Views From Kennewick

Friday, February 16, 2007

Fitzgerald: Those you presume to protect and instruct deserve better

The Jizyah is the name we give to the tax imposed in Muslim-ruled societies on non-Muslims. The non-Muslims are the so-called "protected people" -- protected, by a method of legalized community-wide extortion, from the Muslims themselves, who would otherwise be perfectly justified either in forcibly converting or in killing the non-Muslims. Ideally, the Jizyah everywhere would stop. That is, the aid that is given by Infidel nation-states to Muslim nation-states and polities, out of some dreamy belief that this will somehow make those Muslims like us -- i.e., be less Muslim – should end. For it simply makes them better able to continue to engage in the Jihad, using whatever instruments come to hand and are deemed most effective for a particular time or a particular place (from qitaal, or combat, to the money weapon, Da'wa, propaganda, and of course demographic conquest).

This aid that has been given by Infidel governments in Western Europe and North America exhibits all the features of the Jizyah. It exhibits these features in the manner in which it is both given and in which it has been received, and in which it is now by universal agreement of both donors and recipients assumed as being given as a matter of right and can only be halted temporarily and in the most extreme circumstances. It resembles the Jizyah that for 1350 years was paid by non-Muslims to Muslims within those Muslim-dominated societies. Now it is being given by non-Muslims who, even before their societies have been taken over by Muslims, have taught themselves the habit of dhimmitude, a proleptic state of psychological capitulation before those who would be judged both hostile and primitive by any rational and self-assured Western observer.

The local shock troops of the Lesser Jihad against Israel are those Arabs who renamed themselves “Palestinians,” with cunning, in order to disguise their Jihad as a "nationalist" undertaking. You know, the "two tiny peoples" business. Otherwise it would appear to be what in fact it is and always has been: an enormous gang-up by Arabs and other Muslims, with all their numbers and vast territories and incredible, unearned wealth from oil and gas deposits, on a sliver of land so small as to be nearly invisible on maps of the world. That "two tiny peoples" argument hides both the real basis for the refusal to recognize Israel. And by "recognition" we mean of course not merely taking notice that Israel now exists (which is how Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah mean it, and of course have explained this to those stubborn members of Hamas who prefer the Fast Jihad to the Slow Jihad), but "recognition" as meaning this: yes, we accept you in perpetuity, we have abandoned the ultimate goal of destroying Israel as a Jewish, i.e., Infidel, state, we have accepted the idea that non-Muslims, too, have histories and rights, and we will, in fact, extend that understanding to other non-Muslim peoples and, as well, to other Muslim but non-Arab peoples, such as the Kurds, the Berbers, and the black African Muslims in Darfur.

That, of course, will never happen. It can't happen because Muslims cannot go against the central duty of Jihad, and the basic opposition of Believer to Infidel that is to last for all time -- at least, they cannot do so and remain Muslims. And the hold of Islam on its many brainwashed-from-birth followers is immense. It is like no other religion -- it is like nothing so much as what happens to the fanatical members of a political cult, such as the Nazis or the Communists, where deviation from the party line could be grounds for removal and even imprisonment, even death.

Here we have a comical spectacle: two branches of the same army fighting the Lesser Jihad against Israel (which is only a local branch, or outpost, or manifestation of what is a Worldwide Jihad) meet under the auspices of the fabulously rich Saudis. And the main point of the meeting is to arrive at some formula by which the Infidels will again have a flimsy formula offered them by which they, those Infidels, will turn on the spigot of aid. And the denial of that aid has been called, referred to endlessly, as a "blockade" or a "boycott." Now I wonder how many of us in our own lives, out of some misguided impulse, heaped large sums of money on those who gave every indication of regarding us, despite that aid, as their permanent enemies ("Infidels"), who were to be regarded with contempt and hostility. How many of us would willingly shower money upon those whose holy books tell them they must not take us as friends, and must indeed either "cut off the heads of the Unbelievers" or, if those Unbelievers (and we are those Unbelievers) are finally conquered, are to be offered only a choice: death, conversion to Islam, or a permanent state of humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity, that status known as being a "dhimmi," its rules codified in the Shari'a or Holy Law of Islam. (See Antoine Fattal, "Le status legal des non-musulmanes en pays d'Islam").

Now, funnily, these sums we have been doling out to these people who are inculcated with the belief that we must be hated, we must ultimately be conquered and our lands made places where Islam dominates ("Islam is to dominate and is not to be dominated") and Muslims rule, are regarded by us as something we simply must keep paying. Otherwise those whom we initially may, out of ignorance and naivete, have sought to treat with such kindness, such generosity, will turn on us. They will harm us.

And in turn, those recipients of our largesse do not show us any kindness. They denounce us. They grab and kill our citizens, our aid-workers, our representatives coming to Gaza only to announce the winners of scholarships to America, our ambassadorial staff in Khartoum. They have not modified their murderous desires in the slightest, but have only used what aid the Infidels -- that is, we -- have given them to make war on other Infidels.

Now we have the Saudis, who have received several trillion dollars since 1973, and have never been asked, it seems, to divert some of the money they spend on sowing the seeds of Islam everywhere in the Western world. They have built and then maintained mosques in Rome, in London, in Paris, and in a thousand or ten thousand other places. In those mosques the most horrific sermons, the most horrific audiocassettes, the most horrific literature, denouncing the Infidels in murderous language, is a given -- at least until some Infidel police manage to uncover, here and there, a particular case of what is in fact a systematic scandal.

Yet in Mecca, the Slow Jihadists of Abbas and the Fast Jihadists of Meshaal came away with the idea that the Infidels should renew their Jizyah. No one seems to think this absurd in the Western world. No one seems to think that there is anything wrong with the Infidels, already having transferred ten trillion dollars -- the greatest transfer of wealth in human history -- to the almost entirely Muslim membership of OPEC since 1973, keeping on giving more money. Yet that transfer of wealth has only occurred because of an accident of geology, and not out of any actual effort or merit on the part of those Arab and Muslim states that happen to sit on top or this oil. They are going to continue to receive similar, though even larger sums, in the future. And it is they who should be the ones properly asked to support -- if support there is to be -- those local Arabs and fellow Muslims whom some persist in pretending should be identified as a separate people, the "Palestinian people." And what a semantic farce that is.

What presidential candidate will stand up and say what I have just written here? Who will stand up and say "Stop the Jizyah"? In saying that, he or she would start the public discussion of what the Jizyah is and always was, and point out the absurdity of the vast sums being spent not only in Iraq to create that idiotic Light Unto the Muslim Nations, but also to create a pseudo-prosperity when there is no connection between prosperity and the fanaticism of Muslims pursuing Jihad. Infidel aid can only make that pursuit more likely, more easy of achievement. Finally, the man (or woman) who stands up and says simply that We Must Not Renew The Jizyah to the "Palestinians" will also force others to discuss this matter, and to discuss also ways to use up Saudi Arabia's discretionary income that it plows into the Jihad that harms us so much. One of those ways is to make the poor Arabs and Muslims stop counting on the West, but to go hat in hand to the Saudis. Let them pay for the "Palestinians," let them keep Mubarak's Family-and-Friends plan going. Why should Egyptians continue to blame Americans for propping up the corrupt and oppressive regime? Let them blame the Saudis. If Abdullah of Jordan is, as some say, a force for stability and "moderation" (this is the usual unthinking nonsense, but in the spirit of the first-year law student who likes to preface his remarks or his exam answer with "assuming arguendo," we can run with it here), then surely Saudi Arabia, that "staunch ally" of the United States, circumjacent to Jordan, has a much greater stake in that country's stability and prosperity, and should be the one most desirous to prop it up -- shouldn't it?

Not everyone in the United States is a fool. Not everyone shares the foolishness, the mental inertia, or the sheer hectic vacancy and busy-busyness (too busy to find out about Islam, too busy to read history, too busy to think) of those who are "taking a leadership role."

Be leaders. Study. Learn. Make sense of things, the way Washington, Adams, Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, Lincoln would have known how to do. You don't have to be as mediocre as you have allowed yourselves to be.

Those you presume to protect and instruct deserve better.

February 15, 2007

The Duplicity of islam ... Part II

Thwart "sex maniacs" with chastity belts: Malaysian Muslim advisor

Abdication of Responsibility Alert: Never mind demanding self-restraint from men, and addressing Islamic cultures' propensity to excuse their offenses -- make the women wear chastity belts. From AFP:

KUALA LUMPUR (AFP) - A respected Malaysian Muslim religious advisor has suggested that women wear chastity belts to thwart "sex maniacs" who rape and commit incest, according to a report.
Abu Hassan Din Al-Hafiz said cases of rape and incest were rampant and that chastity belts would help reduce sex-related crimes, the Star daily reported.
"We have even come across a number of unusual sex cases, where even senior citizens and children were not spared. The best way to avert sex perpetrators is to wear protection," he was quoted as saying in the newspaper.
"My intention is not to offend women but to safeguard them from sex maniacs," he said.
Elaborating on his idea, he said there would be other positives to donning the belts.
"Husbands could also feel more secure, if you know what I mean," he said, adding chastity belts were worn as recently as the mid-1960s.

Will not wearing one's chastity belt become tantamount to "asking for" rape?

Abu Hassan has served as a religious advisor to Malaysia's king and written books on Islamic studies.

February 16, 2007

The Duplicity of islam

February 16, 2007

The intimidation of moderate Muslims in the U.S.


Erick Stakelbeck at Hot Air reports on the continuing persecution of Jamal Miftah, a Muslim in Tulsa, who has been called "un-Islamic" by the imam of a U.S. mosque for daring to condemn Osama bin Laden. "It was not an express threat," says Miftah of what mosque leaders were saying about him, "but it is an implied message to the others: that he isn't Islamic, you kill him, you go to heaven."

The Al-Salaam Mosque in Tulsa, which kicked out Miftah, said they would take him back if he apologizes for the op-ed he wrote against bin Laden -- although now they say they only kicked him out because he was too loud during Islamic services. Sure. You'd think they'd put up with the inconvenience of his loud voice considering the fact that he was articulating the moderation that we're constantly told that they all believe in, wouldn't they? After all, Muslim leaders complain that moderate Muslims get no attention from the media -- surely they would all want to stand behind Jamal Miftah, wouldn't they? Wouldn't they?

February 16, 2007

Thursday, February 15, 2007

Can Someone Explain To Me Why We Are Funding This University?

Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin - Feb. 15, 2007

Contact details here

View this bulletin online here

US-funded Palestinian university holds
anti-American symposium

by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook

Al-Najah University in Nablus, which receives funding from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), held a symposium for its law students, faculty and administration this week, condemning the trial of Saddam Hussein and the American role in the trial. The trial was vilified as “illegal and vindictive” because “it took place during the period of the illegal American occupation of Iraq.”

The $4 million dollars in USAID funding that Al-Najah has received since 2004 is for a current project at the university’s faculty of law "for strengthening the rule of law.”

It should be noted that even before this latest anti-American activity at the law faculty, the last two years of funding of Al-Najah University have been in violation of American law. Al-Najah hosts branches of the terror organizations Hamas and Islamic Jihad on campus, and US law since 2005 has prohibited funding any "educational institution that the Secretary knows or has reason to believe advocates, plans, sponsors, engages in, or has engaged in, terrorist activity...” (Foreign Operations Bill 2006 (SEC. 559.b-c)

By sponsoring branches of terrorist organizations, Al-Najah has been ineligible to receive US funding.

The following are the full articles related to Al-Najah university:

Current Article:

"The public relations department in the Al-Najah University in Nablus organized yesterday a symposium named 'The trial of the Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein, and the American role in this trial – a witness testimony from the courthouse.' The head of the university’s public relations department, Dr. Nabil Alawi and the American lawyer, Curtis Dobler, participated in the symposium that Al-Najah University organized… with the presence of students from the law faculty and members of the teaching staff and the administrative staff of the university.

Dobler… focused on two central points in the trial, which are: The trial’s illegality, which took place under the American occupation of Iraq in order to convict Saddam and his assistants, and the vindictive results the trial reached. He emphasized that the trial of President Saddam Hussein is illegal and vindictive.

He further said: “Saddam Hussein’s defense team gave to the courthouse, on November 20, 2006, a memorandum of 300 pages which confirms the illegality of this trial, since it took place during the period of the illegal American occupation of Iraq”…

The American lawyer explained: “Saddam did for the Iraqis a kind of justice and encouraged them to fight against the American occupation of their country, in his death.
[Al-Ayyam, February 12, 2007]

From PMW Archives on USAID Funding:

"The “Arkan” program, funded by the US, and the faculty of law in the Al-Najah University signed a memorandum of understanding yesterday… which, in its framework, there will be a co-operation between the two sides in order to develop the law education in the university…

The “Arkan” program includes two central focal points: the first being the development of law education in the Palestinian faculties of law… in the Al-Quds, Bir Zayt, Al-Najah and Al-Azhar universities…

The “Arkan” program for strengthening the rule of law stretches over a three-year period. Its operation began in September 2004. The program is carried out by the international company “Kimonex”… entirely funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), a total of four million dollars."
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, March 22, 2005]

Please feel free to forward this bulletin, crediting Palestinian Media Watch

Taliban flee battle using children as shields: NATO

February 14, 2007

The ugliest of tactics in the jihad against a hydroelectric dam. By Terry Friel for Reuters:

KABUL (Reuters) - Taliban fighters used children as human shields to flee heavy fighting this week during an operation by foreign and Afghan forces to clear rebels from around a key hydro-electric dam, NATO said on Wednesday.
The Taliban have used human shields before, but never children, local residents say.
The fighting occurred during Operation Kryptonite on Monday, an offensive to clear insurgents from the Kajaki Dam area in southern Helmand province to allow repairs to its power plants and the installation of extra capacity.
"During this action ... Taliban extremists resorted to the use of human shields. Specifically, using local Afghan children to cover as they escaped out of the area," Colonel Tom Collins, a spokesman for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), told reporters in Kabul.
The Kajaki Dam fighting was in an area where 700 mainly foreign fighters, including Chechens, Pakistanis and Uzbeks, arrived from Pakistan this week to reinforce Taliban guerrillas.
The Kajaki dam has seen major fighting in recent weeks between the Taliban and NATO forces, mainly British and Dutch.
NATO-led forces have been conducting operations in the area for several months to allow reconstruction on the dam and the power transmission lines to boost output, after fighting halted repair and development work last year.
The Taliban cannot destroy the dam, which would also flood a large area of the Helmand Valley, but its tactics are aimed at making it too unsafe for work to go ahead.
The dam was first built on the Helmand river in the 1950s.
Its hydroelectric plants, with a generating capacity of 33 megawatts, were installed in 1975. Once fully operational, the dam will bring electricity to 1.8 million people, NATO says.

Sunday, February 11, 2007

Truth on Temple Mount (It's NOT What You Think You Know)

During the past few days, Israel has been accused of attempting to "undermine the Al-Aqsa Mosque" by carrying out construction near the Mugrabi Gate in Jerusalem's Old City. Inciteful language and libelous claims have led to violence, aided by a mainstream media only too happy to accept Arab propaganda at face value. Camera teams congregate at the scene, safe in the knowledge that their presence will further encourage Palestinian youths to riot, endangering Jewish worshippers at the Western Wall and forcing the Israeli police to confront the rioters.

Despite the fact that the Temple Mount is Judaism's holiest site, much of the media has stressed its importance to Muslims (the third holiest behind Mecca and Median) while ignoring or downplaying the very legitimate Jewish religious and historical connection to the site, which preceeds Muslim attachments by 1500 years. Despite ridiculous Palestinian claims that a Jewish Temple never existed on the site (which would negate both Jewish and Christian history), its identity with the location of Solomon's Temple is beyond dispute.

While the international media has been too intellectually lazy to find out for themselves whether or not the Muslim intimidation and violence has any justification behind it or not, the Israeli press, familiar with the issues is able to recognize the real story. The Jerusalem Post asks:

What is Israel doing that has sparked such violent threats? Some years ago, the pedestrian ramp leading up to Jerusalem's Temple Mount fell apart. Now municipal authorities plan to build a permanent ramp to maintain access to this holy site, and are conducting, as required by law, an archeological salvage dig to make sure no artifacts are destroyed in the process.

All of this is completely outside the Temple Mount platform, and bears no relation or threat to that structure, let alone to the Aksa mosque. Why would Israel dream of undermining the Temple Mount, which is Judaism's holiest site? The claim that Israel is doing so is patently absurd, as anyone familiar with the area can immediately see. ...

What is going on now, of course, is a rerun of the violent riots of September 1996, over the opening of an additional exit to the then already existing Western Wall Tunnels, well outside the Temple Mount. Today this tunnel is a popular tourist attraction. It too had as much to do with the "foundations" of Al Aksa as does the reconstruction of the World Trade Center in New York.

Caroline Glick, also in the Jerusalem Post, adds:

the Israel Antiquities Authority coordinated its salvage dig by the Mughrabi Gate of the Old City with the Islamic Wakf, the Jordanian government and all other relevant authorities before its archeologists began their work this week. Everyone understood that the excavation is being conducted 70 meters away from the Temple Mount and will in no way affect it.

Referring to Muslim attempts to deny Jewish roots to Jerusalem and its holy places, Nadav Shragai writes in Ha'aretz:

It is therefore easy to understand why the Muslims are so afraid of archaeological digs, not only on the Temple Mount itself but also around it, although these digs also shed light on Jerusalem's Muslim history. Muslims fear these excavations, not because they physically endanger al-Aqsa's foundations, but because they undermine the tissue of lies proclaiming that the Jews have no valid historical roots in the city and its holy sites.

Israel has an unblemished record of preserving and protecting the holy sites of all three major religions. Meanwhile, unreported by the mainstream media, real archaeological vandalism has been taking place on the Temple Mount. The Palestinian Waqf continues, unsupervised, to illegally excavate areas of the compound, dumpiing and destroying antiquities of immense historical value and attempting to erase Jewish history.

Why has the media accepted the propaganda and lies disseminated by certain groups with a political axe to grind? The real story of a pedestrian ramp being rebuilt outside the Temple Mount compound to ensure the safety of visitors (97% of them non-Jewish) may not be as interesting to the media as scenes of violence. It is, however, irresponsible and unprofessional not to report it.

Write to your local media to ensure that the real story is published. (Click here to find contact details of many media outlets.) HonestReporting will continue to monitor any further developments.


We went to the scene of the Israeli construction with a camera to see for ourselves. Click on the image below to view some of the photos. For more images, head to our Backspin blog.


  • The work carried out by Israeli professional authorities is completely transparent, which is why the excavations are open to the press.
  • All activities are being carried out in a location that is under Israeli sovereignty in an area under the responsibility of the Jerusalem municipality and the Government of Israel.
  • The new bridge and the Mugrabi Ramp are located entirely outside of the Temple Mount complex and are not part of it.
  • The aim of this process is to replace the old ramp which collapsed due to natural causes.
  • Building the new bridge will not harm any religious feelings and/or interests.
  • All operations are in cooperation with UN officials, Palestinian officials and other member of the international community and are completely transparent to them.

    Honest Reporting

CAIR and It's Islamic Extremist Ties

There are plenty of facts that show that the organizations that fund terrorism also fund CAIR. The Islamic Association of Palestine is an Islamic terrorist organization that raised funds in the US for terrorist attacks in Israel. Are you aware that CAIR's co-founder, Omar Ahmed, also co-founded the Islamic Association for Palestine? CAIR's executive director, Nihad Awad, has described himself as a "supporter of the Hamas movement. You did know that lower-level CAIR officials have been arrested and indicted on terrorism-related charges in the United States?

Here are some more facts for you

The Saudi-based Islamic Development Bank, gave CAIR $250,000 in August 1999. The IDB also manages funds (Al-Quds, Al-Aqsa) which finance suicide bombings against Israeli civilians by providing funds to the families of Palestinian "martyrs."

The International Institute of Islamic Thought, an organization linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, gave CAIR's Washington office $14,000 in 2003, according to IIIT tax filings. David Kane, who investigated IIIT as part of Operation Green Quest's probe into some one hundred companies and organizations, described in a sworn affidavit the various ways in which it may have funded suspected terrorist-front organizations.

The International Relief Organization (also called the International Islamic Relief Organization, or IIRO), a Saudi-financed organization being investigated by the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance for terrorism financing donated at least $12,000 to CAIR.

Randall Royer, CAIR's communications specialist and civil rights coordinator, was indicted on charges of conspiring to help Al-Qaeda and the Taliban to battle American troops in Afghanistan. He later pled guilty to lesser firearms-related charges and was sentenced to twenty years in prison.

Ghassan Elashi, the founder of CAIR's Texas chapter, was convicted in July 2004 along with his four brothers of having illegally shipped computers from their Dallas-area business, InfoCom Corporation, to Libya and Syria, two designated state sponsors of terrorism. In April of 2005, Elashi and two brothers were also convicted of knowingly doing business with Mousa Abu Marzook, a senior Hamas leader and Specially Designated Terrorist. He continues to face charges that he provided more than $12.4 million to Hamas while he was running the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), America's largest Islamic charity.

Bassem Khafagi, CAIR's community relations director, pleaded guilty in September 2003 to lying on his visa application and for passing bad checks for substantial amounts in early 2001, for which he was deported. Khafagi was also a founding member and president of the Islamic Assembly of North America (IANA), an organization under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice for terrorism-related activities.

Rabih Haddad, a CAIR fundraiser, was arrested on terrorism-related charges and deported from the United States due to his subsequent work as executive director of the Global Relief Foundation, a charity he co-founded; in October 2002, GRF was designated by the U.S. Treasury Department for financing Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. According to a CAIR complaint, Homam Albaroudi, a member of CAIR's Michigan chapter and also a founding member and executive director of the IANA also founded the Free Rabih Haddad Committee.

Siraj Wahhaj, a CAIR advisory board member, was named in 1995 by U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White as a possible unindicted co-conspirator in connection with the plot to blow up New York City landmarks led by the blind sheikh, Omar Abdul Rahman.

Ihsan Bagby, a future CAIR board member, stated in the late 1980s that Muslims "can never be full citizens of this country," referring to the United States, "because there is no way we can be fully committed to the institutions and ideologies of this country."

Ibrahim Hooper, the future CAIR spokesman, told the Minneapolis Star Tribune on April 4, 1993: "I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future."

Omar Ahmad, CAIR's chairman, announced in July 1998 that "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran . . . should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."

Violence is inherent in Islam – it is a cult of death

Human rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali issues a stark warning about the growing threat of Muslim extremism in Britain
  • Islamic faith schools must close • Sharia law could happen here • Multiculturalism has failed • Islam is the new fascism

By David Cohen

Evening Standard, 7 February 2007

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, never one to shrink from controversy, has some words
of advice for Prime Minister Tony Blair. 'Close the Islamic faith schools
today,' she says. 'Britain is sleepwalking into a society that could be
ruled by Sharia law within decades unless Islamic schools are shut down and
young Muslims are instead made to integrate and accept Western liberal values.'

Hirsi Ali, 38, the Dutch-Somali human-rights campaigner who lives
under 24-hour police protection and is in London to promote her provocative
new book, Infidel, argues that Catholic and Jewish schools can stay because the
values they teach are not a threat to liberal democracy. 'I haven't seen anybody
coming out of a Catholic or Jewish school advocating violence against women or
homosexuals, or wanting to murder innocent people in the name of their religion.'

Having grown up within Islam, Hirsi Ali believes she is uniquely placed to warn
the British public that they are living under a 'great deception' about the true
nature of Islam. 'They have deceived themselves that the men arrested in the
[alleged] beheading plot last week and the 7/7 bombers are a fringe group of
radical Muslims who've hijacked Islam and that the majorityof Muslims are moderate.

'But they are not. The plot to murder Muslim soldiers in the British
Army is consistent with the purest teachings of Islam, which encourages you
to kill Muslims who join the infidel army. Violence is inherent in Islam – it's a
destructive, nihilistic cult of death. It legitimates murder. The police may foil
plots and freeze bank accounts in the short term, but the battle
against terrorism will ultimately be lost unless we realise that it's not just with
extremist elements within Islam, but the ideology of Islamitself.'

But surely she must see, I counter, that the majority of British Muslims are
moderates? Sitting in her publisher's office in an elegant grey- flannel
trouser suit and pearl earrings, she fixes me with her lucid brown eyes. 'If
the majority are moderates, why did the Muslim community never take
to the streets to abhor the 7/7 bombers? Why is it that the only time we see
Muslims protesting en masse is when Islam is allegedly insulted, like with
the Danish cartoons, or the Pope's comments?

I'll tell you why: because Islam is the new fascism. Just like Nazis
started with Hitler's vision, the Islamic vision is a caliphate – a society
ruled by Sharia law – in which women who have sex before marriage are
stoned to death, homosexuals are beaten, and apostates like me are killed.
Sharia law is as inimical to liberal democracy as Nazism. Young Muslims need
to be persuaded that the vision of the Prophet Mohammed is a bad one, and
you aren't going to get that in Islamic faith schools.'

Suddenly Hirsi Ali halts her no-holds-barred polemic, a quizzical look creasing
her brow. 'When will this interview be published?' When I tell her, she breaths
a sigh of relief and in a rare moment of caution, says: 'Whew! Thankfully I'll be
out of the country! I don't know what's possessed me, but I've been more
forthright with you than in any other interview so far.'

It is two years since I last interviewed Hirsi Ali and now, like then, I am
struck by the contrast between her physicality – soft voice, waif-like
figure, and perfectly manicured long fingernails – and the explosiveness of
her rhetoric. If anything, she is more inflammatory and hardline now than
she was then.

Yet, as she reminds me, a lot has happened since we met, including the murder
of Theo van Gogh, the Dutch film-maker who made her film, Submission,
in which verses from the Koran of a man's alleged right to beat his wife are
superimposed on an actress's body.

Van Gogh's assassination in late 2004 propelled Hirsi Ali from being well
known to world famous, because plunged into his chest by his Dutch Moroccan
killer, Mohammed Bouyeri, was a knife with a letter addressed to her,
warning that she was next. The political fallout from this public death
threat has dramatically affected her life ever since and has made her into
the new Salman Rushdie.

It costs the Dutch government about 8 3.5 million (£2.5 million) to provide
armed guards for her round-the-clock protection, she says, and it means that
she lives 'in fear and looking over my shoulder', but insists it's a personal
price worth paying. Initially forced to flee to a safe house, her
neighbours hounded her out, saying her presence put their lives (and
real estate stock) in danger. The ball that began rolling that day has led, via a
few detours, to her leaving Holland, where she'd served as an MP for the
conservative Liberal Party, and taking a position as an analyst at the
Right-of-centre American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC.

To some, like Time Magazine, which in 2005 proclaimed her one of the '100
most influential people in the world', she is venerated almost as a prophet,
certainly as a hero. But to others she is reviled as a troublemaker,
Islamaphobe, and someone who simply transmigrated from one extreme
position on Islam to another. She has certainly travelled far: from the
privations of Africa to the West, from devout Muslim to apostate, from a five-year-
old girl subjected to the mutilation of circumcision and arranged
marriage to fervent defender of women's rights.

But is it true, I ask, that she 'regretted' writing Submission, as claimed
by a British national newspaper in its headline last week. She seems
surprised to hear this. 'I absolutely wish that Theo had not been killed,'
she says. 'But I don't regret that I made it. In fact, I'm proud of that
film. To feel otherwise would be to deny everything I stand for.'

Recently, says Hirsi Ali, she met Salman Rushdie at a writer's festival in
Manhattan and confessed that as a Somali Muslim in 1989, she had
supported the fatwa against him. 'Rushdie said that if I can believe he should
be killed in 1989, and now believe what I do today, it fills him with
optimism because hopefully other Muslims will follow the same path.'

When I ask Hirsi Ali why she's become even more outspoken since we
last met, she says that it's because she's realised that 'being diplomatic and
politically correct' gets you nowhere. 'The world is now in a far more
dangerous position than it was then. Hamas is in power in Palestine,
Iran is ruled by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and in the West, we are engaged in a war
against the enemy within as well as without.

The mistake that Blair and Bush made is that they called it a War onTerror,
whereas in fact, it's a War on Islamic Fascism. It's a war of values
and the only way we are going to win it is to be honest about what we are
fighting. This plot to behead Muslim army recruits is a warning to all
potential recruits and it can be supported by what is in Islam.'

Hirsi Ali says that on current projections of immigration growth and birth
rates, British Muslims will be the dominant group within the next 50 years.
A recent poll, in which 40 per cent of young Muslims said they would prefer
to live under Sharia law, and a majority said they were in favour of women
taking the veil, should worry liberals.

'We risk a reverse takeover. In 50 years, a majority Muslim society could
democratically vote for Sharia law, and then what you face is that Britain
will slowly start to look like Saudi Arabia. Women will be veiled, driven
away from the public sphere, polygamy will be rife.'
(BLOGGER NOTE: No more beer for the UK. NO more dancing, No music, etc.)

She takes in my sceptical look and says: 'You think it can't happen? The
problem with liberals is that we believe other people are as reasonable and
tolerant as we are. How naive is the self-deception of the West to continue
to talk of moderate Islam? We're trying to appease Islam, but we are headed for a
terrible confrontation between fascist Islam and Right-wing fascists who will step
in when liberals fail to do so. Why do Britons think that what happened in the Baltics,with fascist Right-wingers murdering Muslims, can't happen here? It can, and it will, unless we stop burying our heads in the sand.'

But there is a glimmer of hope, she says, borne out of the increasing
realisation that multiculturalism has failed in the UK. So what does
she believe should be done?

'We have to fight their values with ours,' she says. 'We have to persuade
young Muslims that liberal democracy is superior, that what the Prophet
Mohammed said is not right, that the Koran is a man-made brutal doctrine of
death whose time has long passed. We have to show the next generation of
Muslims, the children, that they have a choice and to do that – to have any
hope whatsoever – we have to close down Islamic faith schools.'

Unsurprisingly, Hirsi Ali says she is much happier living in America than in
Europe, because 'people really appreciate what I do, and the personal risks
I take, whereas here they prefer to shoot the messenger.'

When I ask how she sees her role going forward, she begins talking to me
about her new book. Indeed, it is typical of her honesty – and infamous lack
of tact – that, within earshot of her publishers, she tells me that Infidel,
a book detailing her life story, is 'far less interesting' than the philosophical
one she's currently writing, called Short Cuts to Enlightenment.

'Its about the Prophet Mohammed waking up in the New York Public Library and
having his absolutist ideas challenged by John Stuart Mill, Frederick Hayek and
Karl Popper, my favourite liberal thinkers,' she says.

Do they convince him? She smiles. 'No, they don't. But something happens to
throw the Prophet Mohammed into doubt so that by the end of the book, he's
no longer completely convinced by his own dogma.' She pauses. 'I suppose
that is the most I can do – creating chinks of self-doubt where previously
there was none. I can start the revolution within Islam but it will
be up to
others to finish it.'

Violence Inherent in Islam

Temple's location found,
says Israeli archaeologist
Study of ancient cisterns pinpoints sacred site,
– Muslim Dome of the Rock outside confines

Sunday, February 11, 2007

Posted: February 11, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2007

Using maps created in 1866 by a British explorer and passages from the Jewish Mishnah, an Israeli archaeologist and professor at Hebrew University says he has pinpointed the location of the sacred Jewish Temple, twice built and twice destroyed in ancient times.

While popular consensus places the Temple, built by King Solomon in the 10th century B.C. and rebuilt by Jews who returned from Babylon in the 5th century B.C., on the site of the present Muslim Dome of the Rock, Prof. Joseph Patrich says archaeological remains show its exact location – and the consensus is wrong.

Dome of the Rock on Jerusalem's Temple Mount, facing west.

According to Patrich, the Temple, its corresponding courtyards, chambers and gates were oriented in a more southeasterly direction, sitting diagonally on what is the modern Temple Mount. The difference in orientation and the placement further eastward varies from the east-facing orientation of other scholars who believe the Temple was closer to today's Western Wall.

However, that difference is why, Patrich says, the Temple did not sit over the rock believed by Jews to be the site where Abraham was prepared to sacrifice his son Isaac and where Muslims believe Muhammad ascended into heaven.

(Story continues below)

Patrich's siting of the Temple is derived from information collected by British engineer Sir Charles Wilson in 1866 on behalf of the Palestine Exploration Fund. Wilson mapped a series of ancient cisterns below the present Temple Mount platform. One of those, Patrich says, preserves a vestige of the Temple that stood until it was destroyed by Rome in A.D. 70.

The cistern mapped by Wilson, approximately 15 feet wide, 170 feet long and 45 feet deep, was located near the Temple Mount's southeast corner. It was oriented in a southeasterly direction with branches extending north and south.

Patrich's reconstruction of Temple in 1st century A.D., facing northeast. Courtesy Hebrew University. (Drawing by Leen Ritmeyer)

"Until now no one has ever thought that the location of the cistern on the Temple Mount and its unique shape were derived from the shape and location of the altar and sanctuary," Patrich told YNetNews.

According to the archaeologist, this cistern is the only one found on the Temple Mount that corresponds to descriptions in the Jewish Mishnah – the rabbinic oral tradition compiled in the 3rd century A.D. – of daily purification and sacrificial duties carried out by the priests on the altar in the Temple courtyard.

The Mishnah says water was drawn by a waterwheel mechanism from a cistern and held in a large basin, or laver, for daily purification by the Temple's priests before they ascended the nearby ramp to the altar to offer sacrifices.

Patrich's reconstruction of Temple in 1st century A.D. overlaid on modern Temple Mount. Octagonal feature is Dome of the Rock. Diagram is oriented east up. Courtesy Hebrew University. (Drawing by Leen Ritmeyer)

Patrich believes the placement of the waterwheel and laver can be reconstructed from Wilson's map of the giant southeast-trending cistern and from that, the location of the altar and the Temple itself.

Patrich's siting has the Temple further east and south of locations proposed by other scholars and diagonal, rather than perpendicular to the Temple Mount's eastern and western walls. It also leaves the rock in the Dome of the Rock outside of the confines of the Temple itself.

Patrich said his research on the Temple's location is strictly academic, and political connotations should not be attributed to it.