"Muslims must grow in strength... then take over"

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014808.php

January 11, 2007

Another report on jihadist preaching in Britain. "Britain's New Preachers of Hate," by Bobby Pathak in the Mirror, with thanks to Montague:

IN a dilapidated mosque, half a dozen awestruck young men listen to a preacher spell out his vision for Britain.

"King, Queen, House of Commons... if you accept it, you are a part of it," says Dr Ijaz Mian. "If you don't accept it, you have to dismantle it.

"So you being a Muslim, you have to fix a target. There will be no House of Commons. From that White House to this Black House, we know we have to dismantle it.

"Muslims must grow in strength... then take over."

A 10-month undercover investigation into home-grown extremism has revealed hard-line Islamic fundamentalism being preached in British mosques.

Some speakers call for girls to be hit if they don't wear Islamic dress and say that they can marry before puberty, others praise the Taliban.

Speaking at the Ahl-e-Hadith mosque, in Derby, Dr Mian tells his listeners: "You are in a situation in which you have to live like a state-within-a-state - until you take over.

"But until this happens, you have to preach, until you become such a force that the people just submit to you."

Dr Mian wants to see religious policemen roaming our streets, modelled on the feared Saudi Arabian force.

He says of their strict implementation of Sharia - or Islamic - law: "They send the police and they say: 'Well, if you don't come for prayer, we will arrest you. But if you still don't, then we have to bring the punishment on you - you will be killed and nobody will pray for you.'"

Also from JihadWatch:

January 12, 2007

Spencer: The Anti-Profiling Agenda

This morning in FrontPage I explain how Pelosi, Conyers, and Ellison want to make us all less safe (news links in the original):

Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) has been named to the House Judiciary Committee. Ellison said in a statement: “I look forward to pursuing a progressive agenda in the committee, including the restoration of American citizen’s civil liberties that have come under increasing attack over the past six years.”

The American citizens Ellison, the nation’s first Muslim congressman, has in mind are likely Muslims who charge that they have been subjected to unjust scrutiny and inconvenience in the aftermath of 9/11. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) shares this view: she has announced her intention to “correct the Patriot Act,” and wants to criminalize scrutiny of Muslims at airports and elsewhere: “Since September 11, many Muslim Americans have been subjected to searches at airports and other locations based upon their religion and national origin. We must make it illegal.” Helping make it illegal with Ellison on the House Judiciary Committee will be John Conyers (D-MI), the new chairman of that committee. “The policies of the Bush administration,” he has declared, “have sent a wave of fear through our immigrant communities and targeted our Arab and Muslim neighbors.”

Pelosi, Conyers, and Ellison by all appearances seem less concerned about any wave of fear that may be sent through American non-Muslims by continued jihad terror activity on American soil. But just this week there have been numerous indications that that jihad activity is continuing:

[1] Talib Abu Salam ibn Shareef (Derrick Shareef), a convert to Islam, pled not guilty Tuesday to plotting a terrorist attack against a shopping mall in Rockford, Illinois. As they were discussing his plans before his arrest, Shareef told an undercover agent: “Any place that’s crowded, like a mall is good, anything, any government facility is good. I swear by Allah man, I’m down for it too, I’m down for the cause, I’m down to live for the cause and die for the cause, man.” What cause? In a videotaped statement discovered after his arrest, Shareef tied his plans explicitly to his Islamic faith: “I am from America, and this tape is to let you guys know, who disbelieve in Allah, to let the enemies of Islam know, and to let the Muslims alike know that the time for jihad is now...be strong, oh Mujahideen...May Allah protect me on this mission we conduct...so do not cry, do not mourn for me.”

[2] Mohammed Yousuf Mullawala, a Muslim citizen of India, is the subject of a continuing investigation in Rhode Island after enrolling in a truck driving school, inquiring about getting a permit to carry hazardous materials, and telling instructors that he did not need to learn how to back up. Also, Rhode Island State Police Major Steven O’Donnell revealed that “we’ve tied some of his cell-phone records to people of interest nationally” – that is, people who are suspected of terrorist activity. “They’re not your typical person’s cell-phone history … the volume of contacts obviously raises the level of suspicion.” Referring to Mullawala’s own possible connection to jihad terror activity, O’Donnell said: “We don’t know whether he’s a major player, a minor player, or any type of player. But the indicators lead us to believe that his behavior is not normal.”

[3] Imam Fawaz Damra, the former leader of the largest mosque in Cleveland, was deported to the West Bank last Thursday. When he arrived, Israeli authorities promptly arrested him for his ties to the terrorist group Palestinian Islamic Jihad. His failure to disclose those ties got him deported in the first place. He was also captured on videotape telling an Islamic audience that “the first principle is that terrorism, and terrorism alone, is the path to liberation…. If what they mean by jihad is terrorism, then we are terrorists” – despite having been a signer of the Fiqh Council of North America’s much lionized condemnation of terrorism.

[4] On Monday, a Pakistani Muslim, Shahawar Matin Siraj, was sentenced to thirty years in prison for his plan to blow up a Manhattan subway station.

[5] Last Friday in Palm Springs, a man named Haider Mohammad, who claimed to be an Al-Qaeda operative, was arrested in a bar after threatening to “kill all Jews.”

And that’s just in the last couple of weeks. In light of these and other cases, are law enforcement officials not justified in directing particular scrutiny at Muslims? After all, neither the American Muslim community nor any other has pronounced takfir on Osama bin Laden or any other jihadist individual or group. (Takfir is an Islamic practice akin to excommunication, involving the declaration that a particular Muslim is actually an unbeliever.) Jihadists move more or less freely among peaceful Muslims worldwide, and those peaceful Muslims have mounted no large-scale, organized attempt to wrest the intellectual and theological initiative away from the jihadists. In light of this, and of the jihadists’ copious and consistent use of Islamic teaching to justify their actions and make new recruits, it would be foolish in the extreme to outlaw, as Pelosi, Conyers, and Ellison wish to do, what is known as “religious profiling.”

Would we really all be safer if the one and only element that is common to all jihad attackers – a devout attachment to Islam – were ruled out of bounds as an object of consideration by law enforcement officials? The anti-profiling initiative that is sure to begin soon will necessarily be predicated on the proposition that there is no more reason to be concerned about devout Muslims than about devout Presbyterians or devout Amish.

Unfortunately, the evidence leads in exactly the opposite direction.

BUT WAIT...THERE'S MORE from Jihad Watch:

January 12, 2007

Another teacher murdered in southern Thailand; junta allows teachers to carry weapons

Thai Jihad Update. "Thailand extends emergency rule in south," from AFP:

BANGKOK (AFP) - Thailand's junta extended emergency rule in the restive south and said teachers there can carry arms, in an apparent return to strong-arm tactics after attempts at reconciliation.

The new government, installed after the September 19 coup, has tried to promote peace in the Muslim-majority region, where separatist violence has killed more than 1,800 since January 2004.

But the bloodshed has continued, prompting the Council for National Security (CNS), as the junta calls itself, to extend emergency rule for three more months in Yala, Narathiwat and Pattani provinces.

[...]

Thailand's military-backed government had said in late October that it would end emergency rule in January, after it revived a key regional mediation body and offered a series of other olive branches to the insurgents.

But the militants have not yet taken up the government's peace initiatives, and violence has spiralled, with civilians increasingly targeted.

Some 65 teachers and 10 students have been killed in the three southern provinces since the insurgency erupted, and 110 schools -- seen as easy targets representing the government -- have been set ablaze.

The fatal shooting Wednesday of a 39-year-old Muslim female teacher in Pattanit highlighted the problem, prompting Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont to hold an emergency security meeting in Bangkok.

After the meeting, the regional southern army commander agreed to allow teachers to arm themselves outside of working hours.

"It's up to the teachers, but I personally don't want teachers to get involved in fighting, because their duty is to teach," Lieutenant General Viroach Buacharoon told reporters.

"But they can be armed when they're on a private trip and out of working hours."

The military also agreed to step up patrols around schools.

"Security measures will vary depend on the school's location, but soldiers and police will be deployed during teaching hours. In some cases they will patrol around the school buildings," Viroach said.

The announcement came as the nation was still mourning the death Monday of a teacher who spent eight months in a coma after she was taken hostage and beaten at a school in Narathiwat.

AND MORE!

January 11, 2007

Does CAIR support censorship?

“I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”: Voltaire’s axiom articulates a core principle of any free society. Thus when my book The Truth About Muhammad was banned in Pakistan, I immediately thought of the Council on American Islamic Relations.

CAIR’s vision, says its website, “is to be a leading advocate for justice and mutual understanding….Since its establishment in 1994, CAIR has worked to promote a positive image of Islam and Muslims in America.” CAIR officials have met with Presidents Clinton and Bush, consulted with the FBI, led sensitivity training seminars for law enforcement authorities nationwide, and are regularly consulted by the media for a moderate Islamic perspective. Since I wrote my book in order to draw attention to the elements of Islam that are being used by jihad terrorists worldwide today to recruit among peaceful Muslims, what group is better situated than CAIR to protest its banning in the name of American pluralism, free and open debate, and a Western Islam that is free of coercion, intimidation, and enforced conformity?

The government of Pakistan banned the book and confiscated all copies and translations because the book, according to the Kuwaiti News Agency, allegedly contains “objectionable material” about Muhammad, the prophet of Islam. Shahid Ahmed, counselor of community affairs at the Pakistani Embassy in Washington, declared: “The book is very, very damaging — let me tell you.”

In fact, however, The Truth About Muhammad, a New York Times bestseller, contains nothing but material carefully sourced from the texts that Islamic authorities consider most reliable for the life and words of Muhammad. It presents a respectful picture of Muhammad that generally accords with what Muslims believe about what Muhammad said and did. The only difference is that I hold Muhammad to a moral standard different from the one he delineated for himself, and do not in every case consider him to be an excellent example of conduct, an honor which he is accorded in the Qur’an (33:21).

That difference, however, ought to be not an occasion for banning and confiscation, but for free and open debate – particularly when moderate Muslims are crying out to be heard. After all, the reform of Islam that is so needed today – in order to mitigate the elements of it that are giving rise to violence and extremism -- cannot possibly begin without acknowledgment of the fact that there are aspects of Islam that need reform. Thus I determined that the banning of The Truth About Muhammad in Pakistan presented CAIR with a golden opportunity to demonstrate its moderation by denouncing the banning of the book and calling for discussion of the issues raised by it, with an eye toward confronting and refuting the use jihadists worldwide make of the Qur’an and Sunnah to justify their actions.

If CAIR condemned the banning and confiscation of The Truth About Muhammad, and called upon the government of Pakistan to adopt the principles of free inquiry and free expression that are hallmarks of the prosperous, democratic societies that CAIR would no doubt like to see arising today in the Islamic world and elsewhere, doubts that have recently arisen about the group would be substantially dispelled. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) just rescinded an award she had given to a CAIR official after she learned that several former CAIR officials are now in prison for various terrorism-related activities; several nights ago CNN’s Paula Zahn tried unsuccessfully to get CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper to denounce the terror groups Hamas and Hizballah unequivocally.

Thinking that CAIR might welcome this opportunity, I contacted Hooper. He limited himself in his response to quoting a Qur’anic verse: “The (true) servants of (God) the Most Gracious are those who walk on the earth in humility, and when the ignorant address them, reply with (words of) peace” (25:63). He didn’t respond to further inquiries.

So does CAIR approve of Pakistan’s banning of my book? Certainly the organization hasn’t condemned it, and is unlikely to do so. It is odd, and hypocritical, that a civil rights group would decline an opportunity to denounce censorship, even if the group members disagree with the material being censored – for is not freedom of inquiry a foundation of civil society? Perhaps Hooper will reconsider, and recoup some of the public relations drubbings his group has been suffering of late.

But I am not holding my breath.

MORE YET

January 11, 2007

Mississippi grad student was Hamas leader

"He's Hamas, and he's assisting the murderous terrorist activities of Hamas."

"Student Was Terrorist, Prosecutor Says," by Mike Robinson for Associated Press, with thanks to Noir:

CHICAGO — A graduate student living in Mississippi was an important Hamas terrorist leader directing thousands of dollars to families of members who were jailed or killed, a prosecutor said Tuesday in closing arguments of the trial of two accused militants.

"He's Hamas, and he's assisting the murderous terrorist activities of Hamas," Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph M. Ferguson told jurors, pointing at Abdelhaleem Ashqar, who was a graduate student at the University of Mississippi in the early 1990s. It was the second day of Ferguson's closing argument.

Ashqar, 48, later an assistant professor of business at Washington's Howard University, is accused along with former Chicago grocer Muhammad Salah, 53, of being a high-ranking member of the Hamas terrorist network.

The two are charged in a racketeering indictment with funneling thousands of dollars and fresh recruits to the anti-Israeli organization.

Ashqar, of Springfield, Va., does not support terrorism and has done nothing illegal, according to his defense attorney, William Moffitt. Ashqar was merely trying to get charitable contributions to impoverished Palestinians on the West Bank under Israeli army occupation, Moffitt says.

WAKE UP AMERICA