize Westchester gun owners, making them subject to possible vigilante attacks, legal harassment, and who knows what else, because they think they have the moral high ground, and are so morally obtuse as to assume that since they have that high ground, any action in its service is justified.

The American Left, which thoroughly dominates the mainstream media, no longer believes, if it ever did, in the concept of reasonable and respectable people disagreeing in good faith on core issues; it increasingly demonstrates that it believes all opposition to its own outlook and policies must never be tolerated, but only eradicated. Its opposition is never to be engaged on the level of ideas, but only ridiculed and held up as evil. The Left has done nothing but demonize its opposition for years. Organizations like Media Matters routinely repeat remarks made by conservative politicians and commentators as if they were obviously risible and/or morally offensive, without ever bothering to explain why or to offer a substantive refutation of any kind. They and others like them never debate or discuss issues, but only deal with their opposition with endless games of "gotcha" and searches for "gaffes."

After the Left has played such games for so long, this new level of savagery was perhaps inevitable. For the Westchester Journal News, owners of legal guns are evil, and thus have no rights they are bound to respect. For the Left in general, their opponents are evil, and so can and should even be put in physical danger if that is what is needed in order to bring about its silence and submission.

This savagery grows more common by the day, and doesn't extend only to gun owners. I myself have been on the receiving end of this thuggery because of my work in opposing the global jihad and Islamic supremacism -- as has my colleague Pamela Geller and other defenders of the freedom of speech and equality of rights for all people. A Leftist journalist named Nathan Lean, the editor-in-chief of Aslan Media, who has been published in the Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and New York Daily News, has sent me several tweets and emails containing personal information about myself: where he thinks I live, who he thinks my wife is, and more.

The purpose of these messages was unmistakable: Lean was signaling to me that he thought he knew my whereabouts (and that of my family), despite my attempts to conceal them because of the many death threats I receive. And why would he want me to think that he knew where I was? So that I would be frightened into silence, afraid that one of his many violence-inclined allies might do me in if I continued to speak out for freedom and human rights. Yet despite his appetite for menace, Lean had no trouble getting published in flagship mainstream media outlets -- which tells you a great deal about them....

There is more.

Usually Islamic supremacists tell lies with imperturbable serenity, but even Awad appears to be a bit nervous in this clip when he talks about Islam advocating freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and protection of minorities. To be sure, Islam does literally guarantee minorities "protection," i.e., dhimmitude. The dhimmis are "protected people," who, like victims of the mafia, pay protection (in the form of jizya) to their oppressors in exchange for their lives. That "protection" also comes with the price of a complex of humiliating and discriminatory regulations that enforce their subjugation.

So much for freedom of religion: Islam only guarantees religious freedom to non-Muslims once they submit to this subjugation. And freedom of speech? Awad knows that the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has been waging a campaign against the freedom of speech for years, trying to intimidate Western nations into criminalizing criticism of Islam. And Hamas-linked CAIR has aided and abetted that campaign by carrying out a relentless campaign of defamation and vilification of any and all foes of jihad and Islamic supremacism.

"CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad: Islam and the U.S. Are Twins, Linked by Common Values, There Are Accounts that Muslims Discovered America before Columbus," from MEMRI, December 27 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Following are excerpts from an interview with CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad, which aired on Iqra TV on December 27, 2012:

Interviewer: Once again, I greet you from the USA, and specially, from New York. Today’s topic is the American Islamic organizations.

Nihad Awad: In my view, Islam and the US are twins, linked by common values. The values on which the US was founded are the same values advocated by Islam: freedom, and especially freedom of religion, freedom of speech, protection of minorities, and spreading justice among all sectors of society.

[...]

The combination of my American nationality and the practice of my Islamic religion creates a beautiful blend, I believe. This is a civilized blend, which proves that Islam flourishes in an atmosphere of freedom, and spreads freedom, justice, and equality. Every day I live as an American-Muslim citizen, I rediscover the firm bonds between the humane system that the US created for its people, and the values advocated by Islam. This marriage of Islam and the US will be the best suited for humanity, because the Islamic values are divine values, conveyed by Allah. The Prophet Muhammad lived by these values, and Muslims today must rise to their level. The US is not perfect, but it is moving “toward a more perfect union.”

[...]

It is extremely important to know how Islam began in the US. There are historical accounts according to which the Muslims preceded Columbus, who is said to have discovered the US. Some documents and accounts indicate that Muslim seafarers were the first to reach the US. The bottom line is that Islam played a part in the establishment and development of the US.

This is more than just Islamic supremacist fantasy: it is a statement of hegemony. Islamic law teaches that any land that has once belonged to Islam belongs to it by right forever. That is why Islamic supremacists can never accept the existence of Israel -- or non-Muslim Spain.

Islam’s worldview is one of coexistence, of respect for pluralism, and of peace. Allah says in the Koran: “Oh Mankind! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes so that you may know one another. The noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the most pious among you.” This is a very important humane, social, and political principle. This is the principle of interacting with the other, be it nations, individuals, institutions, or countries. This verse was conveyed 1,400 years ago. This is a very important principle on how we should interact with others. As Muslims, we are not hostile to other societies. The underlying principle guiding our relations with them is one of respect for the natural differences between individuals, nations, and societies, but there are also common interests. Diversity in Islam is a good thing, not a shortcoming. Most of the wars waged between nations were the result of failure to respect and acknowledge the other.

[...]

When I said that Islam and the US are twins, I was referring to the values upon which the US was founded. I was talking about domestic affairs. US society consists of all of humanity – all the ethnicities, a society of immigrants. The US is the most diverse human union. How did the US manage to create this human fabric? This human experience was, undoubtedly, based on very important principles, which are identical to the Islamic values. The problem lies in the foreign policy. We are not talking about the foreign policy. I am one of the most adamant opponents of my country’s policy... Foreign policy is another matter altogether.

[...]

After 9/11, we saw great interest among the American public in becoming better acquainted with Islam by studying and reading about it. We found that very few books on Islam were available in the public libraries, which are frequented by many Americans, and that most of these books were misleading or anti-Islamic. Therefore, we decided to publish several books on Islam, written by Muslims and non-Muslims. We decided to send them free-of-charge to the American public libraries.

[...]

There are 16,200 public libraries in the US, serving 300 million Americans. We managed to provide this collection, free-of-charge, to half of these libraries.

And the clueless and compromised dhimmis of the American Library Association were no doubt thrilled to receive this propaganda.

Then Awad defends jihad terrorist Aafia Siddiqui, who tried to murder Americans while screaming "Death to America," and boasts about his ongoing work to manipulate dhimmi government officials to try to obtain her release:

With regard to our sister Aafia Siddiqui, this is undoubtedly a sensitive criminal case and a security issue.

Interviewer: Who is she?

Nihad Awad: Aafia Siddiqui is originally from Pakistan, as far as I know. She is incarcerated in the US, having received a long prison sentence, for her alleged involvement in – quote, unquote – “terrorist acts.” We are in CAIR are following this case, through our New York chapter. In 2013, in the coming weeks, we will dedicate more attention to her. We will follow the case, and see what we can do.

[...]

I personally intervened in this case, without talking about it in the media. I can reassure the brothers and sisters who called this show that I have personally dealt with this case on a high level in the US, and even in diplomatic circles. When we have any news, we will let you know.

In Libya, "the government is trying as much as it can to avoid charges and clashes with extremist groups." And that is true in the White House as well.

"Libya: Key Benghazi Suspect Remains At Large," by Mawassi Lahcen for Magharebia, January 2 (thanks to Jerk Chicken):

Casablanca — Although Ahmed Boukhtala is the main suspect in the September 11th terrorist attack on US consulate in Benghazi as well as a suspect in assassination of Libyan rebel commander Major General Abdelfattah Younis, he continues to live freely in Benghazi.

Conflicting reports have claimed that Boukhtala was imprisoned while others have said he escaped from prison and is now a fugitive. However, sources in Benghazi told Magharebia that Boukhtala remains at large and that the Libyan authorities have not arrested him.

"Boukhtala is not detained, and no official charges were made against him," political activist Samir al-Jahani told Magharebia. "However, there are many suspicions around him."

Al-Jahani believes that the government is trying as much as it can to avoid charges and clashes with extremist groups at this stage.

"Boukhtala belongs to an extremist group, and he is still followed by some gunmen. However, he no longer has his own militias since his Abu Obeida Bin al-Jarrah brigade was disbanded," al-Jahani added....

In my PJ Media column this week I discuss the hypocritical and manipulative concept of "Islamophobia" as manifested by one of its recent apologists:

Last Saturday, a deranged woman pushed a man in front of a subway train in New York and killed him, explaining that she did it because of her anger with Muslims ever since 9/11. Immediately, leftist and Islamic-supremacist writers swung into action to blame the murder on what they called an “Islamophobia industry,” despite the killer’s obvious insanity and history of violent attacks on random people. The attacks revealed much about the use of the term “Islamophobia” as a propaganda tool designed to shut down thinking.

One written by Haroon Moghul, “a Fellow at the New America Foundation and the Center on National Security at Fordham Law” as well as “a doctoral candidate at Columbia University,” offered more intelligence than the usual character assassins and victim-mongers who spread the myth of “Islamophobia.” It also illuminated a great deal about the central premises of the real “Islamophobia industry” – the one that is dedicated to intimidating Americans into thinking that it’s “bigoted” to resist jihad and Islamic supremacism.

Moghul portrays the deranged killer Erika Menendez as holding Muslims “collectively responsible for the actions of a few,” which he and his ilk frequently complain is what “Islamophobes” supposedly do: blame all Muslims for the actions of a few “extremists.” There may be some nuts somewhere who do that, but actually people like Haroon Moghul (and a host of others in his camp) are the ones who constantly proclaim this, not counter-jihadists. Moghul and co. want you to believe that that is what counter-jihad analysts are doing when they note that jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism. Actually, in doing that they are recognizing that there is a problem within Islamic doctrine, which Muslims could conceivably reform or reject outright, however unlikely it may be that large numbers will do either. They are not blaming all Muslims for 9/11 or any other act of jihad. But if they can convince you that counter-jihadists are indeed vilifying all Muslims, they will thereby discourage people from joining their ranks. And that is the goal.

Moghul complains that for “Islamophobes,” “all Muslims are on the hook for what some Muslims do, and must constantly distance themselves from other Muslims—as if the whole must bear responsibility for the acts and faults of individuals. How does that make any sense, except in a racialized and dehumanizing way?”

In reality, no Muslims are “on the hook for what some Muslims do.” But virtually every day, somewhere in the world, some Muslims harm and kill people and justify their actions with reference to Islamic texts and teachings. How are we to deal with this? Do those Muslims who operate mosques and Muslim schools in the West (and elsewhere) not have any responsibility at all to try to ensure that their pupils don’t become jihad terrorists? Certainly non-Muslim states have felt a great responsibility to prevent jihad terror, and have thus showered money on Pakistan and other Muslim countries in a vain attempt to stop it, while spending yet more money on hearts-and-minds initiatives such as building schools in Afghanistan, etc. Whether or not these programs are wise, is it entirely up to non-Muslims to try to stop jihad terror, with its 20,000+ attacks since 9/11?

There is no program teaching against the “extremist” version of Islam in any mosque anywhere, despite the fact that converts to Islam seem peculiarly susceptible to this understanding of Islam (cf. John Walker Lindh, Adam Gadahn, Richard Reid, and on and on) and the universally held assumption that the vast majority of Muslims reject and abhor this version of Islam. Why isn’t there? And why is Haroon Moghul obfuscating this issue, instead of expatiating on how unjust it is for him to be “on the hook” for what some other Muslims do?

Moghul insists that “Islamophobes” give short shrift to the fact that peaceful Muslims have a different interpretation of the Qur’an from that of the violent ones. That may well be, although the violent interpretations are far more mainstream than he lets on; in any case, the existence of the peaceful interpretations doesn’t cancel out the existence of the violent ones, just as Hamas-linked CAIR’s ad campaign that tries to sell the idea that jihad is helping your sixth grader with her homework and playing hopscotch with her when she’s done doesn’t do anything to address the inconvenient fact that a significant number of Muslims believe it involves warfare against and subjugation of infidels. The people who need to be convinced — the Muslims who believe in violent jihad — aren’t being addressed.

There is more.

As I said a few weeks ago, the referendum on the constitution in Egypt heralded "the end of the brief era of any meaningful voting in Egypt, and of any hope on the part of women and Egyptian Christians for equality of rights before the law." And now here we are.

"Brotherhood leader: Calls to drop Constitution punishable by law," from Al-Masry Al-Youm, January 3 (thanks to Jerk Chicken):

Muslim Brotherhood Secretary General Mahmoud Hussein denounced opposition calls to shelve the new constitution, warning that such calls were illegal.

"Such talk is punishable by law because the Constitution has been approved in a fair process," Hussein said.

In an interview on Al-Arabiya news channel Wednesday, Hussein rejected questions on the legitimacy of President Mohamed Morsy’s rule, hinting that authorities should take legal actions against those who raise them....

And their media stooges who never identify them as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case, or note the jihad terror convictions of several of their former officers, or their consistent opposition to every anti-terror measure ever devised, will no doubt go along, as will pro-jihad "journalists" such as Christiane Amanpour, Manya Brachear, Bob Smietana, Kari Huus, Dave Weigel, Michael Kruse, Eli Clifton, Alex Kane, Adam Serwer, Max Blumenthal, and all the rest of them.

The irony is that, as I have explained many times (as in this National Review article), the term "Islamist" is often used by those who believe that Islam is a Religion of Peace that has been hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists, to create a distance between Islam, which is supposedly entirely benign and peaceful, and Islamism, which teaches political authoritarianism, subjugation of non-Muslims, and everything else about Islam that is unpleasant and at variance with Western principles of human rights.

You can see a recent example of this in Martin Amis's fatuous statements here: "In 'The Second Plane,' a collection of nonfiction published in 2008, Mr. Amis noted that he is an "Islamismophobe," not an Islamophobe. The events of Sept. 11 left him bereft and angry and in desperate search of distinctions. 'Let us make the position clear,' he wrote in an essay titled 'Terror and Boredom.' 'We can begin by saying, not only that we respect Muhammad, but that no serious person could fail to respect Muhammad. . . . But we do not respect Muhammad Atta.'" No serious person could fail to respect Muhammad? Despite the fact that Atta and others like him look to Muhammad as their exemplar and inspiration, not without abundant justification for doing so from the canonical accounts of Muhammad's life?

Anyway, now even the word "Islamist," although it is usually used to exonerate Islam and distance its teachings from the violence and hate propagated in its name, is unacceptable for Hamas-linked CAIR. Clearly Hamas-linked CAIR's amiable beekeper, Honest Ibe Hooper, sees how successful he and his fellow Islamic supremacists have been in co-opting the media, government, and law enforcement in recent years, and is pressing on toward final victory: the total silencing of any resistance to the global jihad and Islamic supremacism.

"ISLAM-OPED: Media Urged to Drop Term 'Islamist' in New Year: CAIR, a Muslin [sic!] Civil rights group active in Orange County, is urging the media and the public to be more judicious in how they describe Muslim public officials," from the LakeForest Patch, January 3 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Ibrahim Hooper is national communications director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation's largest Muslim civil liberties organization with an active branch in Orange County.

As many people make promises to themselves to improve their lives or their societies in the coming year, here is a suggested New Year's resolution for media outlets in America and worldwide: Drop the term "Islamist."

The Associated Press (AP) added the term to its influential Stylebook in 2012. That entry reads: "Islamist -- Supporter of government in accord with the laws of Islam. Those who view the Quran as a political model encompass a wide range of Muslims, from mainstream politicians to militants known as jihadi."

The AP says it sought input from Arabic-speaking experts and hoped to provide a neutral perspective by emphasizing the "wide range" of religious views encompassed in the term.

Many Muslims who wish to serve the public good are influenced by the principles of their faith. Islam teaches Muslims to work for the welfare of humanity and to be honest and just. If this inspiration came from the Bible, such a person might well be called a Good Samaritan. But when the source is the Quran, the person is an "Islamist."

Unfortunately, the term "Islamist" has become shorthand for "Muslims we don't like." It is currently used in an almost exclusively pejorative context and is often coupled with the term "extremist," giving it an even more negative slant.

There are few, if any, positive references to "Islamist" in news articles. There are also no -- nor should there be -- references to "Christianists," "Judaists" or "Hinduists" for those who would similarly seek governments "in accord with the laws" of their respective faiths.

No journalist would think of referring to the "Judaist government of Israel," the "Christianist leader Rick Santorum" or "Hinduist Indian politician Narendra Modi," while use of "Islamist" has become ubiquitous. It might be an interesting exercise to hold a contest, the winner of which would be the first to find a positive mainstream media reference to "Islamist."

Quite likely, such a contest would end up being similar to a unicorn hunt.

The frequent linkage of the term "Islamist" to violence and denial of religious and human rights is also strongly promoted by Islamophobic groups and individuals who seek to launch rhetorical attacks on Islam and Muslims, without the public censure that would normally accompany such bigoted attacks on any other faith.

Islam-bashers routinely use the term to disingenuously claim they only hate "political" Islam, not the faith itself. Yet they fail to explain how a practicing Muslim can be active in the political arena without attracting the label "Islamist."

If the term is retained, media professionals should modify its use to reflect language similar to that used in the AP Stylebook reference to "fundamentalist," which states that the label should not be used unless a group applies the term to itself.

By not dropping or modifying use of the term, the media are making a political and religious value judgment each time it is used.

That is hardly fair or balanced.

What Honest Ibe is not telling you here is that "Islamists" are generally proponents of political Islam, an authoritarian system that would deny basic rights to non-Muslims and women. Their political agenda is grounded in Islam in a way that no fair-minded person would say that Santorum's is grounded in Christianity. But "fair-minded" would leave out Honest Ibe.

Clearly, if "blasphemy" is flying thick and fast through SMS messages, the solution is to ban the SMS. Reform the "blasphemy" laws? Propagate an ideology less filled with hate, triumphalism and violence? Never!

"In G-B, SMS banned after propagation of ‘blasphemous content,’" by Shabbir Mir for the Express Tribune, January 3 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

To stem the flow of controversial content in Gilgit-Baltistan, the government has requested Ministry of Interior to ban the Short Messaging Service (SMS) and Multimedia Messaging Service in the region.

A letter drafted by the ministry’s regional secretary, read, “…use of these services is playing havoc with the peace of the region.” The move came days after youth of two different sects embroiled over an exchange of blasphemous text messages which desecrated revered personalities through Twitter accounts linked to the SMS facility.

Written by the regional government, the letter referred to the attacks on public buses at Lalusar, Kohistan and the subsequent violence, stating that the incidents served as a catalyst in inciting sectarian sentiments among the local population.

The rise in the spread of “blasphemous messages” through these services has dealt a death blow to the efforts of sectarian harmony, it added, urging authorities in Islamabad to direct all mobile service providers to withdraw the facility.

Sectarian violence has become rampant in the region, claiming nearly 80 lives during the last year alone.

"Sectarian violence" rose up and began roaming the streets, claiming lives. How about that!

The Leftist "educators" responsible for this are not only aiding and abetting a genocidal cause (for what else do you think would happen to the Jews there if Israel really were destroyed?); they're also hastening their own demise, for the same jihad that aims to destroy Israel also has their own homes in its sights.

"British textbook erases Israel," by Ryan Jones for Israel Today, December 31 (thanks to all who sent this in):

A popular textbook used by institutions and teachers to teach English as a second language to students in the UK has been found to have a serious anti-Israel bias.

"I teach English as a foreign language in a further education college in Nottingham, England. I came across the attached map and couldn't believe my eyes!" Liz Wiseman told Israel Today.

The textbook in question is "Skills in English Writing Level 1", which includes a map of the Middle East on which Israel is nowhere to be found.

While Wiseman acknowledges she was not obligated to use this particular textbook, it is one of the more popular and mainstream English Language Teaching (ELT) textbooks published by one of the more popular and mainstream ELT publishers, Garnet Education.

Garnet Education bills itself thus:

"Garnet Education is an independent English Language Teaching (ELT) publisher, specialising in English for Academic Purposes. We produce award-winning ELT books, multimedia resources and tests for students of all ages, from kindergarten to university."

This is far from an isolated incident, which is motivation for drawing attention to this particular case. It is not only in the Middle East where students, both adults and children, are being taught that Israel has no right to exist. The more students around the world are fed this brand of propaganda, the more remote prospects for true peace become.

They have every reason to be worried. Islamic law institutionalizes discrimination against non-Muslims, denying them basic rights. "Worry taints Egyptian Coptic Christmas," by Bethany Bell for BBC News, January 3 (thanks to AINA):

Egypt's Coptic Christians are facing an uncertain future, as they prepare to celebrate Christmas on 7 January. About 10% of Egyptians are Copts, making up the largest Christian minority in the Middle East.

But many are concerned about the rise of President Mohammed Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood and the more radical Salafis. And there are fears that the newly approved constitution fails to protect the rights of Christians....

The rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and of the more radical Salafi Islamist groups has unsettled many Christians in Egypt.

Since the revolution, television sermons by hardline Salafi preachers targeting Christians are becoming more common. In recent days, some have called for Muslims not to greet Christians at Christmas.

Others are more sinister. One cleric, Said Abdulazzim, recorded on YouTube, said that "any Muslim who befriends a Christian or a Sufi, neither of whom ever tell the truth, is misguided, a traitor".

Some wealthy Copts are choosing to leave Egypt. But for many, like the congregation in Shubra, that is simply not an option.

The Church of the Virgin and St Mina is in a poor area. The streets are unpaved and every few metres there are mounds of rotting rubbish.

It is in places like this that many of Egypt's Christians live, side-by-side with their Muslim neighbours.

The church can barely house its huge congregation. At services, many worshippers have to stand outside in the stairwell.

But the priest at the Church, Father Felopater Rateb Towfiles, says that when they recently tried to build a new community centre, they were blocked by a group of local Salafis.

Islamic law forbids Christians to build new churches or repair old ones.

"Things are tense in the area, we have to tread carefully," he said.

"We thank God that we were able to prevent clashes between Christians and Salafis. If it had not been for this wisdom and the interference of God, there would have been massacres.

"Our people are unarmed but they have weapons. They had ammunition, automatic weapons and modern arms - we saw with our own eyes, the huge collection."
Toward an Islamic state?

The political upheaval of recent weeks has also added to Christian concerns. There are fears that Egypt's vaguely worded new constitution could pave the way for an Islamic state.

But Mohamed Soudan from the Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party says the constitution protects all Egyptians, regardless of their religion.

"I believe they don't have any reason to be afraid of the future. We love each other," he said.

"Nothing will attack the history of the relationship between the Muslims and the Christians. They are part of our blood. No-one can change it. They are not coming from abroad.

"They are from this soil and we are from this soil. They eat from the same soil and we are the same. No-one can touch this - never."

But Youssef Sidhom, the editor of the Coptic Watani newspaper, says Christians are worried by the charter.

"Of course, they are quite concerned and I cannot hide that a few wouldn't hesitate to leave if they have the chance. There is a vast area of mistrust that lies between Christians and all factions of political Islam," he says....

This hypocrisy is no surprise. The "Palestinian" refugee problem has been an artificial, manufactured crisis all along, starting from the moment when all the Arab states except Jordan refused to grant citizenship to the "Palestinians," preferring instead to use them as a stick with which to beat Israel. They're the first people whose refugee status is passed down to children and grandchildren, decades after the real refugees in Europe and central Asia found homes and got on with their lives.

"Hamas, PA reportedly refuse to take in Palestinian refugees from Syria," by Michal Shmulovich for the Times of Israel, January 3 (thanks to Jerk Chicken):

Hamas and the Palestinian Authority rejected the United Nations’ request that they take in Palestinian refugees who fled Syria during the ongoing brutal civil war, Yedioth Ahronoth reported Thursday.

Finding themselves increasingly isolated, some 150,000 Palestinian refugees in Syria — there are approximately 350,000 in total in the country — were forced to flee the Yarmouk refugee camp located outside Damascus due to attacks, including an aerial bombardment, by the Bashar Assad regime. Their flight has created a humanitarian crisis in Damascus; others have fled to Lebanon and Jordan, reportedly causing those countries to become increasingly hostile to their presence there.

According to the report, head of Hamas in Gaza Ismail Haniyeh told UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, that the Gaza Strip couldn’t take in Syria’s Palestinian refugees due to an ideological issue: If they take in the refugees from Syria, Israel could use it against them when it comes to the Palestinians’ demand for the “right to return” to villages inside present day Israel, by pointing out that the refugees no longer need to return to Israel because they have been relocated to new homes in the Gaza Strip....

From the email box, a poem full of wishful thoughts of blood and genocide:

Subject: Sick with GAZA

Message: To the Barking DOGS of Geller and Spencer:

First Be sick with my LOVE
because GAZA will be Free
fabrication (Israel) will END,
Spencer will howl,
Geller will get paranoi.

I will heighten the FLAG
They will be lost
Zionist will no more be threat
America will bleed
The fools will go away
I will Stay strong.

The truth will prevail,
DH projects will finish
Spencer will Die-SOFT.

WEST and East will live free
without HATE-Preachers
and the WORLD will get better.

Here is the video of my weekly appearance on Michael Coren's Sun TV show, from last night.

Here is evidence that the infiltration long predates the Obama Administration.

Here is al-Awlaki addressing "moderate" Muslims including Nihad Awad of Hamas-linked CAIR on Capitol Hill in 2002. The rest is below. "Documents Uncovered by Judicial Watch Indicate FBI Knew Assassinated U.S. Born Terrorist Anwar al-Aulaqi Purchased Airline Tickets for 9/11 Hijackers," from Judicial Watch, January 3 (thanks to Jeff):

WASHINGTON, DC--(Marketwire - Jan 3, 2013) - Judicial Watch announced today that it has received documents from the U.S. State Department indicating that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was aware on September 27, 2001, that Anwar al-Aulaqi, the U.S. born terrorist assassinated by a U.S. drone in Yemen on September 30, 2011, had purchased airplane tickets for three of the 9/11 terrorist hijackers, including mastermind Mohammed Atta. Subsequent to the FBI's discovery, al-Aulaqi was detained and released by authorities at least twice and had been invited to dine at the Pentagon.

According to a September 27, 2001, FBI transcription, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State and Federal Bureau of Investigations (No. 1:12-cv-00893)), al-Aulaqi purchased airline tickets for the following 9/11 hijackers:

• Mohammed Atta, America West Airlines, 08/13/2001, for a flight from Washington, DC, to Las Vegas, Nevada, to Miami, Florida.
  
  
• S. Suqami, Southwest Airlines, 07/10/2001, for a flight from Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, to Orlando, Florida.
  
  
• Al-Sheri, National Airlines, 08/01/2001, for a flight from San Francisco, California, to Las Vegas, Nevada, to Miami, Florida.

The documents also include material showing that al-Aulaqi was uncooperative with FBI agents investigating the 9/11 attacks and was seemingly a central focus of the FBI investigation and monitoring related to 9/11.

But records previously uncovered by Judicial Watch, subsequent to the September 27, 2001, FBI transcription, show that al-Aulaqi was arrested and released by authorities. Two documents uncovered by Judicial Watch include "Privacy Act Release Forms" issued by the U.S. Embassy in Sana'a, Yemen, and signed by al-Aulaqi. One was dated November 14, 2006, and the other July 2, 2007, indicating that al-Aulaqi had been arrested by authorities. The documents do not indicate how long al-Aulaqi was detained or why he was released.

In addition to the arrests noted by the documents in 2006 and 2007, al-Aulaqi was detained and questioned at New York's JFK airport on October 10, 2002, under a warrant for passport fraud, a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. However, the FBI ordered al-Aulaqi's release, even though the arrest warrant was still active at the time of his detention as reported by Fox News Channel's Catherine Herridge. Once released al-Aulaqi then took a flight to Washington, DC, and eventually returned to Yemen.

On February 5, 2002, four months after the FBI discovered his connection to the 9/11 terrorists, al-Aulaqi was invited to dine at the Pentagon on February 5, 2002, "as part of the military's outreach to the Muslim community in the immediate aftermath of the attacks," reports Herridge.

Horrors! The reach of Islamophobic fearmongering is even greater than we thought! Now even Egyptian magazines are succumbing to its fiendish lure!

Those of us who have warned about Muslim Brotherhood influence and infiltration in Washington, and were smeared and vilified as "bigots" and "Islamophobes" by the Muslim Brotherhood's propaganda minions in the U.S., are vindicated yet again.

"Egyptian Magazine: Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrates Obama Administration," by John Rossomando for IPT, January 3 (thanks to David):

An Egyptian magazine claims that six American Islamist activists who work with the Obama administration are Muslim Brotherhood operatives who enjoy strong influence over U.S. policy.

The Dec. 22 story published in Egypt's Rose El-Youssef magazine (read an IPT translation here) suggests the six turned the White House "from a position hostile to Islamic groups and organizations in the world to the largest and most important supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood."

The story is largely unsourced, but its publication is considered significant in raising the issue to Egyptian readers.

The six named people include: Arif Alikhan, assistant secretary of Homeland Security for policy development; Mohammed Elibiary, a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council; Rashad Hussain, the U.S. special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference; Salam al-Marayati, co-founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC); Imam Mohamed Magid, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA); and Eboo Patel, a member of President Obama's Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships.

All of these men -- Alikhan, Elibiary, Hussain, al-Marayati, Magid and Patel -- have appeared here at Jihad Watch numerous times, their apologias for jihad terror, Muslim Brotherhood ties, and Islamic supremacism abundantly documented. (Each of those links goes to a Jihad Watch search on their names; scroll past this present article in each group of search results to see earlier coverage of each man.)

Read all of the IPT report for details.

Yola must have allowed the posting of Islamophobic subway ads. "4 killed in attack in northeast Nigerian town," from the Associated Press, January 3 (thanks to Kenneth):

YOLA, Nigeria (AP) -- Witnesses and authorities say at least four people were killed when gunmen suspected of belonging to a radical Islamist sect attacked a town in northeast Nigeria.

The attack happened early Thursday in the town of Song in Adamawa state. Adamawa state police spokesman Mohammed Ibrahim said the gunmen shot dead two civilians, a soldier and a police officer.

The assault in the rural area comes amid growing evidence that the radical sect known as Boko Haram is increasingly aiming at targets outside urban centers in Nigeria's northeast. Cities across Nigeria's predominantly Muslim north have been flooded with security forces who have been unsuccessfully trying to stop the sect's attacks.

Boko Haram is blamed for killing at least 792 people last year alone in Nigeria, according to an Associated Press count.

No doubt the Shi'ites had put up Islamophobic subway ads. "Suicide car bomber kills at least 20 Shiite pilgrims in Iraq," from NBC News, January 3:

A car-bomb explosion tore through a crowd of Shiite pilgrims returning home Thursday from a religious commemoration, killing at least 20 and reinforcing fears of renewed sectarian violence, according to Iraqi officials.

The blast erupted late in the afternoon in the town of Musayyib, about 40 miles south of the Iraqi capital. It targeted worshippers returning from the Shiite holy city of Karbala following the climax of the religious commemoration known as Arbaeen.

Children were among the 20 people confirmed killed, according to a police official. He said at least 50 people were wounded.

The bomb went off in the middle of a gathering of pilgrims changing buses coming from Karbala on their way to other destinations in the country, according to police.

Wave of attacks kills more than 100 in Iraq

"The explosion shook the whole block and smashed the windows of my house," said teacher Ibrahim Mohammed, who lives nearby. "I ran to the scene of the explosion only to find charred bodies and burning cars. There were women screaming and searching for their missing children."

Ali Sabaar, a pilgrim who said he witnessed the explosion, also described a horrific scene.

"I was getting a sandwich when a very strong explosion rocked the place and the blast threw me away," he said. "When I regained my senses and stood up, I saw dozens of bodies. Many cars were set on fire. I just left the place and didn't even participate in the evacuation of the victims."

A deadly car bombing in Baghdad in December was part of a recent wave of violence in Iraq had killed at least 26 people across the country by late in the month. NBCNews.com's Dara Brown reports.

A hospital official confirmed the casualty toll. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release the information to reporters.

Thursday marked the height of Arbaeen, when hundreds of thousands of Shiite pilgrims converged on Karbala to mark the passing of 40 days after the anniversary of the seventh century martyrdom of the revered Shiite saint Imam Hussein, the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad.

Shiite pilgrims are one of the favorite targets for Sunni insurgents during Shiite religious events.

Bus blast kills more than 30 during Eid holiday

Iraqi authorities typically tighten security in Karbala and along routes used by pilgrims, but security forces acknowledge they are unable to prevent all attacks.

As in previous years, the pilgrims practiced the ritual of self-flagellation on the streets, hoisted Shiite religious flags on trees and lamp posts and served food from tents pitched on street corners....

State television earlier Thursday aired video of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki walking among the pilgrims.

Arbaeen has been a frequent target for militants since the U.S.-led invasion that toppled Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein, who banned Shiite festivals.

At least 70 killed during religious festival

The latest violence followed nearly two week of protests against Maliki by thousands of people from the minority Sunni community in the western province of Anbar.