DanielPipes.org*
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/
* Cross-posted with permission

Learning from the 7/7 London Bombings Could it be that the four bombs on July 7 jarred the British from their Londonistan reverie? Though a believer in what I call "education by murder," I doubt that 54 deaths of anonymous users of public transportation can profoundly impact so tired, liberal, apologetic, and multicultural a country as the United Kingdom. Some positive signs have emerged, however, which from time to time I shall document here.

We start with Scotland Yard boss Sir Ian Blair today calling on Muslims to deal with violent Islamists, saying:

The fact these are British-born Muslims changes the paradigm of terror. The crucial issue now is can we engage with the community so they move from being close to denial about this into a situation in which they really engage with us? We need them to tell us who the preachers of hate are, the recruiters of the vulnerable. There is an issue about the lunatic fringe of preachers. They've just said, "They're lunatics, we don't need to worry about them." Unfortunately we do.

Addressing a Muslim audience, Sir Ian added:

For you, I know, this is the worst nightmare that could happen to the British Muslim community. I am afraid this is your problem, and you are going to help us. We have to find the creatures of hate, and who they are talking to.

Meanwhile, Home Office Minister Hazel Blears publicized details of new laws in the works that permit the police to prosecute suspects before they commit atrocities. "Anyone who gets or provides training in bomb-making or other terror activities here or overseas can be charged. Ms Blears confirmed plans to introduce a new offence of acts preparatory to terrorism and another of inciting terrorism indirectly with inflammatory statements." (July 16, 2005) Permalink

Jihad on Trial What the Arabic word jihad means is crucial to the war on radical Islam. If it means (as one professor of Islamic studies puts it) "resisting apartheid or working for women's rights," we can all go back to sleep. But if it points to something more threatening (as I believe it does: "the legal, compulsory, communal effort to expand the territories ruled by Muslims at the expense of territories ruled by non-Muslims"), we must wake up.

Beyond this general political import, the definition of jihad also has specific legal consequences. I have already noted its role in passing in the trial of John Walker Lindh, the "American Taliban." But now jihad takes center stage in the trial of Sami Al-Arian in Tampa, Florida, reports Elaine Silvestrini in the Tampa Tribune. Al-Arian made repeated use of the term jihad when speaking at Islamic Jihad-related events in 1989-91. What did he mean by it? As Silvestrini asks, was he "just encouraging the struggle of Palestinians to recover their homeland or was he stoking a holy war?"

The government translator, Tahsim Ali, a contract linguist for the FBI, finessed this issue in his transcripts of Al-Arian's words, leaving the word in Arabic, on the grounds that they are commonly used in English. But during cross-examination at the trial yesterday, Al-Arian attorney's Linda Moreno pressed Ali for the word's meaning. Consulting a book, he replied that it means "striving," and is "used to mean both quest for holiness and waging a holy war." When prosecutor Cherie Krigsman asked how he judges the meaning, Ali said he goes by context. Krigsman then noted several contexts in which Al-Arian used the word, such, as "Thus is the way of jihad. Thus is the way of martyrdom. Thus is the way of blood, because this is the path to heaven."

Comment: (1) The context looks pretty obvious to me. (2) The conviction of Sami Al-Arian will help solidify jihad's correct understanding as a political term. (July 15, 2005) Permalink

Cut the Apologetics, a Muslima Advises CAIR Radical Islamic organizations divide into two broad types: those wanting to work within the system and those in full rage against it. The two share little; but while the political ones try to ignore the marginal ones, the favor is not returned, with the wild ones excoriating their tame counterparts.

For an amusing example of the latter, see a letter on the subject of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, written by one Aeisha Muhammad, distributed today by the Anti-Zionist Coalition, and reproduced here in part (with errors left uncorrected).

Dear Staff of CAIR:

I dispense with the traditional greeting normally extended to Muslims as your behaviour over and over again demonstrates that you are NOT acting to the benefit of the Muslim community but rather as an arm of the American fascist/racist government. …

Instead of pushing the Zionist agenda on the Muslims via puppet imams at mosques, conferences, condemnation of the Islamic resistance and now a commercial which puts blame on the Muslims for defending their political and religious rights. What a wicked you do by negating the teachings of Islam regarding Jihad and fostering guilt in Muslims for abiding by the injunction of Quran and Sunnah to go to Jihad against the enemies of the Muslim nation and religion. …

Muslims have the obligation to go to Jihad and to retaliate upon their enemies and there is no guilt in doing what ALLAH has ordered. No Muslim should be misguided and made to believe that retaliation for the atrocities committed by the non-Muslims upon Muslims is to be tolerated. No Muslim should go against his brother/sister jihadi in order to appease the non-Muslim governments of the world. No Muslim owes any apologies to any non-Muslim nation and no Muslim needs to be feeling bad for the crimes that are carried out by the Bush and Blair bastards under the guise of the Mujahideen. …

ALLAH's curse is upon you for your treason against the Muslim religion and people. REPENT before it is too late !

STOP POISONING THE MINDS OF THE MUSLIMS WITH YOUR CORRUPTED VERSION OF ISLAM THAT ONLY SERVES THE INTERESTS OF ZIONISTS !

Very truly yours,
Shayhka Maulani Aeisha Muhammad

Comment: However offensive this letter of the "shaykha," it does possess a certain logic. CAIR dissimulates about jihad, pretending that it is apple-pie wholesome, hiding that it really is warfare "against the enemies of the Muslim nation and religion." Aeisha Muhammad's call on CAIR to stand up and declare the truth about jihad makes sense to me. Like her, CAIR should cut out the apologetics and express its Islamist agenda in the raw. (July 14, 2005) Permalink

The War Goal? Saving Western Civilization In a cutting-edge editorial (or, as the British say, leader), the Daily Telegraph defines in "The fundamentals of law in this country..." what the stakes are in the war with radical Islam. The editorial defines five "values which are immanent in our culture, and which every citizen should be expected to agree with." (The wording is clumsy, so I have done some rephrasing.)

• The rule of law as defined by common law and Parliament (and not the Shari'a) prevails.
• Political legitimacy flows upwards, from the will of the people and the traditions of the constitution (not downwards, from the interpretation of the will of God).
• The state has a monopoly of coercion (jihad is unacceptable).
• The nation is the ultimate object of political loyalty (not Islam).
• A secular state, in which the free expression of religious beliefs is allowed (and not the special privileging of Islam).

Comment: While on one level banal – this editorial restates some obvious features of British life – its implications are profound indeed. The publication of this affirmation of legal fundamentals a week after the London terror wave implies that the Telegraph editors understand the ultimate issue is not defeating terror but saving Western civilization, starting with its British variant.

Nor are those editors alone in coming to this conclusion. Home Secretary Charles Clarke noted that there had been "a very strong response" to the London bombings from the whole of British society,

But it is a question of going further than that now. It is a question of saying we have to defend the values of that kind of society against those who would destroy it. That means standing out against, in a very strong way, anybody who preaches the kind of fundamentalism.

(July 14, 2005) Permalink

How a Young British Muslim Was Tempted into Jihad In a striking confession in London's Mirror by a young British Muslim about attempts to recruit him for jihad at a troubled moment in his life, he explains how his would-be recruiters made precisely this point to him:

They asked me if I'd ever contemplated suicide and if I wanted to end the pain and turmoil in my life. I was a teenager, with all the fears and insecurities of my age, with the added anguish of having just lost my dad. I was vulnerable and easily manipulated. They said: "If you commit suicide for your own reasons you'll bring shame on your family and go straight to hell, Jahanam. But if you end your life fighting for the cause of Islam, you'll be rewarded for all eternity. And you'll see your [recently deceased] dad again really soon."

In other words, as long as you're going to throw away your life, do it in for Islam and get the benefits. And what benefits!

They promised that if I died that way I would get 70 virgins in heaven and even talked about how I would be given a place to have sex, covered in diamonds and pearls. … "You'll go instantly to heaven," they repeated. "All the problems and pain in your life will go away. You'll be rewarded for all eternity."

Comment: The audacity of this pitch is excelled only by its immorality. (July 14, 2005) Permalink

How Islamist Killers Dissemble In "But he was good to his mother: Murdering for militant Islam," I reviewed the common pattern whereby family and friends of those accused of Islamist murder invariably respond with astonishment and praise the accused. I looked in some detail at Sajid Badat, called by one admirer "a walking angel" and "the bright star of our mosque," as well as seven other cases.

This is not a topic I have added to and updated, simply because the examples are so numerous and repetitious. But a quote today, about one of the four accused London bombers, prompts me to open a blog about techniques Islamist killers use to avoid suspicion.

Shehzad Tanweer, 22, Shazzy to his friends, scion of a family of model Pakistani immigrants, was universally said to be sports-mad and indifferent to politics. The Daily Mail quotes his uncle, Bashir Ahmed, calling his nephew "a very kind and calm person," "respected by everyone," and "proud to be British." Richard Ford of the Australian quotes two of his friends, Mohamed Ansaar Riaz and Azzy Mohamed, bestowing the usual high praise on Tanweer: "the best lad you could ever meet," "a sweet guy who gets on with everyone," "had a fantastic sense of humour and could make you laugh," "never drank and I never heard him swear."

But then comes the kicker: "He is the kind of guy who would always condemn extremism, like any good Muslim should. I have heard him many times in the past say such things."

Comment: The task of rooting out potential Islamist murderers gets ever more difficult if they ostensibly condemn the very ideology that motivates them. This has the tragic implication of raising doubts about condemnations by even sincere Muslims. (July 14, 2005) Permalink