You are on page 1of 55

ISLAM WILL NEVER BE A PEACEFUL RELIGION World War IV 07 February 2011 The Moscow Times By Richard Lourie The

horrendous bombing at Domodedovo Airport was quickly eclipsed by the Egyptian uprising, but both are incidents in the new world war. That war began on Sept. 11, 2001, with an act of violence as specific as the assassination of Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo in August 1914 that started World War I. World War II also began with specific acts of violence the invasion of Poland and the bombing of Pearl Harbor but the Cold War, or World War III, did not. The Cold War, anomalous in many respects, was about the containment of violence rather than its use. This new world war will, at the very least, define the first half of the 21st century (already 20 percent complete), just as the Cold War defined the last half of the 20th century. World War I and II were relatively classical with clearly defined enemies and uniformed troops clashing on battlefields. The Cold War was amorphous and only sporadically violent. The New War is also amorphous but more than just sporadically violent without approaching the levels of World War I or II. But if the war widens to include a nuclear Pakistan and India, it has the potential to dwarf its predecessors. The West had the dubious distinction of being the main arena of the last three world wars, but this one is centered elsewhere, in the Muslim world, a struggle among a daunting array of opponents aging tyrants and hi-tech youth, Islamists and democrats, mixed with traditions of religious and ethnic hatred that are impossible to sort out. Though there are real grievances against the West, the conflict is ultimately a civil war within the Muslim world. The violence done to New York skyscrapers, Domodedovo and the Moscow and London subways are almost collateral damage. The war may be centered in the Muslim world, but its a moving center. Tunisia one day, Egypt the next, with tomorrow being anyones guess. Some commentators have worried aloud about the Egyptian contagion spreading throughout the Arab lands. Theyre worrying too small. Central Asia is also ripe for revolts of the Egyptian variety. The two largest Central Asian countries, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, are ruled by elderly despots who have been in power since the Soviet days. Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev has been working to be made president for life, a position he is already reconsidering in light of recent events in Egypt and Yemen. Uzbek President Islam Karimov has for the first time mumbled something like an explanation, if not an apology, for the massacre of protestors in the city of Andijan in 2005. In fact, Central Asia already has its own model for toppling tyrants in Kyrgyzstan, which has now become the regions first parliamentary democracy after it sent its corrupt dictator packing. Many think that the turmoil in Egypt cannot ultimately be good for the United States, not to mention Israel. Likewise, turmoil in Central Asia cannot be good for Russia. As Washington did, Moscow will no doubt opt to support aging tyrants in order to keep terrorism down and avenues of commerce open. But the day of reckoning will be worse for Moscow because Muslim unrest and violence will not only permeate its borders but arise from with the Islamic segment of Russias population. The Kremlin has two essential tasks now: to modernize its economy and society and to get on the

right side of history, the winning side in World War IV, while theres still time. Failure to do either will prove ruinous.

The Muslim Mosque: A State Within A State from Vijay Kumar Right Side News THURSDAY, 22 JULY 2010 Islam's political documents and law call for the overthrow of our Constitution and our man-made laws, and therefore for the overthrow of our government, which by definition constitutes sedition and treason. THE KABAH IN MECCA WAS NOT BUILT AS AN ISLAMIC MOSQUE. It was an ancient temple that had been shared by polytheists, Christians, Jews, and Hindus, honoring 360 different deities. In 630 A.D. the Kabah was captured by Islam in its military invasion and conquest of Mecca. On the day of its capture, Mohammed delivered an address at the Kabah in military dress and helmet, according to Ayatullah Ja'far Subhani in his book, "The Message": "Bear in mind that every claim of privilege, whether that of blood or property is abolished . . . I reject all claims relating to life and property and all imaginary honors of the past, and declare them to be baseless . . . A Muslim is the brother of another Muslim and all the Muslims are brothers of one another and constitute one hand as against the non-Muslims. The blood of every one of them is equal to that of others and even the smallest among them can make a promise on behalf of others." -Mohammed Mohammed's address at the Kabah overthrew the Meccan government and declared all of Islam, anywhere in the world, to be a political and military state against all nonMuslims, regardless of the non-Muslims' political, geographical, or national origins. "If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him." -Koran 3:85 Although the rightful owners of the Kabah are the many religions that shared it before the Islamic military conquest of Mecca, according to Subhani the Kabah today is under the control of a hereditary regime going back to Mohammed: "currently the 12th Imam from the direct descent of the Prophet of Islam is the real protector, its custodian and guardian." All Islamic mosques everywhere in the world are required to have a clear visible indication pointing in the direction of Mecca and the Kabah, where the international political and military state of Islam was founded. In most mosques there is a niche in the wall-the mihrab-that points toward the seat of Islamic power. Each mosque, like the Kabah, is governed by an Imam in compliance with the political documents of Islam. Mosques and the Political Documents of Islam The Koran is the supreme political document of Islam-its political manifesto and political constitution. It is the only constitution of the nation-state Saudi Arabia, which is the home of Mecca and the Kabah, where all mosques point, and is the birthplace of Islam.

The Koran is a totalitarian constitution. It demands submission by anyone within its jurisdiction. The Koran governs all mosques everywhere in the world. As a political document, the Koran asserts that everyone in the world is within its jurisdiction. So far, Islam has not been able to enforce that totalitarian claim on the entire world, but has managed to do so through threat, infiltration, violence, terrorism, and coercion on roughly 20% of the world. It is engaged in a 1400-yearlong Universal Jihad to dominate the rest of the world. All mosques are its outpost headquarters. Central to the Koran's political mandates is prohibition of religious freedom and religious tolerance, along with denouncements of religions such as Christianity and Judaism. "O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them." -Koran 5:51 "Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)" -Koran 9:5 All mosque leaders must be loyal to and supportive of these political and militaristic mandates. The Koran as a political document also forbids separation of church and state. That is why every Islamic nation, where Islamic leaders have managed to gain power, is a theocracy, ruled by the Koran and Islamic Sharia law. The Hadith (reported sayings and acts of Mohammed) and the Sira (the official biographies of Mohammed) are the other political documents that, along with the Koran, constitute the basis for Islam's Sharia law. "There is only one law which ought to be followed, and that is the Sharia." -Syed Qutb Sharia law is administered by Islamic Imams who interpret the law and hand down rulings in their sole discretion. Sharia law does not allow trial by jury. Sharia law also mandates a double standard of laws for Muslims (believers) and infidels (nonbelievers). Sharia law mandates a discriminatory tax, called jizya, on non-Islamic religions and nations: "Fight those who believe not in Allah...until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." -Koran 9:29 Sharia law also mandates discrimination toward women, and forbids any criticism of Islam or its founder, stifling freedom of speech. Sharia law also mandates that all men are slaves with no right to freedom of religion: "Allah's right on His slaves is that they should worship Him (Alone) and should not worship any besides Him." -Mohammed, Sahih Bukhari 4:52:108, Narrated Mu'adh Sharia law does not allow for separation of church and state. Sharia regards church and state as one inseparable entity governing every aspect of individual and social life, both spiritual and secular. That is why all Islamic nations are theocracies. In short, Sharia law stands in direct opposition to the American Constitution and Bill of Rights. The implementation of Sharia law demands the overthrow of the American Constitution and our form of government and system of laws. Mosque leaders, in every nation in the world, are loyal to the Koran, the Hadith, the Sira, and consider them divine law, and therefore supreme over all manmade laws.

Other political and military documents of Islam include treaties of Mohammed, which are held in reverence by Islam as models of conduct in relations between nations. "Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah [Mohammed] a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah." -Koran 33:21 "War is deceit." -Mohammed, Sahih Bukhari 4:52:268, Narrated Abu Hurarira In one treaty proposal, to Jaifer and Abd, Mohammed wrote: "If you two accept Islam, your country will, as usual, remain with you. But if you refuse or object, it is a perishable thing." -Mohammed In another, to the Chiefs of Aqaba, he wrote: "It is better for you either to accept Islam or agree to pay Jizya and consent to remain obedient to Allah . . . If you do not accept these terms . . . I shall have to wage war (to bring peace and security)." -Mohammed These same patterns and political mandates have been used over and over by Muslims since 610 A.D. to invade and conquer many civilizations and nations throughout the world, and to eradicate human rights and freedoms in those lands. Iran once was called Persia and was Zorastrian. Egypt was Christian. What was once a Hindu civilization was conquered and made into Pakistan, which is now part of the Axis of Jihad, along with Iran and Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan was Buddhist for thousands of years. Now its chief exports are heroin and Islamic terrorism. "When We decide to destroy a population, We (first) send a definite order to those among them who are given the good things of this life and yet transgress; so that the word is proved true against them: then (it is) We destroy them utterly." -Koran 17:16 In every instance where Islam has conquered and "destroyed utterly" a nation or civilization, the key to the conquest was the establishment of mosques, which are political and military command and control centers for Islam, and which all point toward the seat of Islamic power: the Kabah. Mosques and the Fallacy of the "Moderate Muslim" The majority of Germans during World War II were not active members of the Nazi party, were not waging war, and were not involved in the holocaust. The leaders, though, were active members of the Nazi party, were waging war, and were involved in the holocaust. The majority of Russians and eastern Europeans under the rule of the U.S.S.R. were not trying to spread Communism throughout the world, and were not threatening and waging war and revolution, but were going about their daily lives trying to survive. The leaders, though, were doing everything they could to spread Communism throughout the world, and were threatening and waging war and revolution. Throughout history, since 610 A.D., the leaders of Islam have been waging Universal Jihad around the world for the purpose of Islamic totalitarian domination of the world. It has never mattered what percentage of the Muslim population was "peaceful" or "moderate." Peace and moderation are not relevant to the totalitarian mandates of Islam's political documents, and Islam's leaders always follow the totalitarian mandates of Universal Jihad contained in them. There are post-Nazi democracies. There are post-Communist democracies. There are no post-Islamic democracies. Literal Islam, as contained in its political documents, is the consummate totalitarianism. Neither Nazism or Communism had a

metaphysical factor, as does Islam. Islam uses its metaphysics as a wedge to drive in its totalitarian political doctrines. Once Islam has established itself sufficiently in any nation, it seeks to overthrow any existing regime or constitution or law, and replace it with Islamic theocracy. Even the most "moderate" Muslim is bound to obey Islamic law, and so is bound to fight if ordered to fight: "When you are called (by the Muslim ruler) for fighting, go forth immediately." -Hadith Sahih Bukhari 4:52:79:Narrated Ibn 'Abbas All Islamic mosques have Islamic leaders (rulers) who can call Muslims for fighting, and as such are satellite headquarters for spreading Literal Islam's political doctrine of world domination and totalitarianism-no matter how many "moderate Muslims" they serve. Mosques and the Worldwide Islamic State Islam is a de facto political state wherever it exists anywhere in the world. The Koran is its constitution. The Kabah is its seat of power, still in the control of the regime that occupied it in 630 A.D. All Muslims in the world, regardless of nationality, are required to travel to the Kabah at least once in their lifetime and pay homage to it. The fact that nations and international political institutions in the world do not recognize Islam as a de jure state is irrelevant. Mohammed himself declared it as a state, and Islam's own political documents declare it to be a state, and, ipso facto, it always is a state-within-a-state, governed by the Koran and Sharia law internally, anywhere that it has not yet gained full power and control. "The Believers are but a single brotherhood." -Koran 49:10 "A Muslim has no nationality except his belief." -Syed Qutb "Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and program." - Syed Abul A'ala Maududi Just as our Constitution of the United States binds and identifies us as a single political and legal union of non-contiguous states, territories, political groups, and people, so the Koran binds and identifies all Islamic nations and all Muslims as a single political and legal union of non-contiguous nations, territories, political groups and people, regardless of geographic boundaries, whose seat of power is the occupied Kabah. All Islamic Imams, in every mosque everywhere in the world, are bound to the Koran as supreme law. As we have seen, Islamic law gives Islamic Imams the power to order Muslims to fighting. The German Max Weber, who had considerable influence on international law and politics, defined "state" as that entity that has a "monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory." Islam declares that the Koran and Sharia law are divine, and, as such, are the only "legitimate" law in the world. In that way, Islam "self-legitimizes" its right to use physical force anywhere in the world, and the right of every Imam in every mosque in the world to call for physical force and violence at any time. This makes every Imam in every mosque a military leader. Islam is a state by every definition and theory, and is a state hostile to and at war with the United States of America and its Constitution.

Mosques and Treason and Sedition Against the U.S. Islam's political documents and law call for the overthrow of our Constitution and our man-made laws, and therefore for the overthrow of our government, which by definition constitutes sedition and treason. The Islamic documents call for the overthrow of our government-a protector of religious freedom and human rightsthrough violence: "I was ordered to fight all men until they say 'there is no god but Allah.'" -Mohammed's farewell address, 632 "I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.'" -Hadith Sahih Bukhari 4:52:196 Narrated Abu Huraira "He who fights so that Allah's Word (Islam) should be superior, then he fights in Allah's cause." -Hadith Sahih Bukhari 1:3:125 Narrated Abu Musa "I asked the Prophet [Mohammed], 'What is the best deed?' He replied, 'To believe in Allah and to fight for His Cause.'" -Hadith Sahih Bukhari 3:46:694 Narrated Abu Dhar "And fight them till there is no more affliction (i.e. no more worshiping of others along with Allah)". -Hadith Sahih Bukhari 6:60:40 Narrated Nafi' "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers." -Koran 3.151 "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them." -Koran 8:12 "Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know." -Koran 8:60 The Koran, as the constitution of Islam and Muslims, is diametrically opposite to the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. According to Islam and Muslims, the Koran is divine law, uncorrupted and incorruptible, whereas the United States Constitution is man-made and is not infallible, and therefore is corrupt. The U.S. Constitution is the antithesis of the Koran; therefore Muslims have no obligation to obey it. A mosque in the United States is a command and control center of a foreign political and military state that seeks the overthrow of our government, and an Imam in a mosque is a political and military representative of a foreign state that calls for the overthrow of the United States. The laws of the United States provide specific criminal penalties for sedition and treason. These laws are not only applicable to those advocating and calling for the overthrow of our Constitution and our government; they are applicable to anyone who gives "aid or comfort" to such declared enemies of the United States, or who "organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons" so engaged. The terms "organizes" and "organize" extend to "the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons." Mosques are just such units. Vijay Kumar is a Republican candidate for U.S. Congress from Tennessee's 5th District. A native of Hyderabad, India, Mr. Kumar lived in Iran during the 1979 Islamic

Revolution, when he came to the United States. A naturalized American citizen, Mr. Kumar has lived in Nashville, Tennessee for 24 years. He has been married to his wife, Robin, a native of Bowling Green, Kentucky, for 27 years, and they have three children, two of whom are adopted.

Will Homegrown Terrorists Turn the Big Apple Into 'New Yorkistan'? By Judith Miller Published June 11, 2010 FOXNews.com They had ambitious dreams, these guys. They would astonish the world, making it big by killing lots of American soldiers overseas in Somalia or at home in America. Worst case: they would die as holy warriors and become, if not rich, famous. My soul cannot rest till I shed blood, Mohamed Mahmood Alessa, the 20-year-old, American-born son of Palestinian parents, told his putative partner in crime, Eduardo Almonte, 24, according to the criminal complaint filed in federal district court this week. Alessa considered fellow Muslim Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the naturalized U.S. Army psychiatrist who gunned down 13 fellow soldiers and civilians at Fort Hood last November, a nut and an amateur. Ill do twice what he did, Alessa vowed. I wanna, like, be the worlds known terrorist. Fortunately, Alessa was plotting not only with Almonte, but also with an undercover officer from the New York Police Departments Intelligence Division, who was recording every word. As a result, the duo were arrested Saturday night as they tried boarding separate Cairo-bound planes on their way to Somalia, where they intended to join an Al Qaeda-affiliated, Somalia-based terrorist group called Al Shabab, or the guys in Arabic. On Monday, they were arraigned in federal court in Newark, accused of conspiring to commit murder, kidnapping, maiming, and mayhem in the name of God. Terror experts from the NYPD and the FBI have just begun analyzing the latest foiled terror plot against America, and theyve already come to some disturbing preliminary conclusions. First, the plot is further evidence of the NYPDs once controversial thesis that Americans will increasingly face a challenge from homegrown terrorism. The grim statistics can no longer be denied. In a May meeting, Mitch Silber, the NYPDs top terrorism analyst, told a gathering of security representatives at police headquarters that the preponderance of major terrorist plots against Americans since 9/11 were homegrown, that is, planned by terrorists either born or raised in the United States. In fact, Silber said, quoting his latest report on homegrown terror, 90 percent of the core conspirators of jihadist plots against America and the West throughout the world between 2004 and 2009 were radicalized in the West. While Al Qaeda remains a serious problem, the NYPD argued in its initial report back in 2007, the terrorism threat now comes mainly from younger Muslim men between the ages of 15 and 35 who are middle class rather than extremely poor and have no Al Qaeda connection, but have been radicalized by exposure to an extreme and minority interpretation of Islam. Alessa and Almonte fit this bill perfectly. Both are Jersey boys who grew up less than 15 miles apart in commuter towns across the river from New York. Alessa, the key

plotter, was the troubled young son of hard-working Palestinian-Americans. He dropped out of high school and attended a local prep school for troubled students before enrolling at Bergen Community College. As a teenager, he had hung out with a gang called the Arabian Knights, a moniker that the police eventually adopted for its four-year surveillance of the two potential troublemakers. Carlos Eduardo Almonte, a naturalized American who came from the Dominican Republic and converted to Islam, highlights another trend among terrorist conspirators that analysts are beginning to study: the disproportionate number, not only of converts to Islam, but converts of Hispanic origin. Is there something particularly insidious about the combination of Hispanic macho culture among males and conversion to Islam that drives such young men toward the most violent, extremist interpretations of the faith? Could this segment of American immigrants feel particularly marginalized and hence, be vulnerable to militant radicalization when they convert? No one seems to know. But Almonte is hardly the first Hispanic convert to turn to terror. Among the first, and most notorious, was Jose Padilla, a Hispanic-American citizen radicalized in Chicago and arrested in 2002 for plotting to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge. Another Hispanic convert is New Yorker Bryant Neal Vinas, the son of Peruvian and Argentinean parents who became radicalized in the city before traveling to Pakistan in an attempt to link up with Al Qaeda and engage in violent jihad. A second aspect of the latest case spurring debate is the alleged culprits destination. This is not the first time that young American-based Muslims have been linked to Somalia. Over the last few years, at least 15 young men of Somali descent were radicalized in Minneapolis, which has a large Somali-Muslim community, and left the U.S. to wage jihad there. They, too, joined Al Shabab. Several have died in Somalia, either in combat or perhaps at the hands of their recruiters, unwilling to permit them to return home with knowledge of the groups membership and operational methods. Are Somalia and other failing African nations becoming terrorisms new frontiera wide-open, lawless land of piracy, corruption, warlords, and mayhem? With the crushing of its Islamic militant insurgency, Iraq is no longer a land of opportunity for holy warriors. Daniel Boyd, the key plotter of the so-called Raleigh Seven (or Raleigh Eight, as it turned out), made the mistake of traveling with his sons through Israel to try to help Palestinians engage in jihad. Though he was skilled in the ways of war, intense surveillance in Israel foiled Boyds plans. Nor is Afghanistan considered welcoming, since American and NATO soldiers are for the moment keeping Al Qaeda out and its Taliban collaborator and sympathizers under pressure. Saudi Arabia is too expensive for most American jihadi aspirants, and Yemen too dangerous. Pakistan is being closely watched by American Predator drones and Pakistani security officials, at least some of whom now consider the militant Islamic groups they once helped create and coddle a threat to their own nuclear-armed government. Judging from the complaint, Alessa and Almonte clearly considered Somalia hospitable.

Counterterrorism officials and terror analysts are now contemplating what, if anything, they can do to make Somalia less inviting to aspiring terrorists and terrorists-in-training, and to monitor more effectively young militants who migrate there. Further, analysts cannot help but notice that while New York has long been militant Islamist terrors Number One target, it has also increasingly become the main U.S. source of the challengeNew Yorkistan, as one seasoned counterterrorism analyst calls it. Najibullah Zazi, the Afghan immigrant who allegedly plotted to blow up New York subway trains, may have moved to Denver, but he grew up in New York and had friends in the city. Bryant Vinas, a former Boy Scout and U.S. army enlistee who discussed a potential attack on the Long Island Railroad with Al Qaeda members in Waziristan, was born in Queens and raised Catholic in a middle-class household in Medford, Long Island. Faisal Shahzad, who tried earlier this year to blow up his SUV in Times Square, attended the University of Bridgeport and lived in two towns in Connecticut. Alessa and Almonte, both of whom grew up in New Jersey, bought some of the garb and gear they apparently intended to use for jihad in Somalia at an Army/Navy store in New York City, the complaint alleges. Alessa, seeing a fire hydrant in Jersey City, fantasized about a fire breaking out in the city in which Allah, God willing, would rain gasoline down on that fire. Alessa hated the city and his native country: God willing, I never come back to this crap hole, the complaint quotes him as saying, visions of body bags for American soldiers dancing in his head. Finally, the latest foiled plot vindicates the NYPDs investment in its long-term undercover intelligence program. The first tip about Alessa and Almontes dreams of killing fellow Americans came in October 2006 from someone who knew them, an associate who saw something and said something. For the next four years, police monitored the duo, watching Alessa even as he traveled to Jordan, allegedly to attend school (another failure). When it became clear that the two young mens trajectory was veering toward violence, the surveillance intensified. The undercover agent won Alessas trust. For an entire year, he watched and listened, recording the duos every action. The evidence is overwhelming. The foiling of yet another homegrown plot concocted by young men who were determined and disciplined validates the time and money that the NYPD has invested in collecting human intelligence. Judith Miller is a writer, Manhattan Institute scholar and Fox News contributor. This essay first appeared in the Manhattan Institute's "City Journal."

U.S. sees homegrown Muslim extremism as rising threat This may have been the most dangerous year since 9/11, anti-terrorism experts say. By Sebastian Rotella Los Angeles Times December 7, 2009 Reporting from Washington - The Obama administration, grappling with a spate of recent Islamic terrorism cases on U.S. soil, has concluded that the country confronts

a rising threat from homegrown extremism. Anti-terrorism officials and experts see signs of accelerated radicalization among American Muslims, driven by a wave of English-language online propaganda and reflected in aspiring fighters' trips to hot spots such as Pakistan and Somalia. Europe had been the front line, the target of successive attacks and major plots, while the U.S. remained relatively calm. But the number, variety and scale of recent U.S. cases suggest 2009 has been the most dangerous year domestically since 2001, anti-terrorism experts said: * There were major arrests of Americans accused of plotting with Al Qaeda and its allies, including an Afghan American charged in a New York bomb plot described as the most serious threat in this country since the Sept. 11 attacks. * Authorities tracked other extremism suspects joining foreign networks, including Somali Americans going to the battlegrounds of their ancestral homeland and an Albanian American from Brooklyn who was arrested in Kosovo. * The FBI rounded up homegrown terrorism suspects in Dallas, Detroit and Raleigh, N.C., saying that it had broken up plots targeting a synagogue, government buildings and military facilities. Last week, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano issued her strongest public comments yet on the homegrown threat. "We've seen an increased number of arrests here in the U.S. of individuals suspected of plotting terrorist attacks, or supporting terror groups abroad such as Al Qaeda," Napolitano said in a speech in New York. "Home-based terrorism is here. And, like violent extremism abroad, it will be part of the threat picture that we must now confront." Officials acknowledged that her tone had changed, though they said terrorism has been her focus since becoming Homeland Security chief. In some of the 2009 cases, extremist leanings are suspected but motives are not known. Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan -- accused of killing 13 people in a Ft. Hood, Texas, shooting rampage last month -- has apparently suffered emotional problems. But in interviews, officials and experts have also raised his Muslim beliefs as an alleged motive. A previous attack on the U.S. military, a shooting in June by an American convert who killed a soldier and wounded another at an Arkansas recruiting center, was apparently a case of a lone wolf radicalized in Yemen, according to Homeland Security officials. "You are seeing the full spectrum of the threats you face in terrorism," former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said. "Radicalization is clearly happening in the U.S.," said Mitchell Silber, director of

analysis for the Intelligence Division of the New York Police Department. "In years past, you couldn't say that about the U.S. You could say it about Europe." Europe has suffered a militant onslaught: transport bombings in Madrid in 2004 and London in 2005, an assassination in the Netherlands in 2004, and close calls such as the fiery failed attack on the Glasgow airport in 2007. Hard borders have helped the U.S. ward off the threat. But experts also said that Islamic radicalization is more widespread in Europe. Crime, alienation and extremism roil Muslim immigrant communities in places like tiny Denmark and the vast slums of France. In contrast, American Muslims are wealthier, better educated and better integrated because the United States does a good job of absorbing immigrants and fostering tolerance, experts said. During the last decade, Americans have been a rare presence in the Al Qaeda-connected camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan that have trained hundreds of Westerners and thousands of recruits from Muslim-majority nations. Nonetheless, recent investigations have run across Americans suspected of being operatives of Al Qaeda and its allies who were trained overseas and, in several cases, allegedly conspired with top terrorism bosses. They include a convert from Long Island, N.Y, who was captured in Pakistan late last year; a Chicago businessman accused of scouting foreign targets for a Pakistani network; and at least 15 Somali American youths from Minneapolis who returned to fight in their ancestral homeland. "A larger trend has emerged that is not surprising, but is disturbing," Chertoff said. "You are beginning to see the fruits of the pipeline that Al Qaeda built to train Westerners and send them back to their homelands. . . . This underscores the central significance of disrupting the pipeline at its source." A campaign of U.S. airstrikes launched last year has pounded Al Qaeda hide-outs in Pakistan. But the flow of trainees gathered momentum in 2007 when Pakistani security forces ceded turf to militant groups, officials said. The suspect in the New York plot, Najibullah Zazi, and the Long Island convert, Bryant Neal Vinas, allegedly met in Pakistan in 2008 and discussed attacks on U.S. targets with Al Qaeda chiefs. Vinas and Zazi are the first Americans to be accused of joining Al Qaeda in several years. Meanwhile, Silber said in recent congressional testimony: "There have been a halfdozen cases of individuals who, instead of traveling abroad to carry out violence, have elected to attempt to do it here. This is substantially greater than what we have seen in the past, and may reflect an emerging pattern." Some feel radicalization in the United States has been worse than authorities thought for some time. "People focused on the idea that we're different, we're better at integrating Muslims than Europe is," said Zeyno Baran, a scholar at the Hudson Institute, a think tank in Washington. "But there's radicalization -- especially among converts [and]

newcomers, such as the Somali case shows. I think young U.S. Muslims today are as prone to radicalization as Muslims in Europe." In proportion to population, extremism still appears less intense in the United States. But the Internet functions as the global engine of extremism. Websites expose Americans to a wave of slick, English-language propaganda from ideologues such as Anwar Awlaki, the Yemeni American described as a spiritual guide for the accused Ft. Hood shooter and other Westerners. And socioeconomic success will not necessarily prevent Americans' radicalization. Studies suggest that a quest for identity and the bonding process among small groups often drive militants more than personal hardship does. "The profile in Europe is in general quite different [from U.S. extremists]: more working-class or even underclass," said a European intelligence official who requested anonymity for security reasons. "But it's a bit simplistic to make assumptions. We have seen everything in Europe -- educated people, doctors involved in terrorism. The underclass argument is not enough." The Obama administration began the year with gestures to the Muslim world. President Obama promised to shut down the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and made a historic speech in Cairo. The Homeland Security Department leads the administration's counter-radicalization effort. The Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, which works with Muslim leaders, held summit meetings with Somali communities this year in Minnesota and Ohio, said David Heyman, assistant Homeland Security secretary for policy. But that office still lacks a director, critics point out, and the department has yet to fill other key posts as well. "We don't do enough about fostering a counter-narrative," said Matthew Levitt, a former anti-terrorism official for the Treasury Department now with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "Competing for space with the radicalizers and challenging their radical ideologies is the key." In contrast to the heightened extremist activity in the United States, Europe has remained relatively calm this year. But the West needs to keep up its guard on both sides of the Atlantic, said Farhad Khosrokhavar, an Iranian French scholar who interviewed jailed extremists for his book "Inside Jihadism." "You can be middle-class and have bright prospects but become a jihadist," he said. "We have to broaden the analysis. This idea of American exceptionalism, the comparison with Europe, should not blind us to the fact that we are going toward a broader participation in jihad."

Ultraconservative Islam on rise in Mideast By PAUL SCHEMM Oct 19, 2008

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) The Muslim call to prayer fills the halls of a Cairo computer shopping center, followed immediately by the click of locking doors as the young, bearded tech salesmen close shop and line up in rows to pray. Business grinding to a halt for daily prayers is not unusual in conservative Saudi Arabia, but until recently it was rare in the Egyptian capital, especially in affluent commercial districts like Mohandiseen, where the mall is located. But nearly the entire three-story mall is made up of computer stores run by Salafis, an ultraconservative Islamic movement that has grown dramatically across the Middle East in recent years. "We all pray together," said Yasser Mandi, a salesman at the Nour el-Hoda computer store. "When we know someone who is good and prays, we invite them to open a shop here in this mall." Even the name of Mandi's store is religious, meaning "Light of Guidance." Critics worry that the rise of Salafists in Egypt, as well as in other Arab countries such as Jordan and Lebanon, will crowd out the more liberal and tolerant version of Islam long practiced there. They also warn that the doctrine is only a few shades away from that of violent groups like al-Qaida that it effectively preaches "Yes to jihad, just not now." In the broad spectrum of Islamic thought, Salafism is on the extreme conservative end. Saudi Arabia's puritanical Wahhabi interpretation is considered its forerunner, and Saudi preachers on satellite TV and the Internet have been key to its Salafism's spread. Salafist groups are gaining in numbers and influence across the Middle East. In Jordan, a Salafist was chosen as head of the old-guard opposition group, the Muslim Brotherhood. In Kuwait, Salafists were elected to parliament and are leading the resistance to any change they believe threatens traditional Islamic values. The gains for Salafists are part of a trend of turning back to conservatism and religion after nationalism and democratic reform failed to fulfill promises to improve people's lives. Egypt has been at the forefront of change in both directions, toward liberalization in the 1950s and '60s and back to conservatism more recently. The growth of Salafism is visible in dress. In many parts of Cairo women wear the "niqab," a veil which shows at most the eyes rather than the "hijab" scarf that merely covers the hair. The men grow their beards long and often shave off mustaches, a style said to imitate the Prophet Muhammad. The word "salafi" in Arabic means "ancestor," harking back to a supposedly purer form of Islam said to have been practiced by Muhammad and his companions in the 7th century. Salafism preaches strict segregation of the sexes and resists any innovation in religion or adoption of Western ways seen as immoral. "When you are filled with stress and uncertainty, black and white is very good, it's very easy to manage," said Selma Cook, an Australian convert to Islam who for more than a decade described herself as a Salafi. "They want to make sure everything is authentic," said Cook, who has moved away from Salafist thought but still works for Hoda, a Cairo-based Salafi satellite channel. In most of the region, Salafism has been a purely social movement calling for an ultraconservative lifestyle. Most Salafis shun politics in fact, many argue that Islamic parties like the Muslim Brotherhood and the Palestinians' Hamas are too willing to compromise their religion for political gain.

Its preachers often glorify martyrdom and jihad or holy war but always with the caveat that Muslims should not launch jihad until their leaders call for it. The idea is that the decision to overturn the political order is up to God, not the average citizen. But critics warn that Salafis could easily slide into violence. In North Africa, some already have the Algerian Salafi Group for Call and Combat has allied itself with al-Qaida and is blamed for bombings and other attacks. Small pockets of Salafis in northern Lebanon and Gaza have also taken up weapons and formed jihadi-style groups. "I am afraid that this Salafism may be transferred to be a jihadi Salafism, especially with the current hard socio-economic conditions in Egypt," says Khalil El-Anani, a visiting scholar at Washington's Brookings Institution. The Salafi way contrasts with the Islam long practiced in Egypt. Here the population is religious but with a relatively liberal slant. Traditionally, Egyptian men and women mix rather freely and Islamic doctrine has been influenced by local, traditional practices and an easygoing attitude to moral foibles. But Salafism has proved highly adaptable, appealing to Egypt's wealthy businessmen, the middle class and even the urban poor cutting across class in an otherwise rigidly hierarchical society. In Cairo's wealthy enclaves of Maadi and Nasr City, robed, upper-class Salafis drive BMWs to their engineering firms, while their wives stay inside large homes surrounded by servants and children. Sara Soliman and her businessman husband, Ahmed el-Shafei, both received the best education Egypt had to offer, first at a German-run school, then at the elite American University in Cairo. But they have now chosen the Salafi path. "We were losing our identity. Our identity is Islamic," 27-year-old Soliman said from behind an all-covering black niqab as she sat with her husband in a Maadi restaurant. "In our (social) class, none of us are brought up to be strongly practicing," added elShafei, also 27, in American-accented English, a legacy of a U.S. boyhood. Now, he and his wife said, they live Islam as "a whole way of life," rather than just a set of obligations such as daily prayers and fasting during the holy month of Ramadan. A dozen satellite TV channels, most Saudi-funded, are perhaps Salafism's most effective vehicle. They feature conservative preachers, call-in advice shows and discussion programs on proper Islamic behavior. Cairo's many Salafist mosques are packed on Fridays. Outside Shaeriyah mosque, a bookstall featured dozens of cassettes by Mohammed Hasaan, a prolific conservative preacher who sermonizes on the necessity of jihad and the injustices inflicted on Muslims. Alongside the cassettes, a book titled "The Sinful Behaviors of Women" displayed lipstick, playing cards, perfumes and cell phones on the cover. Another was titled "The Excesses of American Hubris." Critics of Salafism say it has spread so quickly in part because the Egyptian and Saudi governments encouraged it as an apolitical, nonviolent alternative to hard-line jihadi groups. These critics warn that the governments are playing with fire that Salafism creates an environment that breeds extremism. Al-Qaida continues to try to draw Salafists

into jihad, and its No. 2, the Egyptian Ayman al-Zawahri, praised Salafists in an Internet statement in April, urging them to take up arms. "The Salafi line is not that jihad is not a good thing, it is just not a good thing right now," said Richard Gauvain, a lecturer in comparative religion at the American University in Cairo. The Salafis' talk of eventual jihad focuses on fighting Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq, not on overthrowing pro-U.S. Arab governments denounced by al-Qaida. Most Salafi clerics preach loyalty to their countries' rulers and some sharply denounce alQaida. Egypt, with Saudi help, sought to rehabilitate jailed Islamic militants, in part by providing them with Salafi books. Critics say President Hosni Mubarak's government sees the Salafists as a counterweight to the opposition Muslim Brotherhood. The political quietism of the Salafis and their injunctions to always obey the ruler are too good an opportunity for established Arab rulers to pass up, said novelist Alaa Aswani, one of the most prominent critics of rising conservatism in Egypt. "That was a kind of Christmas present for the dictators because now they can rule with both the army and the religion," he said. The new wave of conservatism is not inevitable, Aswani maintains, noting that his books including his most popular, "The Yacoubian Building" have risque themes and condemnations of conservatives, and yet are best-sellers in Egypt. "The battle is not over, because Egypt is too big to be fitting in this very, very little, very small vision of a religion," he said.

Muslims are Civilization Builders by Mohamed Elmasry (Saturday July 09 2005) "Muslims need to develop a strategy of positive communication which presents clear facts to Western civil society. Consistent truth and openness are the best and only effective antidotes to the current vicious campaign of Western disinformation about Islam and Muslims." Abstract Only the Islamic civilization was characterized primarily by a foundational Idea, epitomized by a specific set of principles and a broad worldview containing them. Critique: The foundational Idea behind Islam is convert or lose something (intolerance). By contrast, there has been no "Christian civilization" per se, although Christianity was a significant influence on the ancient Roman Empire, post-Roman Europe, and still (though more limited) on today's dominant Western Civilization. Critique: Christianity is an individualistic personal relationship with God in love. Every civilization tries to build an empire that reflects its primary values. Thus we have the Chinese Civilization and its Chinese Empire, the Roman Civilization and its Roman Empire, and so on. Later history has seen the rise of Western Civilization and the British Empire; and now we are witnessing the construction of the American Empire. The Islamic Empire took less than 100 years to build -- the shortest such emergence in recorded history. It took the ancient Romans about a millennium to accomplish the same feat. But a preferable name for the Islamic Empire would be the Islamic Commonwealth, which describes more accurately how Islamic Civilization developed and grew. Critique: The Islamic Civilization grew at the edge of a sword with no mercy. Today there are many temptations leading Muslims to believe that they are living in a postcolonization era. Consequently, they come to consider Western culture as their standard or societal mentor, losing their Islamic identity in the process. However Muslims today are living amid a new era of recolonization chiefly led by U.S. policies toward the Muslim world. This has resulted in a widespread malaise of defeatism, political fatalism, and the tragic loss of cultural identity. If Muslims become aware of this reality, they can turn the tide of defeat and become successful civilization-builders, just like their ancestors. Critique: Muslims want to once again draw the sword and become successful. (1). What is Civilization? A distinctive period of human development is often referred to as a "civilization," along with an appropriate referential adjective placing it within the historical or geographical continuum of time and culture. Hence we speak of Ancient Civilizations, Western Civilization; or in reference to peoples, the Egyptian, Chinese, Roman, or Greek civilizations.

Civilization defined: a relatively high level of cultural and technological development. Only the Islamic civilization, however, was characterized primarily by a foundational Idea, epitomized by a specific set of principles and a broad worldview containing them. Critique: Islamic civilization is non-existent as destruction does not bring development. By contrast, there has been no "Christian civilization" per se, although Christianity was a significant influence on the ancient Roman Empire, post-Roman Europe, and still (though more limited) on today's dominant Western Civilization. Critique: Christianity is an individualistic personal relationship with God in love. There is no "Jewish Civilization" either, although the relatively new term, "JudaeoChristian values" has emerged to indicate that today's Western Civilization owes elements of its character to religious and cultural roots found in both faiths. Critique: Judaeo-Christian values allows for cultural and technological development. In fact, the term should be expanded to "Judaeo-Christian-Islamic values" to reflect more accurately the influence of all three monotheistic religions on today's Western Civilization, since we owe so much to the influence of Muslim Spain. Critique: Spain became a world power after the Muslims were thrown out. (2). Civilizations and Empires Every civilization tries to build an empire that reflects its primary values. Thus we have the Chinese Civilization and its Chinese Empire, the Roman Civilization and its Roman Empire, and so on. Later history has seen the rise of Western Civilization and the British Empire; and now we are witnessing the construction of the American Empire. It is not widely known that the Islamic Empire took less than 100 years to build -- the shortest such emergence in recorded history. It took the ancient Romans about a millennium to accomplish the same feat. But a preferable name for the Islamic Empire would be the Islamic Commonwealth, which describes more accurately how Islamic Civilization developed and grew. Empires typically spread by establishing colonies and dominating indigenous peoples so as to exploit their resources for the benefit of the empire's central power base. Critique: Civilizations continue for long periods of time based on development. In Africa and Europe, for example, the Romans established colonies whose goods and labour primarily served Rome. During our post-modern era, the American Empire is being built up to serve the rich and powerful in the U.S. Critique: American values have liberated billions who were enslaved by Communism. The Romans perfected their celebrated road-building techniques, for example, not only to facilitate regular trade and communication, but also to keep colonies on a tight land-leash and to deploy troops rapidly to quash any regional rebellion.

Roman engineers also designed impressive amphitheatres for live public shows where the chief entertainment attraction was often the spectacle of prisoners fighting to the death, with privileged Roman champions, other prisoners, or wild animals. Critique: Engineering development in Islamic countries is poor at best. Special gladiatorial games ("gladi" refers to the sword) were popular family amusements that drew men, women and children alike to watch skilled fighters being slain by more skillful opponents. Tigers, lions, bears and other beasts were set loose in these arenas, to fight one another or to devour slaves, adding more novelty to these bloody public pastimes. Roman law demanded that every loyal subject should worship the god Jupiter and the god-emperor, Caesar. When Christianity began to spread in Rome and throughout the Empire, Christians were among those who refused to worship the Roman way and were often punished with death. Critique: Christianity values human life and through conversion blood sports stopped. By contrast, the Islamic Commonwealth was established from the beginning on twin foundations of equality and justice. Local resources were mainly used by locals for their own benefit. Moreover, marrying from within the local or indigenous population was considered a practical way for differing peoples to become fully and peacefully integrated. Consequently, there was relatively little discrimination between "us" and "them," or between "locals" and "foreigners." Critique: Decentralization has never helped a civilization endure for a long time. The principle underlying the benign interrelationship of formerly separate peoples comes from Quranic injunctions pertaining to human rights and universal justice, which were practiced from the earliest years of the Islamic Commonwealth. For example, most local social customs, called "al-orf," were accepted, as were the practices of other religions. Within the Islamic Commonwealth, freedom of religion, freedom of worship, and the freedom of each community to administer its own religiously based family laws were all practiced in fact (on the ground) and not just in theory. Critique: In practice every Islamic country discriminates against non-Muslims. Thus, Islam was not forced on local indigenous populations. In fact, it took Egypt all of 400 years to change from a Muslim minority country to one with a Muslim majority. Early Muslims understood the Quranic teaching that the Creator will not favour people, any people (including Muslims) unless and until they change themselves; so they worked very hard to improve the environment around them. In today's political and social terminology, these early Muslims were not only the most caring citizens, but were also the most socially and politically proactive. Critique: Early Muslims robbed caravans, conquered cities, and destroyed civilizations. Local people were given equal preference for leadership roles and equal citizenship in the Islamic Commonwealth. No wonder Muslims were not regarded as hostile occupiers! Resistance against them, including armed rebellion, was virtually nonexistent. Critique: Islam gives local warlords the right to take away individual freedoms.

To recreate such a scenario today, the occupying Americans in Iraq would have to give all Iraqis automatic American citizenship, accept them in American schools and universities, treat them like any Americans in courts of law, allow inter-marriage, and pull out their 140,000 soldiers. Critique: Muslims prefer Saddam Hussein over western democracy or freedom. (3). Western Civilization and World Peace Western Civilization has almost always used extreme forms of violence and oppression to expand its world dominion, to quash any perceived or real challenges to its power, as well as to settle scores among Western nation states competing for a larger share of the world's finite natural resources. Critique: Non-Christians like Hitler will always try to dominate through war. As a result, never in human history have so many people been killed by a single "civilization" -- never. Critique: All technological development in the modern era has been done by non-Muslims. The West perfected its military machine not only to kill, to destroy and to spread misery during our present era, but also -- thanks to nuclear weapons -- to threaten many future generations. For the first time in human history, untold millions of the totally innocent and unborn will have to pay the price of their forebears' warmongering. Critique: Keeping nuclear weapons out of Muslim hands must be a priority for civilization. We have seen how Western Civilization planted European colonies in Africa, Asia and in the Americas to serve the rich and powerful elites of London, Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, et al. Now we are witnessing the frantic and aggressive building of American colonies in the heart of the Muslim world. Critique: Western Civilization brought peace and education to restless areas of the world. (4). Muslims and Todays Western Civilization Today there are many temptations leading Muslims to believe that they are living in a postcolonization era. Consequently, they come to consider Western culture as their standard or societal mentor, losing their Islamic identity in the process. Critique: To become civilized a person must lose their Islamic identity. This is profoundly more dangerous when such loss of identity becomes systematically apparent in whole new generations of Muslims -- especially among the youth of upper middle-class and well-to-do families. Critique: It is profoundly more dangerous when a person maintains their Islamic identity. These young people are exposed to formal university education which insinuates Western values into every facet of life, so it no wonder that they are slowly absorbing Western tastes and fashions, simply because these are the styles and tastes that dominate communication and consumption. Critique: A recent U.N. study concluded that the Muslim world is grossly under-educated.

In the Muslim world today, for example, there are schools and universities run by American, Canadian, British, German and French interests which pay little attention to local language, culture, or even local issues. Critique: Education will ignore local superstitions and Islamic beliefs. The Western emphasis on racing to the bottom of the ethical denominator -- via cutthroat competition, and simultaneous maximizing of profits -- has led to a corresponding decline in Muslims' traditional regard for the needs of the extended family, caring for the other, etc. Critique: Muslim dictatorships have wasted their natural resources through wars. Muslim marriage now is based principally on mutual attraction, wealth or social status. And some serious cracks are beginning to show in family life, as dysfunction and divorce rates increase. As well, traditional Muslim attitudes toward caring for the frail and elderly are no longer widely accepted. Critique: Women are being liberated from Muslim men domination and abuse. Many Muslims today are only too happy to buy into the entire Western cultural package -- not just Western technology, but also the excessive individualism, the extravagant consumerism, the obsession with material wealth, etc. Today, they are all too ready to embrace the narrow Western view of human values, which are based mainly on power and wealth. Other Muslims reject outright anything that Western Civilization offers, while yet others would like to be able to pick and choose intelligently from among the goods sold in their Western environment. I believe that this third group is on the right track, because anything of real value that the West can offer Muslims today is, in reality, Muslim values repackaged and exported. Thus, Muslims must look beyond the layers of Western packaging and evaluate the real goods in relation to their lives. Critique: Devout Muslims will generally remain backward while living in the west. Pragmaticism, activism, rationalism and humanism were all practiced by the early Muslims under different names and must be practiced by todays Muslims, not because they are Western values but because they are Islamic values. Critique: Devout Muslims will never be rational human beings. Muslims must Islamize and moderate the Western values of greater material wellbeing, democracy, nationalism, commitment to progress, personal accountability and choice, individualism and the right to a private life. And they must learn also the strategy of communicating to the West what it needs so desperately -- spirituality, universal human equality, etc. Critique: Western civilization does not need backward Islamic ideas. (5). China and Japan and Todays Western Civilization For more than a century China has been redefining its relationship with the West. But while doing so, the strength of the Chinese family, the main character of the Chinese Civilization, was hardly affected. This is because the pace and methodology of modernization were adjusted to suit local needs and to retain the Chinese people's identity while the nation as a whole grappled with future change.

Critique: China has finally embraced capitalism and Chinese peasants are becoming civilized. Japan embarked upon such change much sooner than China and has been more obviously transformed as a result. Translations of Western classics such as John Stuart Mills On Liberty and Samuel Smiles Self-Help were already Japanese bestsellers during the 1870s. Yet Japan also managed to hold onto much of its core identity and its social changes have been consciously regulated. The speed with which nineteenth-century Japan moved toward modernization helped to lessen the impact of Western colonial bullying, under which China suffered. This was not only because Japan acquired the military and technical power to stand up to the West, but also because modernization robbed Western powers of their moral grounds for interference. Critique: Japan rejected western civilization values and terrorized the far east. The British, and later the Americans, found it difficult to deny that in Japan modernization went hand in hand with liberalization. Well before the Capitulations with Turkey, or the treaties imposed on China, their Japanese equivalents had disappeared. Japan came to espouse key mottos such as "Eastern morality, Western technology," and "Japanese spirit, Western expertise." As historians can now testify, both China and Japan were able to defend in some measure against the threat of the West by adopting some aspects of Westernization. Critique: Japan was forced to accept western civilization by the end of World War II (6). Muslims -- From Colonization to Recolonization: The breakdown of civilizations, including that of the Islamic Civilization or its Commonwealth, always happens from within. The most that an alien enemy can achieve is to give a dying civilization its coup de grce. Critique: The breakdown of civilizations can be attributed to violence and destruction. An alien or occupying army's encroachment takes the form of violent attack only toward the waning of an era of complete domination, at a time when the life of the attacked people could well be finished, but could be also positively stimulated. Critique: Western civilization has correctly identified Islam as the new evil in the world. The Greeks were stimulated by the Persian attack at the beginning of the fifth century B.C. Europe was stimulated by the Norse and Magyar attacks of the ninth century AD, resulting in the founding of England and France as kingdoms and the reconstruction of the Holy Roman Empire by the Saxons. Critique: Western civilization have prospered when Christians are numerous. In these cases, the assaulted nation did not lose its identity but instead benefited from a corrective foreign stimulus, supporting the thesis that external pressures are not always destructive to a given culture. Muslims today are living amid a new era of recolonization chiefly led by U.S. policies toward the Muslim world. This has resulted in a widespread malaise of defeatism, political fatalism, and the tragic loss of cultural identity. Critique: Western civilization is focused on eliminating Muslim dictatorships.

But that does not have to be the final verdict on today's Muslims. They could in fact become a new force in Western civilization-building, living like equal partners, not as slaves. Such revitalization, however, can happen only if they first become fully aware that they are living in a recolonization period -- the recolonization of their lands, their resources, their culture, their religion and their identity. Critique: Muslims must realize that Islam confines and enslaves people. If they become aware of this reality, they can turn the tide of defeat and become successful civilization-builders, just like their ancestors. Western bashing of Islam must be totally rejected because it is fuelled not by incontrovertible truths but by religious and political agendas. Today you do not hear much criticism in the West about India's deplorable and still-entrenched caste system, or about female infanticide in China. Chinese official policy restricts families to only one child, preferably male, and plentiful evidence has emerged attesting that female babies are often murdered at birth. Critique: Accurately reporting the facts should never be stopped due to Muslim protests. During the past half-century or so, we have heard often that the world is getting smaller and smaller, because people, objects, and information have come to move about more often and more quickly than ever before. Travel and transmission over long distances is increasingly easier and faster. And the electronic information revolution has caused a sudden and unprecedented rise in the volume and speed of data diffusion -- mostly one way, from West to East. Critique: Western civilization has modernized the world through technology. Most of the world's Muslims are faced with the immediate challenge of mastering the technology of mass communication -- printing, radio and television, film, video, and especially the internet. There is the potential, being realized even as we speak, for the creation of giant technology-based enterprises throughout the Muslim world, but the key to their success lies first in nourishing local content, local issues and local culture. Critique: Devout Muslims refuse to modernize as they cling to Islamic ignorance. On the ground, local culture means replacing the ubiquitous Western designer jeans, T-shirts, athletic shoes, music videos, games, and television programming with substantial local equivalents. At another level, local music, fine arts, and theatre must be promoted and research in science, technology and medicine encouraged. Critique: Even in tropical areas Muslims will wear robes designed for the desert. And having any day of rest other than Friday in any Muslim country is another challenge to our identity, a manifestation of entire nations just dying to fit into the Western mould. It is a gross case of self-loss that must be turned around. Critique: Western employers must realize that devout Muslims will disappear on Fridays. Fortunately, Muslims are not alone in feeling an urgent imperative to hold the influence of Western culture at bay. Hindus, Chinese, Japanese, and many other

distinct peoples from the so-called "developing world" are experiencing growing mental and moral reservations about accepting Western culture. Critique: Sadly, devout Muslims remain enslaved by Islamic religious ignorance. (7). A Ten-Step Working Plan For Muslims: Is there still anything like some preserved seeds of true Muslim civilization, now that the Muslim world has been fragmented into more than 50 countries? Or are even the seeds extinct? Or perhaps, Islamic civilization produced "terminator" seeds, good only for several generations and no more. Has Islamic civilization been totally absorbed and eradicated by Westernization? Is it clinging to life but terminally ill? Critique: Islam has destroyed numerous people through the teachings of MOHAM-MAD. And the questions do not stop here... What if the seeds of its civilization are contained within Islam itself; can they be revitalized and renourished? Can a new generation be "grown from seed" so to speak, and resist the impact of Western civilization long enough to survive independently? Critique: The new generation of devout Muslims are suicide bombers and jihadists. I believe I can answer these last two questions in the affirmative and hereby offer my people a working plan, based on the assertion that Islam is still unmistakably visible in the daily life of Muslims. From one end of the Muslim world to the other, there are similar beliefs, rituals, morals, family values, etc. There is still more in common among Muslims from Africa, Asia, even Europe and the Americas. From having visited more than 35 Muslim countries, I can personally testify to this fact. Critique: Muslim terrorists will always be at a Mosque on Fridays. The Plan [1]. From colonization, to destabilization, to recolonization: It is urgent that Muslims be educated to the reality of living in an era of U.S.-led recolonization, and that they must act accordingly. A key reality is that the heart of the Muslim world was never given a chance to develop after the initial colonization era ended. Instead, the Muslim world moved from colonization to destabilization and now, since 9/11, it lives under the shadow of recolonization era. It is an ugly fact; but it is the reality we must deal with. Critique: It is imperative that Muslims be taught Christian love instead of Muslim hate. [2]. Dealing with a bully: U.S. policies toward the Muslim world are of the bullying type, characterized by the ignorant use of violence. Ignorance, combined with arrogance, leads to the abuse of power at the highest levels. The best strategy to deal with bullying of this magnitude is a simple and direct one -- use the two letter word, NO. The more collectively it is said, the more effective it can be. Critique: Some Muslim countries will be civilized like Japan was in 1945. [3]. Muslims, unite!

If unity was always an Islamic duty, it is now our very means of survival. At the nation state level, both opposition and governments must work together even in local disagreements, to resolve their diffences without American or European interference. Critique: Devout Muslims are the enemy as Communism was during the 20 th Century. [4]. Work toward a Muslim Common Market: A good economy must satisfy local needs first, thus regional economies must be given a higher priority among Muslim countries. Nations should begin now, working together to draw up the blueprint for a Muslim common market that could be phased in and functionally implemented by the year 2020. Critique: Devout Muslims are against free trade and western civilization ideals. [5]. Tribalism is obsolete: The pan-Islamic movement must stop the divisive practice of tribalism, sooner rather than later, if any meaningful unity of purpose and culture are to be achieved. Critique: Islam is the perfect tribal form of religion and government due to local emphasis. [6]. Muslim countries must reform: Corruption and incompetence are not the legacy of Islam; Muslim countries the world over have the ability to reform their political, economic, social and education systems according to their own local and regional agendas. Making excuses does not make progress. Critique: Islam favors the local warlords that excel in corruption and incompetence. [7]. Learning positive communication strategies: Demonization of the other seems to go hand-in-hand with ignorance of the other -- in fact, they are directly proportional in civil society. Exclusion, enmity and demonization of those who differ from the numerically dominant or most powerful culture are all fed by ignorance and fear. Muslims need to develop a strategy of positive communication which presents clear facts to Western civil society. Consistent truth and openness are the best and only effective antidotes to the current vicious campaign of Western disinformation about Islam and Muslims. Critique: Western Civilization does not need Islams local tribal ideals. [8]. U.S. "democracy" propaganda must be exposed and challenged: When Christian missionaries introduced Christianity to Canadas First nations, they claimed to be selfless benefactors who offered salvation, a better lifestyle and superior culture. We now know better; they were destroyers of a culture they seldom took the trouble to understand. Muslims must never forget this lesson and continue to be vigilant and suspicious about lofty claims for the superiority of American-style democracy; it has often proven to be a dangerous oxymoron. Critique: Christian missionaries helped eliminate tribal cannibalism and wars. [9]. Discourage Muslims who become U.S. propagandists:

Muslims who uncritically promote U.S. recolonization policies must be challenged and their backers exposed. Critique: Devout Muslims will murder Muslims who have embraced the western ideals. [10]. Follow up: A follow-up team must be established for any Muslim conference, like this one, to produce a progress report on the status of recommendations presented and approved. Critique: Devout Muslims must be watched closely for terrorist activities and eliminated. * Paper delivered at the Islamic Conference, Cairo, Egypt, April 2005 North African Muslims helping Iraqi insurgents As Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco have clamped down on cells, terrorists join larger network, U.S. official says. By TODD PITMAN The Associated Press Wednesday, June 15, 2005 DAKAR, SENEGAL Up to 20 percent of suicide car bombers in Iraq are from Algeria a sign of growing cooperation between Islamic extremists in northern Africa and like- minded Iraqis, a senior U.S. military official said Tuesday. The officer said terror cells in the Middle East and northern Africa were increasingly joining forces as they face crackdowns in their own countries, leading to a greater flow of money and Islamic extremists to Iraq. Forensic investigations have shown that 20 percent of suicide car bombers in Iraq are Algerian and about 5 percent come from Morocco and Tunisia, according to the officer with responsibilities in Europe and Africa. The officer spoke on condition of anonymity, preferring for reasons of protocol to let U.S. commanders speak on the record. The majority of foreign bombers in Iraq are believed to come from Persian Gulf countries, mainly Saudi Arabia and Yemen, U.S. officials say. The officer said the numbers had increased, but gave no specific figures. He said growing efforts by Algerian, Moroccan and Libyan security services to fight terror cells have led extremists to join international operations. But he warned that they would later return home. The United States has reacted by funneling more money and troops into north and northwest Africa to train and equip armies to combat the growing threat from terror and insurgent groups such as Algeria's Salafist Group for Call and Combat, which is believed to have links with the al-Qaida network. The Algerian group was accused of involvement in the 2003 kidnapping of 32 European tourists in the Sahara and of a raid into Mauritania this month that left 24 people dead. The officer said North African Islamic militant groups have provided about $200,000 to the Iraqi insurgency, funneling most of it through Europe to Syria and into Iraq. Underground European networks were providing more cash, while African networks were providing manpower - mostly unskilled militants used to drive and then detonate car bombs that have killed thousands.

Once in the country, extremists join up with the al-Qaida-linked network of Jordanian-born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Islamic militants are traveling through Turkey, into Iran and crossing into Iraq - many times through unpoliced areas. Muslim scholars 'forbid' labeling apostasy By Sana Abdallah UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL Published July 6, 2005 Over 170 Muslim scholars, thinkers and historians agreed Wednesday to forbid "takfeer," or accusing other Muslims of apostasy, and decided to work out a criteria for issuing fatwas -- religious edicts -- in an attempt to unify the eight schools of Islamic thought and put an end to violence done in the name of the religion. The decision came in an unprecedented fatwa issued by leading clerics from the eight schools of Islamic jurisprudence following three days of deliberations in the Jordanian capital, Amman, where scholars from over 40 countries gathered in the first International Islamic Conference. Dubbed "True Islam and its role in modern society," the conference was a Jordanian attempt to repair the image of Islam amid growing violence being carried out in the name of the religion and the U.S.-led counterattack in its war against terror -- where Islam and terrorism have almost become synonymous. While the final communiqu of the conference made no clear reference to violence, it tried to limit the religious approach used by militants to justify their violence through regulating the interpretation of Islam and issuing religious edicts. The final statement said the "schools of jurisprudence within Islam means adhering to a fundamental methodology in the issuance of fatwas: No one may issue a fatwa without the requisite personal qualifications which each school of jurisprudence defines." It added that "no one may issue a fatwa without adhering to the methodology of the schools of jurisprudence and no one may claim to do absolute Ijtihad (interpretation) and create a new school of jurisprudence or to issue unacceptable fatwas that take Muslims out of the principles and certainties of Sharia (Islamic law)." Mainstream clerics have complained about what they call "religious chaos" that has been growing since the late 1980s, in which Salafi militants -- those who have resorted to armed jihad -- have used interpretations and fatwas of clerics aggravated by the continued Israeli occupation of Palestine, the U.S. policies in the region, and more recently, the war on terror and the American occupation of Iraq. The Islamic conference's final statement made no political references and did not condemn terrorism against civilians, possibly to avoid opening a Pandora's Box and to give credibility to these scholars who are seeking to win over the confidence of those who have resorted to violence and extremism. Participants at the conference said had the issue of condemning violence by Islamic militants been brought up, then condemning the violence of the U.S. forces in Iraq

and the violence of the Israeli forces in Palestine could not be ignored. However, the statement clearly referred to the "takfeer" approach adopted by militants and their religious guides. It said that anyone belonging to one of the eight schools of thought in the Sunni and Shiite sects, as well as those who practice "true Sufism" (banned in most Muslim countries) is considered a Muslim and cannot be declared an apostate and therefore "his or her blood, honor and property are sacrosanct." And what appears to be an attempt to avert the wrath of the Salafi militants and to try to attract them to the teachings of "true Islam," the scholars said it was also "not possible to declare whosoever subscribes to true Salafi thought an apostate." However, many factors are directly linked with the rise of Islamic militancy, primarily regional political conditions, the lack of freedom and democracy in their respective countries and poverty. Joseph Lumbard, an American Muslim and special advisor to Jordan's King Abdullah on interfaith affairs, insists that addressing the religious factors is the most important way to uproot violence by simply referring to only one thing: Islam. "It is clearly unacceptable in Islam's dictates of law to kill non-combatants," he said, adding that the fatwa issued by the scholars in Amman might "put doubt in the minds" of militants that listen to the edicts issued by those going against the dictates of Islamic law. He told journalists the conference and the final fatwa (statement) was "just a first step...the religious component needs to be addressed on a religious basis, and this is what this conference is doing." But Lumbard acknowledged that more work and effort needed to be made on all fronts -- political, social and economic -- and to combine all these efforts to address the totality of the problem of violence. So how much influence will these scholars have on the angry religious zealots who are wreaking havoc, especially that their militancy is being fueled by the U.S.-led war on terror that President Bush launched as a "crusade" in the aftermath of 9/11? Farouk Jarrar of Aal al-Bayt Foundation, an Islamic think tank that organized the conference, believes they have a lot of influence on the ground. He said that "some of these people in there have their television shows and their websites, they are highly influential. If they say that killing civilians is against Islam and must stop, it will stop," or at least decline. But it might not be so simple, considering all the elements involving Islamic militancy. Lumbard, however, believes that if results of this conference puts one doubt in one militant's mind that he is doing something wrong and it stops one car bombing, "then we have succeeded."

'Barbaric' terror explosions strike London, kill dozens By Jane Mingay Associated Press July 7, 2005 LONDON Four blasts rocked the London subway and tore open a packed doubledecker bus during the morning rush hour Thursday, sending bloodied victims fleeing after what a shaken Prime Minister Tony Blair called "barbaric" terrorist attacks. At least 40 people were killed and more than 350 wounded. Two U.S. law enforcement officials said at least 40 people were killed. In London, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Brian Piddick said at least 33 people killed in the subway system alone. He confirmed there were other deaths on the bus but gave no figures. London hospital officials contacted by The Associated Press reported more than 350 wounded. Blair said the "terrorist attacks" were clearly designed to coincide with the opening of the G8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland. They also came a day after London won the bid to host the 2012 Olympics. The explosions hit three subway stations and a double-decker bus in rapid succession between 8:30 and 9:30 a.m. Implementing an emergency plan, authorities immediately shut down the subway and bus lines that log 8.4 million passenger trips every weekday. It brought the city's transportation system to a standstill and left many central London streets deserted. (Map: Locations of blasts) "It was chaos," said Gary Lewis, 32, who was evacuated from a subway train at King's Cross station. "The one haunting image was someone whose face was totally black and pouring with blood." Recent mass terror attacks March 11, 2004: Simultaneous explosions rock three train stations in Madrid, killing 191 people and wounding more than 1,500 in Spain's worst terrorist attack. Islamic militants claimed responsibility. Nov. 15, 2003, and Nov. 20, 2003: Suicide bombings at two synagogues, the British Consulate and London-based HSBC Bank in Istanbul, Turkey, kill 62, including four attackers allegedly belonging to a local al-Qaeda cell. Oct. 12, 2002: Bombs kill 202 people in nightclubs on the Indonesian island of Bali. Authorities blame Jemaah Islamiyah, a Southeast Asian terror group linked to al-Qaeda. Sept. 11, 2001: al-Qaeda hijackers slam jetliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and a fourth hijacked jet crashes in a Pennsylvania field, killing nearly 3,000 people. Aug. 7, 1998: Nearly simultaneous al-Qaeda car bombings hit the U.S. embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya, killing 231 people. A group calling itself "The Secret Organization of al-Qaeda in Europe" has posted a claim of responsibility for the series of blasts in London, saying they were in retaliation for Britain's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. The statement was published on a Web site popular with Islamic militants, according to Der Spiegel magazine in Berlin, which republished the text on its own Web site.

The group threatened similar attacks against Italy, Denmark and other "crusader" states with troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. "We are united in our resolve to confront and defeat this terrorism," Blair said at the summit, with leaders including President Bush and French President Jacques Chirac standing at his side. "We will not allow violence to change our societies or our values, nor will we allow it to stop our work at this summit." He returned to London after making the statement. Bush condemned the attacks. "We will not yield to terrorists. We will find them and bring them to justice," he said. He warned Americans on Thursday to be "extra vigilant" as they head to work. (Video: Bush's remarks | Audio) The Department of Homeland Security on Thursday said it did not plan to raise the U.S. terrorism alert. "We do not have any intelligence indicating this type of attack is planned in the United States," said department spokeswoman Valerie Smith. But the department asked authorities in major cities for heightened vigilance of transportation systems. Bloodied and bandaged witnesses reported panicked crowds fleeing the blast sites. A witness at the bus explosion said the entire top deck of the bus was destroyed. Belinda Seabrook said she was on the bus that exploded. "I was on the bus in front and heard an incredible bang, I turned round and half the double decker bus was in the air," she told Press Association, the British news agency. "I saw lots of people coming out covered in blood and soot. Black smoke was coming from the station. I saw several people laid out on sheets," office worker Kibir Chibber, 24, said at the Aldgate subway station. "People were covered in black soot and smoke. People were running everywhere and screaming," said Gary Lewis, 32, who was evacuated from a subway train at the King's Cross station. "The one haunting image was someone whose face was totally black and pouring with blood." Jay Kumar, a business owner near the site of the bus blast, said he ran out of his shop when he heard a loud explosion. He said the top deck of the bus had collapsed, sending people tumbling to the floor. Police said incidents were reported at the Aldgate station near the Liverpool Street railway terminal, Edgware Road and King's Cross in north London, Old Street in the financial district and Russell Square, near the British Museum. London Mayor Ken Livingstone said terrorists could not break the city's spirit."Nothing you do, no matter how many of us you kill, will stop that flight to our cities where freedom is strong and where people can live in harmony with one another," Livingstone told reporters in Singapore. London's cell phone network was working after the explosions but was overloaded and spotty, limiting communication. Much of Europe also went on alert. Italy's airports raised alert levels to a maximum. The Czech Republic, Hungary, Russia, the Netherlands, France and Spain also were among those announcing beefed-up security at shopping centers, airports, railways and subways. In Washington, police with machine guns and bomb-sniffing dogs patroled the subway.

Pope Benedict XVI deplored the "terrorist attacks," calling them "barbaric acts against humanity," and said he was praying for the families of the victims. European stocks dropped sharply after the blasts, with exchanges in London, Paris and Germany all down about 2%. Insurance and travel-related stocks were hit hard, and the British pound also fell. Gold, traditionally seen as a safe haven, rose. The explosions also unnerved traders on Wall Street, sending stocks down sharply in morning trading. The U.N. Security Council was to meet later Thursday to address the London attacks and was expected to pass a resolution condemning the blasts, an official said. Muslim leaders denounce some violence But they aren't clear on the West July 13, 2005 By JEFFREY WEISS The Dallas Morning News Days before the London bombings, many of the Muslim world's top religious leaders declared that much of the violence committed in Islam's name is not spiritually legitimate. More than 150 Muslim imams and scholars met in Jordan, called by King Abdullah II. The unprecedented statement they released could drain some of the faith-based power behind wars between Muslims in Iraq and elsewhere, some experts say. The impact on attacks like the ones against non-Muslim nations the U.S., Spain and England, among others are less obvious. It does not disavow all acts of violence. The uniqueness of the Jordan announcement lies in the broad base of its support. Imagine the pope, Billy Graham, the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the head of the Southern Baptist Convention, Pat Robertson and 150 other assorted Christian preachers and educators getting together and then hammering out a communiqu. The Jordan statement, issued on July 6 with little notice outside the Muslim world, said Muslim religious rulings, called fatwas, have no religious validity unless issued by people who have the appropriate, defined training or authority. And it says that all major branches of Islam including Sunni, Shiite (also known as Shia) and Sufi are essentially valid. (Sunni and Shiite Muslims are often violently at odds in the Middle East, and their agreement on the Jordan statement is one of the things that makes it remarkable.) Terrorist justifications By implication, both assertions reject the religious justifications often offered by Islamic terrorists, who proclaim fatwas to condemn other Muslims as heretics, or "apostates." Islamic law says that Muslims, as a general rule, should not attack other Muslims. But terrorists say that it's a religious duty to attack apostates. And to the extent that faith is used to recruit fighters, inspire attacks and raise money, the document strikes directly at that support. Osama bin Laden declared a fatwa to justify the attacks on Americans, though he doesn't have the religious credentials called for in the Jordan statement. Various groups in Iraq have issued their own fatwas to justify killing Iraqis who cooperate with the American-backed government fatwas that under the Jordan agreement are

clearly invalid. Fear of such declarations from local self-styled imams and the violence that could follow stifles some moderate Muslims in many countries, experts say. Nobody believes that Mr. bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or other Islamist terrorists will read the statement, slap their foreheads and exclaim, "How could I have been so wrong?" And nobody is suggesting that any effect of the document will be quickly apparent. But some experts say that the statement and the attention it is getting in the Muslim world may deter less hard-line Muslims who are considering joining terrorists or who stand in quiet sympathy when terrorists strike. "It is not fully appreciated how vulnerable movements such as al-Qaeda are to criticisms concerning their doctrinal propriety," said Stephen Ulph, the London-based editor of the online journal Terrorism Focus and analyst of Islamic affairs for Jane's Information Group. Muslim world buzzing All but ignored so far by Western media, the conference has been discussed on several Arab and Muslim Web sites. Reports about it have appeared on the Kuwait and Jordanian official news services, and several Middle East TV and radio networks, including al-Jazeera. "It happens one step at a time," said Joseph Lombard, an American-born adviser to King Abdullah, who helped organize the conference. "With this, there will be one person somewhere who will get a doubt in his mind and won't do something he otherwise would have done. Then there will be five people and 100 people and so on." Supporters of the Jordan conference and statement include: Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, the most influential Shiite cleric in Iraq. Shiite Muslims form the majority in that country and control the U.S.-supported government. Grand Imam Sheik Al Azhar Mohamed Sayyed Tantawi and Grand Mufti Ali Jumaa, both highly respected Sunni leaders in Egypt. Sheik Yusuf Al Qaradawi, the controversial Egyptian-born cleric who has issued a fatwa declaring the legitimacy of Hamas attacks on Israel. The Islamic Fiqh Academy of Saudi Arabia, that nation's highest religious body; and the Grand Council for Religious Affairs of Turkey, that nation's top religious body. Two Americans participated: Brooklyn-based Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and Ingrid Mattson, an Islamic studies professor at Hartford Seminary. Attacks on Muslims The conference statement most clearly applies to Muslim-on-Muslim violence. During 14 centuries of Muslim history, dozens of wars and battles have been religiously justified by one side declaring the other excommunicated, or takfir. But the Jordan document says that those who follow any of eight long-standing schools of Islamic jurisprudence cannot be declared outside the faith. The communiqu's application to violence committed against non-Muslims is less clear.

The document says that only fatwas that are consistent with the traditions in the eight defined schools are valid. That means only fatwas that are consistent with traditional interpretations of the Quran are acceptable. Critics of Mr. bin Laden and other Muslims who use Quranic "proof texts" to justify attacks on Christians and Jews say that many of those texts are being used in ways that violate the traditional understanding of those passages. But the communiqu did not outlaw all violence by Muslims, even by implication. Some leaders whose authority is recognized by the Jordan document, such as Sheik Al Qaradawi, have offered religious support for attacks on Israel, which they regard as self-defense. Not mentioned The document is notable in what it does not say. It doesn't mention Mr. bin Laden or any "fake" fatwa by name. The words "violence" or "terrorism" don't even appear. The omissions reflect the difficulty of reaching consensus across such a broad spectrum, said Peter Khalil, a consultant for the Eurasia Group who spent nine months in Iraq as the director of national security policy for the Coalition Provisional Authority, which ran the country until the new U.S.-backed government took over. "If they did come out and speak against violence and terrorism more directly, there would have been pressure to talk about violence by Americans against Iraqis and Israelis against Palestinians," he said. "No agreement would have been possible." Some factors limit the impact of the statement. Sunni Islam has no official leader nothing like a "pope" so even rulings by the most respected Sunni scholars are not necessarily considered binding. Shiite Islam and some branches of Sufism do have a designated religious hierarchy of authority, but no single leader. Even some less radical Muslims dismiss many Arab political leaders, such as King Abdullah II, and official government clerics, including some of the key conference participants, as American puppets or apostates. "Most religious leaders see monarchy as an illegitimate institution," said Ali Akbar Mahdi, a sociology professor at Ohio Wesleyan University. In Iraq, faith doesn't really fuel a lot of the war, Mr. Khalil said. Former Baathists, exArmy officers and other supporters of Saddam Hussein are driven by politics first and faith second, if at all. "For the majority of insurgents, religion is not an issue," Mr. Khalil said. But the ruling could reduce the enthusiasm of some of the fervent young men who travel to Iraq from Syria and Egypt, bent on becoming religious martyrs, he said. Seeking distance Even outside of the Jordan conference, some Muslim leaders seem to be working harder to use the tools of their faith to distance themselves from violence committed in the name of their faith. In the days after the London bombings, British newspapers reported that some of the top Muslim clerics in that country were preparing their own fatwa. It would declare any Muslims found responsible for the bombings as takfir, or excommunicated. "It is about time we put clear distance between ourselves and so-called Muslim leaders like Osama bin Laden," Murad Qureshi, the only Muslim member of the

Greater London Assembly, told the Guardian. "We're not talking about Muslims here. We're talking about a bunch of nutters." A GLOSSARY OF MUSLIM TERMS Sunni: About 85 percent of the world's billion or so Muslims belong to this group. The name means "those who follow the Sunnah," the way of life prescribed by Muhammad. Each mosque and religious leader is independent, though different traditional schools of religious law carry particular authority. Shiite: About 10 percent of Muslims, but a majority of Iraqis and Iranians, belong to this group. Several religious leaders, or ayatollahs, are considered authorities though there is no single "pope." Shiites (also known as Shia) originally differed with Sunnis on the question of who should have led Islam after the death of Muhammad in 632. The name means "followers of Ali," indicating support for the belief that Muhammad designated Ali, his cousin and son-in-law, as his rightful successor. Sufi: About 5 percent of Muslims belong to this group though some Sufis also consider themselves Sunni or Shiite. This is the Muslim mystical tradition, comparable in some ways to Kabbalah or Gnosticism. Some conservatives among the Sunni majority assert that some Sufi practices such as veneration of saints and maintaining shrines are not true Islam. Quran: The book that Muslims believe was dictated to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel. Hadith: One of the collected sayings of Muhammad and some of his closest followers, considered sacred text. Fatwa: A ruling based on Islamic law. These are the practical applications of the Quran and hadiths. In places ruled by Islamic law, these are as binding as secular law in the U.S. Takfir: Excommunicated. A Muslim who has been excommunicated loses spiritual and social protection offered by membership in the ummah, or community. Over the centuries, Muslims have used a declaration of takfir to justify attacking other Muslims. In Iraq, insurgent clerics have declared Muslims who cooperate with the U.S.-backed government to be takfir. MuslimnationsthrottleU.N.terrorresolution Criticismofsuicidebomberscensoredbyglobalbody'sIslamicmemberstates Posted:July28,2005 WorldNetDaily.com U.N. Human Rights Commission meeting IslamicUnitedNationsrepresentativesblockedanattempttohavetheworldbody condemnkillinginthenameofreligion. TheInternationalHumanistandEthicalUnionsaiditsubmittedtherequesttothe U.N.HumanRightsCommissioninGenevainresponsetomovesbyIslamicclerics tolegitimizethecurrentwaveofterrorattacks. IHEUrepresentativeDavidLittmantriedtodeliverapreparedtextinthenamesof threeinternationalNGOstheAssociationforWorldEducation,theAssociationof WorldCitizensandtheIHEUbutwasblockedbythe"heavyhandedintervention" ofIslamicrepresentativesofthepanel.

Littmansaidthatafterrepeatedinterruptions,hewasunabletocompletehisspeech. TheMuslimsmemberssaidtheysawthetextasanattackonIslam. TheIHEUarguedLittman'sspeechwasareportonrecentcriticalcommenton IslamistextremismbyanumberofnotableMuslimwriters. TheintentwasfortheU.N.HumanRightsCommission"tocondemncallstokill,to terrorizeortouseviolenceinthenameofGodoranyreligion." ThetextreferredtorecentdecisionsbyhighrankingMuslimclericstoconfirmthat thosewhocarryoutsuicidebombingsremainMuslimsandcannotbetreatedas apostates. ASaudicleric,forexample,issuedafatwasayingthatinnocentBritonswerea legitimatetargetforterroristaction.Also,YusufalQaradawi,deanoftheCollegeof ShariaandIslamicStudiesatQatarUniversity,whohasvisitedBritain,saidterror attacksarepermissible. RoyBrown,presidentofIHEU,saidthecensorshipis"partandparceloftherefusal bytheIslamicrepresentativesattheU.N.tocondemnthesuicidebombers,orto acceptanycriticismofthosewhokillinnocentpeopleinthenameofGod." Question: The subject of ijtihad (independent reasoning) has been debated in the Muslim world for a long time. Some thought that the door of ijtihad was closed, and of course this caused a stagnation of reasoning. What might be the criteria to use the methodology of ijtihad? The word Ijtihad, independent reasoning, literally means to use all your power and effort in order to bring some hard and difficult works into existence. In Islamic terminology, the word means to use all your power to deduct some hypothetical judicial decisions from the clear sources (adilla-i tafsiliyyah) of Islamic law. The one who makes this effort is called a Mujtahid. The issue in which these efforts are made is called "Mujtahadun fih. In principle, there are two conditions for Ijtihad. First, one must know the sources of Islamic law related to legal judgments (ahkam). Second, the Ijtihad should be done by those who are able to penetrate into the spirit of the sources through their intelligence and the logic of religious law. Any Ijtihad that comes from an eligible person and is done within an appropriate case is valid. Moreover, Ijdihad is not limited to analogy (qiyas). It can be done through analogy as well as through the indications, clues, and the hints of the legal texts. It is also possible to deduce legal judgments from the linguistic aspects of the Quran and the Sunnah, including Arabic rhetoric dealing with metaphorical language and literary figures. Islam, being the last and universal religion, is the epitome of solutions to the problems of humans for all time and for all locations. These solutions are based on the limited texts of the Quran and the Sunnah, which address the unlimited problems of humans. This blessed activity started in the era of the Prophet and developed in the third and fourth centuries under the names of ijtihad, ray (subjective legal opinion), istidlal (inference), qiyas (analogy), and isinbat (deduction). It has remained alive within the practice of the dynamic systems of Islam and has been highly fruitful.

This rich and original legal culture, unique to the Islamic world, has been fading for reasons such as exclusion of the active Islamic system of life from the public sphere, the absence of active minds similar to those of the early period of Islam, the lack of inspired spirits, and deficiency of superior intellects, knowledgeable of the Quran and the Sunnah. There are some who lack reasoning with insufficient intelligence, and are very behind in their knowledge of the Quran and Sunnah, and closed to inspiration. Since these types of people have risen to power in religious circles, the fertile institution of ijtihad has been replaced by unquestioning adoption (taqlid), memorization, and copying. One can see several reasons why the spirit of ijtihad was lost and the door was closed. The following are considered some of these reasons: political oppression, inner struggles, the misuse of the institution of ijtihad, an extreme trust in the present legal system, the denial of reform, the blindness caused by the dominant monotonous present system of the time. All of these are among the reasons for this loss. Furthermore, the believers who were eligible to perform ijtihad based on their intelligence and abilities were at times included mistakenly among the groups of heretics who misused ijtihad. The door, in fact, has never been closed by anyone. However, some ulama had the inclination to close the door of ijtihad against those who would like to promote their own desires and interpretations as guidance. The door was closed automatically in the face of those who were not eligible to make ijtihad. As long as society does not have quality scholars who can perform ijtihad, it is not possible to ignore the argument of those who are against ijtihad. Today, people commonly think of the worldly life. The ideas and hearts of todays people are greatly disparate and the minds are estranged from immaterial things. Religion and religiosity are not the essential issues for people as was the case in the time of the early Muslims. On the contrary, people are neutral to religiosity or religion; that is to say, being religious or not being religious is the same thing. Many are highly disinterested in matters of faith and many essentials of religion are ignored. The pillars of Islam and the principles of faith are viewed with doubt. Religion for many Muslims has collapsed. Many make no effort to live their lives within the framework of Islam. Under such circumstances, one can hardly see that this dynamic aspect of Islam, ijtihad, will be used properly. Despite all of this mentioned above, there has been a great revival of religion and religiosity in the Islamic world today. I hope God willing this development will result in the rise of those who are eligible to open the door of ijtihad in the near future. It is my conviction that when the proper season comes, such gushing spirit and ingenious intellect will create groups comprised of specialists in their fields with an utmost sense of responsibility to undertake ijtihad. Note: Independent reasoning is not compatible with Islamic demand for obedience. Dennis Prager poses, "Five questions non-Muslims would like answered" in an LAT op-ed this morning:

THE RIOTING IN France by primarily Muslim youths and the hotel bombings in Jordan are the latest events to prompt sincere questions that law-abiding Muslims need to answer for Islam's sake, as well as for the sake of worried non-Muslims. Here are five of them: (1) Why are you so quiet? [...] (2) Why are none of the Palestinian terrorists Christian? [...] (3) Why is only one of the 47 Muslim-majority countries a free country? [...] (4) Why are so many atrocities committed and threatened by Muslims in the name of Islam? [...] (5) Why do countries governed by religious Muslims persecute other religions? [...] Western ideas of individualism, liberalism, constitutionalism, human rights, equality, liberty, the rule of law, democracy, free markets, the separation of church and state, often have little resonance in Islamic, Confucian, Japanese, Hindu, Buddhist or Orthodox cultures. Western efforts to propagate each ideas produce instead a reaction against "human rights imperialism" and a reaffirmation of indigenous values, as can be seen in the support for religious fundamentalism by the younger generation in non-Western cultures. The very notion that there could be a "universal civilization" is a Western idea, directly at odds with the particularism of most Asian societies and their emphasis on what distinguishes one people from another. [...] As the ideological division of Europe has disappeared, the cultural division of Europe between Western Christianity, on the one hand, and Orthodox Christianity and Islam, on the other, has reemerged. The most significant dividing line in Europe, as William Wallace has suggested, may well be the eastern boundary of Western Christianity in the year 1500. This line runs along what are now the boundaries between Finland and Russia and between the Baltic states and Russia, cuts through Belarus and Ukraine separating the more Catholic western Ukraine from Orthodox eastern Ukraine, swings westward separating Transylvania from the rest of Romania, and then goes through Yugoslavia almost exactly along the line now separating Croatia and Slovenia from the rest of Yugoslavia. In the Balkans this line, of course, coincides with the historic boundary between the Hapsburg and Ottoman empires. The peoples to the north and west of this line are Protestant or Catholic; they shared the common experiences of European history -- feudalism, the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, the Industrial Revolution; they are generally economically better off than the peoples to the east; and they may now look forward to increasing involvement in a common European economy and to the consolidation of democratic political systems. The peoples to the east and south of this line are Orthodox or Muslim; they historically belonged to the Ottoman or Tsarist empires and were only lightly touched by the shaping events in the rest of Europe; they are generally less advanced economically; they seem much less likely to develop stable democratic political systems. The Velvet Curtain of culture has replaced the Iron Curtain of ideology as the most significant dividing line in Europe. As the events in Yugoslavia show, it is not only a line of difference; it is also at times a line of bloody conflict. Conflict along the fault line between Western and Islamic civilizations has been going on for 1,300 years. After the founding of Islam, the Arab and Moorish surge west and north only ended at Tours in 732. From the eleventh to the thirteenth century the Crusaders attempted with temporary success to bring Christianity and Christian rule

to the Holy Land. From the fourteenth to the seventeenth century, the Ottoman Turks reversed the balance, extended their sway over the Middle East and the Balkans, captured Constantinople, and twice laid siege to Vienna. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries at Ottoman power declined Britain, France, and Italy established Western control over most of North Africa and the Middle East. This centuries-old military interaction between the West and Islam is unlikely to decline. It could become more virulent. The Gulf War left some Arabs feeling proud that Saddam Hussein had attacked Israel and stood up to the West. It also left many feeling humiliated and resentful of the West's military presence in the Persian Gulf, the West's overwhelming military dominance, and their apparent inability to shape their own destiny. Many Arab countries, in addition to the oil exporters, are reaching levels of economic and social development where autocratic forms of government become inappropriate and efforts to introduce democracy become stronger. Some openings in Arab political systems have already occurred. The principal beneficiaries of these openings have been Islamist movements. In the Arab world, in short, Western democracy strengthens anti-Western political forces. This may be a passing phenomenon, but it surely complicates relations between Islamic countries and the West. Those relations are also complicated by demography. The spectacular population growth in Arab countries, particularly in North Africa, has led to increased migration to Western Europe. The movement within Western Europe toward minimizing internal boundaries has sharpened political sensitivities with respect to this development. In Italy, France and Germany, racism is increasingly open, and political reactions and violence against Arab and Turkish migrants have become more intense and more widespread since 1990. Islam on the Couch 12/10/2005 KurdishMedia.com By Dr Showan Khurshid Terrorism and Islam from the Perspective of an Evolutionary Political Theory The definition of Terrorism Based on Knowledge processing, Creativity and Politics and How to respond to Islamic Terrorism, terrorism can be defined as one among other modes of responses, including wars, genocides and totalitarianism, which might be applied jointly or alternately in order to uphold ideological integrity and dominance and thus the political power of a particular ideological group. The importance of this definition is that it locates the root cause of terrorism in the drive to suppress ideational challenges. This definition differs markedly from the currently dominant definition, which highlights terrorism as involving unlawful use or threat of violence to intimidate or coerce into accepting some political change. [1] The Shortcomings of the Common Definition Adopting the latter definition will give the terrorists and their apologists equal footing to accuse governments like that of the UK or USA of terrorism. Indeed, anyone can note that the epithet illegal is subjective. They can retort there is a war waged against Islam. Noting the imbalance of military might, they glorify suicide bombing as the deeds of the brave, disadvantaged yet motivated against the powerful and

aggressive. Terrorist apologists can even dismiss the unfairness of the claim that terrorists do not discriminate between civilian and military targets by noting something to the effect: what about the thousands of civilians, women, children and old men who are killed in war? The prevalent definition also fails to distinguish between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. It does not accord a special status to an armed group willing to submit to the rules of liberal democracy fighting an undemocratic and atrocious regime. It is because of such a definition that the superficial adage One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, sounds so apt. Some Terroristic Entities According to EPT The definition I suggest focuses on the use of violence to deter ideational challenges. In this light, the governments of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, Syria, Sudan, North Korea, China, Cuba and Zimbabwe, and others, insofar as they oppress intellectual dissent as a means to maintain their ideological dominance, will be seen as possessing, partially or completely, the inclination that sanctions or condones terroristic actions, along with other forms of oppressive actions. This definition will not implicate governments, organisations or individuals who are prepared to renounce violence and resolve differences peacefully it needs be remembered that liberal democracy will be needed if simple dialogue could not bring about consensus, as argued in Knowledge Processing, Creativity and Politics. The Scope of Islamic Terrorism Regarding Islam, we should expect to find the greatest concentration of oppressive actions whether they are manifested in the form of terrorism or other kinds of acts which share the same aim to occur where authorities or organisations claim legitimacy on the basis of Islam. However, considering that terrorism, like other modes of ideological interactions is a means to an end, we might assume that costand-benefit analysis would precede commissioning and performing the acts of terrorism, unless, of course, we make an unwarranted assumption that these ideological leaderships are feeble-minded and cannot ponder upon the consequences of their actions. Accordingly, we will need to consider that the concentration of the ideological actions, including terrorism, should be within communities that are perceived as constituting viable bases for building political power. In fact, the degree of oppression that takes place in Iran and Saudi Arabia is staggering. Oppression, particularly in Saudi Arabia, involves even more than stoning, beheading, and enforcing flagrant discrimination against women and Shiites, (here there is not even a need to mention the term religious minorities, as Muslims did not let any indigenous religious minority group survive in the country). As importantly, it is the systematic coercion of young people to prayer and religious schools, and the widespread practice of shepherding adults who happen to be on the streets into Mosques. These practices leave no opportunity for autonomy or free thinking. So the wonder is that some liberals exist at all, rather than the fact that they are weak and few. Perhaps, this leaves no surprises as to why the land of the Saudis is so prolific in producing and exporting terrorists. In effect, Saudi Arabia is an incubator of terrorism. If a greater proportion of the public is not involved in international terrorism, it is only because the utility calculation they perform does not encourage it. As for the government, it is more likely to be due to an awareness of its

vulnerability. Throughout its history, and to this day, the Saudi dynasty faced discourses that have been disputing their legitimacy and even rejecting the assignation of the name Saudi to the land. No doubt, the West has been an important source of stability for the regime, though more so in the past during the cold war than now, but the regime is still weak and cannot afford to challenge the West overtly. Though, through the campaign of building Madrases (Islamic religious schools), and Mosques, which entrench the fundamentalist teachings of Islam, the regime can rightfully claim that it has been fulfilling its religious duties the best it can. However, about the interplay of the Saudi regime with the West: their attitude has a spill-over effect. An ideological leadership that is perceived as submissive or even cooperative with forces deemed as potential enemies of the ideology in effect, all non-adherents of the ideology would be vulnerable to accusation that it is weak or even unfaithful to the ideology. This is the reason why Bin Laden could acquire so great a following in Saudi Arabia. However, the point to be made here is that the ideological groundwork is not Bin Ladens, it was already there ready to be used. [2] The Intellectual Impasse This brings us to another point. By failing to identify the root causes of terrorism, the traditional definition of terrorism obstructs liberal democracies from winning the moral argument. In the allegation and the counter-allegation, the most crucial and central element, that Islam prescribes oppressive methods to enforce itself, is lost. The Western governments themselves, before anyone else, are quick to grant that only some fringe Islamic organisations are terroristic, while the rest are made up of peace loving individuals whose culture is just as good as any other culture. Many Western left or liberal leaning intellectuals volunteer themselves on behalf of Muslims to argue that the verses that advocate violence in Koran are just few and far between. In any case, they usually add, all religious creeds contain similar statements. Yet, not all religions are terroristic. Accordingly, they conclude, we cannot impute terrorism to Islam on basis of these verses. This is of course a generalised argument. The Hindu or the Sikhs have also proved to be capable of establishing violent terroristic movements when they rely on their religious teachings. So did the Christians, not only in the past but also in the form of modern day sects, such as David Koreshs sect. Moreover, there is no example of a peaceful religious party or movement vying for power that is not terroristic unless it has committed itself to liberal democracy or in the case of Turkey, cowed and circumscribed by an army that has a record of immense capacity for manipulation and brutality. The problem is not just with the few Koranic verses, it is the worldview and tradition. In the heartland of Islam, most ordinary Muslim individuals or organisations denounce and declare any person who is refusing Islams or Mohammeds claim of moral superiority as outlaws. In most Islamic countries such a person will not survive and the elimination of such people usually goes unnoticed. Nowadays, such individuals are outlawed and hunted even in the West. Acts of violence can be committed by individuals who may never have had slightest link with terrorist organisations. Disappointingly, many of the critical voices in the West who escape murder hide away and keep silent. No more than speculation regarding the reasons for the critics silence can be offered. Do the Western governments advise such critics to keep

silent, perhaps motivated by economic interests or intimidated by the Islamic masses? In any case, not to protect and support the critics, similar to what anticommunists critics were enjoying, is a very short-sighted and wasteful policy. Currently, the terrorists, in general, do not give the slightest regard to what the nonMuslim world thinks of Islam. They are content, obviously, in the knowledge that the Muslim population is over one billion and there is no intellectual challenge to Islamic beliefs. Indeed, Islamic beliefs sound absolutely triumphant despite the flimsy bases it has. This condition needs be changed. It needs open and candid argumentation. Winning over a substantial proportion of Muslims is not unfeasible considering the shaky epistemology that Islam is based on and the many reprehensible aspects and episodes of the Islamic practices and history. Only a serious image-problem and the risk of loosing their social bases will force the Islamic priesthood and so-called moderate Muslims to try harder to curb the militants among them. No doubt, in the short term, some terrorists will make a greater effort to eliminate their critics, but they, I suspect, would lose their hold if greater numbers of people joined in the intellectual engagement. What is suggested here will work because it reduces the need for using violence in response to terrorists, and also weakens the motivation for joining terrorist groups. In the long run, this would bring about real and permanent peace, at least, as far as Islamic terrorism is concerned. In the meantime, such a policy would also offer a way out for many Muslims who lack an intellectual lead, to escape the confines of a religion that does not preach peace, and which puts them at odds with the rest of the world, who are nonetheless unhappy over what they perceive as the use of violence by the West against Islamic countries. Nowadays, most of the critics from the Islamic world and even a great number of Westerners are either intimidated into silence or in hiding and on the run. What is needed is support for such people to establish alternative communities so the apostates will join in. What underpins the un-peaceful tradition of Islam are not merely a few scripture verses here and there. In Knowledge Processing, Creativity and Politics, I suggested that religions, as primeval ideologies, evolved because of the failure of humanity to evolve in liberal democracy perhaps, for understandable reasons, considering human origin and that ideologies carry out the role of preserving a unified set of moral rules that are necessary to maintain political power. However, unlike liberal democracy, they disallow ideational dissent and dialogue, and this approach impacts profoundly on the structure, culture and history of the ideological systems. However, this is not how the ideologues and their followers perceive themselves. Early Muslims had the very comfortable thought that they were commanded by Allah to spread the word of Islam, which is the only true religion, all over the world. Those who resisted the call to join Islam and denied seeing the obvious truth that Mohammed is the messenger of Allah were condemned as the enemies of Allah and enemies of Muslims, for whom dreadful punishment was apportioned. [3] It is not certain what proportion of Muslims are still committed to this mission. However, it is more likely that the majority of Muslims realise that implementing the mission is hardly feasible considering the imbalance of power vis--vis non-Islamic countries although, as mentioned above, many an Islamic government, organisation or even

an individual does not hesitate in meeting out severe punishment to challengers of the dogmas of Islam, when the actions are convenient. However, it seems the limited capacity to have power only in certain countries and not being able to spread Islam worldwide is giving Muslims the feeling of helplessness and impotence, or a sense of dereliction of duty, which explains in great part the frustration that is characteristic of Muslims worldwide. Obviously, in believing that there is an Allah who is the omnipotent creator of everything, and that He is the author of Islam, then Islam cannot be wrong. Thus the blame for whatever goes wrong in the lives of Muslims should be imputed to some other agent or circumstances. Israel comes in handy. According to most Muslims it should never have existed. The fact that it does, reflects a very terrible and profoundly insidious process. Otherwise how could such a small entity challenge the power of so many hundreds of millions of Muslims? Now if Israels own power cannot explain that, then the accomplices would be the USA and the UK, and all the lands of corruption and decadence, of the West which can be so easily manipulated by the Jews. So from this point of view one should expect that had Israel and the USA never existed Muslims would have blamed some other source, and, being disadvantaged they may have resorted to terrorism nevertheless. This also implies that had they not been the weaker party they would have overrun the rest of the world this is still the mission in the Koran. [4] The other usual suspect is lack of piety on the part of individuals in general, and particularly the leaders. This mentality may explain why there is a tendency to support those leaders, who the non-Muslims would think of as more militant and uncompromising, but, of course, who would be perceived as pious and true to Islam. The ascendance of the Taliban, Bin laden and also Ahmedinejad can all be seen as cases in point. The logic of Islamic thinking cannot be simpler: if Islam cannot, by definition, be fallible, since it is from Allah, and if even the pious leaders are not able to bring the changes needed in the Islamic world, then you should search for an external agent as a culprit. No doubt, with such a worldview no one should have an illusion of having an easy coexistence with an Islamic community leading to a harmonious integration. Integration would be hard to come by unless the Islamic communities accept secularism and liberal democracy. The Blind Spots The dominant definition is ignorant of the role of many institutions. Worship places, religious literature and paid or unpaid preachers are all important elements in the mobilisation. But they seem to fall in the blind spot of the conventional definition. To curb terrorism needs, therefore, paying great attention to these institutions. It is true that these institutions have recently come into the focus of attention of many Western governments and media. But the curbing needs greater depth of intervention. The attention misses the most important target: namely, rejecting and refuting the claim of moral superiority which is at the core of Islam and indeed any

other ideology. Lacking this focus explains why there is no effort to persuade away Muslims from Islam. The definition based on EPT would recommend setting up counteracting institutions that support alternative views. Setting up, what is hoped to be, European or Western oriented Mosques and religious schools, would appeal only to opportunity seekers and infiltrators with links to militants. EPT suggests that Mosques should be seen as sites of ideological mobilisation and should be treated the same way as had they been pro-Soviet communists and Fascist groups. However, considering that a great many Muslims would not contemplate, at least in the current situation, any acts of terrorism, Mosques can be redefined to be just a place of rituals on condition that the preachers should submit to liberal democracy and give up their claim of superiority on the basis of Islam alone. Here it might be said that worshiping is something that is categorically different to politicking. There are sermons and rituals that are unique to religions, e.g., prayers, fasting, pilgrimage etc. Elsewhere (in a book length manuscript), I suggested that the reasons and functions of rituals and sermons have to do, firstly, with providing vicarious activities as a compensation for the loss of real participation in political decision. No doubt, it would feel very satisfying to think that one is communicating with the divine and participating in a cosmic mission. Secondly, perhaps, it proved effective as a means for congregating the followers for information and instruction. Thirdly, this congregation also provides for another psychological function: namely, that is the sense of security in the company of others who share the same goals and thus care for each other. These activities and their role must have been compensating for the denial, characteristic of religions and other ideologies, of active participation in making moral decisions. [5] Fourthly, probably anyone can tell that rituals are a good way of brain-washing and keeping the members of the community under close observation. As such, rituals must always have been a very useful tool in the hand of rulers. The definition, based on EPT, also draws the attention to probably the gravest aspects of terrorism. Terrorism, in this perspective, is to suppress ideational challenges, and when this task is accomplished we should expect to see that the ideological group will be formidable and unstoppable. Yet, even serious Western intellectuals seem to be completely disengaged. This attitude of the Western intellectual can be attributed to the nave presupposition that religions are not concerned with political power. Terrorism, within this politically correct view, becomes an aberration and attributable either to dismal economic conditions or some historical injustices. In the case of Islam, the background of terrorism is the events and history of Palestine, and the Western colonialism and recent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and also economy. No doubt, I should exclude the tabloid writers from the above generalisation. Their papers inform the public and uncover information. But they address mainly the Western readership and mainly to effect change of attitude towards asylum or the Islamic communities in general and says very little in the way of inviting intellectual discussion or offering a way out of the religion into alternative communities. This attitude of tabloid newspapers may only increase the sense of siege and alienation on both sides. Consequently, we could say that the silence of serious Western intellectuals make the lives of terrorists much easier. What Morality?

It is usually said that there was a design to revive Islam in order to halt the unravelling of the moral fabric of Islamic families and communities in the West. It is also said that even the government officials in many Western countries approved of the move as a means to tackle drugs and crimes among the Islamic youths. It is difficult to say how much truth there is in these propositions. However, it is obvious that alcohol and drug misuse, and a host of other related antisocial behaviours are less prevalent among Muslims than among the Western communities. No doubt, the hostile attitude toward drug abuse is limited to non-Muslims. Drugs are produced openly in many Islamic countries; some of them have been or are under Islamic governments or organisations. One should expect that Muslims are bound to justify such inconsiderate activities for themselves in a way that preserves ones selfrespect. How do Muslims justify that for themselves? One possible line of justification might be to say that drug exportation is a means to undermine the West, the enemy. However, if we were to ignore this lack of consideration towards non-Muslims, then of course the drive against crimes and drug abuse could be seen as a positive achievement. On this basis some commentators would advice caution in criticising Islam. Another line of approach taken by some Western critics of Islam is to say: Why shouldnt Western culture be good enough for an immigrant to the country? Indeed, the Western governments should feel entitled to demand that immigrants to their countries respect their culture. However, this is not necessarily based upon the notion held by some multiculturalists that any and every culture entitled to equal respect. The rationale of the entitlement of liberal democracy should be based on the fact that liberal democratic culture is what allowed the development and the wealth the West enjoys, which is also the reason that immigrants were attracted. Moreover, because it is liberal democracy through its belief in human rights that allows the immigrant to come in. (Perhaps, the reason that the West does not make such a demand is that the development and the wealth are attributed to capitalism. Thus Muslims do not waste the opportunity to boast that there is what they call an Islamic politicaleconomy, which is even fairer than capitalism, on the account that it takes greater care of the poor but is less amenable to the promiscuity which is associated with communism.)Though, in this context, no mention is made of the fact that slavery within Islam existed for centuries, and might still exist today in some Islamic countries, e.g. Sudan, some Gulf states and Mauritania, and that although writers of the Koran did not consider it important to forbid slavery outright, but eating pork was significant enough for Allah to forbid it clearly and unequivocally. Definitely, a culture that sanctions forbidding apostasy, outlawing infidels, atheists and flagrant discrimination against women and religious minorities should not be entitled to equal respect at all. Otherwise, why should we have opposed fascism and racism or murderous communists like Stalinism and the Khmer Rouge? Despite these it cannot be denied that the current liberal democratic philosophy is leaving a moral vacuum with its vision of social life as no more than an aggregation of individuals aiming at their interests, without providing a framework for a sense of belonging or sense of the human collective mission.

Religions, on the contrary, do offer such a framework, which is also the reason that they can curb antisocial behaviour. Religions offer meaning to individual commitment, suffering and sacrifice. That is why Christianity is still making an important contribution to the moral ground of Western societies. This is despite the admission that it is purely a faith, which implies that it cannot withstand rational scrutiny. Of course, Islam could also play a similar role, but not before it submits to liberal democracy and declares the religion is a faith as rather than the literal truth. The inference of many politicians is that, in the current condition, some kind of religions or belief system is needed. Religions, however, have damaging effects. All religions impair the intellectual capacity of individuals by captivating them within mistaken and primitive worldviews, depriving humanity from great intellectual resources which could serve science, the environment and technology. With Islam, in its present form, the price cannot be graver. It is even threatening the survival of humanity and the earth as we know it. (No doubt, those carried out 9/11 would not have hesitated to inflict bigger carnage if they had had the means.) Although even if we grant that religions like Christianity and Buddhism do not lend themselves to terrorism, which is not necessarily completely true, all religious thinking undermines efforts to finding proper solutions for political problems. Had the West been completely free from Christianity, the Western intellectuals and governments might have dissolved Islam by their criticism or perhaps ridicules. No doubt, the failure to identify the elements of a belief system that are responsible for the terroristic nature explains why there is this unconditional concept that belief in religion is one of the basic human rights. Consequently, with this right in place many governments and intellectuals just hold back from participating in any campaign to undermine Islamic beliefs. Islamic morality is extremely costly for the little benefit it shows. It cares very little about the environment or the explosion of population. Indeed, Islamic clerics encourage rapid Islamic procreation. Mohammed told his followers to reproduce so Allah might boast about them over the nations. It might also be motivated by a will to out-reproduce non-Muslims and establish majorities. Islamic religious authorities remain silent in regard to honour killing and also female genital mutilation whilst these practices are still carried out in Islamic countries. One can hold Islamic authorities responsible for this. Had they been as active in issuing fatwa to combat these practices as they are in their eliminating dissidents, these practices would have become a thing of the past. Muslims have also little regard to the fate of minorities within their folds. Indeed, there is no concept of human rights in Islam even for Muslims. The most valued Muslim is the one who fights for Islam. That is why Islamic authorities and media are not concerned with victimisation of Muslims at the hand of other Muslims. Their outcry happens only when the victimisation is carried out by non-Muslims against Muslims, which is an indication of a cynical manipulation of the current concern with human right values, in the course of struggle for dominance. [7] In Kurdistan and Darfor the genocide and abuses that were committed by Muslims against other Muslims as well as non-Muslims did not arouse reactions of the Islamic masses and governments. On contrary, Arab and Islamic governments made a concerted effort in sending emissaries to Western capitals to contain the protesting voices here and there and to pre-empt any potential reactions by a Western government.

However, the most serious flaw in Islamic morality is the suppression of ideational challenge. Without this prohibition all other shortcomings might have been put right. What matters in political life is not what an ancient book or a modern political theory says. It is rather how the struggle for power among different individuals within the political system is resolved and how arbitration between different political ideas is carried out. Considering that such struggle is expressed usually through competition of different ideas, then the central issue which defines the political life of a system would be how arbitration among different ideas is conducted. Islam does not only respond with violence and threats of violence against its critics, it also disallows the moral decision making of its followers, as expected from the perspective of EPT. [8] The alternative in my opinion is offered by the evolutionary political theory (suggested in Knowledge Processing, Creativity and Politics and discussed in more details in my book length manuscript). In short: We all owe a great deal to our own and natures creativity that is achieved by natural selection. Human creative capacity remits us from resorting to destructive and deceptive lifestyles. Perhaps, it could be said that the best among us are those who are creative or able to support creativity and suffer the consequences. We can be sure that happiness or pleasure is not what nature has intended for us. If there is a purpose, it is just the meaningless process of the propagation of the Selfish Gene, as Dawkins argues. Only we can give meaning to this process. Considering what has been said in this paragraph, what can have a claim on our gratitude or loyalty more than creativity? We can choose to make producing knowledge and beauty in our behaviour or in the environment our passion in life. At least by subscribing to the cause of creativity we can be sure we are promoting an aspect of our characteristic which brings happiness and prosperity to the greatest number of humans and preserves the environment. All humanity can unite on this goal and once we do we will have the same deep experience of oneness and security. I assume that anyone might know that exploring and reflecting is not devoid of pleasure. Human being have a built in capacity for wondering and being intrigued by beauty and discovering patterns in nature. Moreover, as anyone can tell, if we are able to love other humans it is because of the kindnesses, morality and creativity of some them. This evolutionary political theory also assumes that liberal democracy is the best political arrangement for humans who would conduct political activity creatively and non-violently. Indeed, it is no surprise that liberal democracy could achieve so greatly. [9] The Discrepancy The definition suggests that terrorism is one of the methods aimed at establishing ideological dominance and that this dominance is needed to maintain consensus over a set of unified moral rules which is necessary to maintain political power. Looking through the perspective of many Muslims who see the West as a threat to its culture hence the suppression of the signs of Western culture in most of the Islamic world and also as an obstacle that frustrates any aspiration for dominance of Islam over the world, as the Koran extols Muslims to do, and considering also that the West stands accused of the miseries that Muslims suffer- we may conjecture that a move to eliminate or, at least, subdue the whole of the West under Islam, would be desirable to Muslims. But what could be the point of small scale strikes (eg 9/11 as opposed to taking over a whole continent), that do not bring the ultimate victory any

closer? Would it not have been more profitable for the Islamic cause to concentrate its efforts in small scale terrorism, i.e. targeting mainly formerly-Muslims-turnedcritics and critical Western intellectuals, and pressing the Western governments gradually for laws to respect Islam? Moreover, has not the large scale terrorism, drawn greater critical and unwanted attention to Islam and precipitated in setting up countermeasures which disrupted crucial processes, like the steady influx of and increase in Islamic population, the steady increase in the number of religious schools and Mosques, the unhindered proselytising campaigns? If the answers are affirmative, then one should assume that large scale terrorism must have damaged the Islamic cause. Indeed, many Muslims have expressed such feeling and I believe that there is a genuine anger among some Muslims against the terrorists. So if concern with the best interest of Islam does not explain the terrorist acts that take place in Western countries, then we will need to think up some other explanations. Perhaps, we should consider a proposition that the interests of the Bin Laden and Al-Qaida do not match the interests of Western based Muslims or Muslims in general. This is quite possible. It is doubtful that the Al-Qaida leadership would trust the Western based Islamic leadership and, no doubt, there is competition among them. So while the Western based Islamic leadership does not opine itself against the verses in Koran that encourage violence against infidels and unbelievers, and in the meantime does not express clear views that contradict the traditional Islamic worldview, outlined above, it favours and sometimes make, what seems to be genuine calls to Western governments to expel or curb the extremist preachers and individuals. This is not unexpected and in this regard they are like the governments of Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Their attitude here is like saying not to question the book but expel the ones who read certain verses. Understandably, they do not want to break up the pedestal of their power but they do not want to be toppled by outsiders either. However, for non-Muslims there are no guarantees that a time will not come when these docile leaderships will not read the foreboding verses. Islamic terrorists may also be motivated by a desire to bring a greater mentality of siege to Western Muslims and thus facilitate recruiting them. They could be spurred on by the hardship they are suffering currently, being chased and forced to go underground everywhere in the world. If so, these terroristic actions, then, are just expressions of pain or diversion to shift the focus of the USA and UK. In any case, in the light of this definition of terrorism we will need to think of alternative explanations for Western targeted terroristic actions, in terms other than the greater interests of Islam. The Psychological Barrier According to the definition of terrorism, any ideological group failing to suppress ideational challenges to its ideology should face difficulties and ultimate disintegration, as criticism would both demoralise the leadership and followers. [10] This implication would raise a question: Is there such a large-scale oppressive campaign that can explain the resilience of Islam, in the West? Even if we granted

that in the Middle East, regimes like Saudi Arabias and Irans have shielded their population from intellectual influence, such shielding is not available in the West, yet Islam as a practiced religion seems formidable. Some aspects of the strength of Islam in the West can be explained as following. The presence of thousands of Mosques, many of them funded by Arabic and Islamic states, and absurdly some by Western government perhaps. The existence of the moral vacuum that is left in the wake of traditional liberalism, which seems to have been allowing any and all religious configurations, no matter how absurd and grotesque they may be. Moreover, we should take into account that Western criticism of Islam, is mainly left for those who reject the people through the rejection of the religion. The leftists and liberals (those who subscribe to the way of thinking characteristic of the Liberal Democratic party of Britain) find it still politically incorrect to criticise Islam. In general, and unfortunately for the world, there is a dearth of intellectual debate dealing with the fundamental outlook of religions. However, I think that Islam has two other mechanisms that lock individual Muslims within its confines and undermine socialising with non-Muslims. One of them is discouraging friendship with non-Muslims. Even though Muslims and Koran agree that Christianity and Judaism are divine religions there is a clear injunction forbids socialising. [11] In general Muslims regard the non-Muslim as unclean. [12] Women in Islam Another barrier is the attitude towards women in Islam. This intensely emotive issue may, more than any other barrier, be undermining any real chance for integration. The good women in Islamic communities are the ones who avoid mixing with men, devote themselves to family and worshiping and conform to values that also accord men higher status than women. It may be true that some women would enthusiastically conform. [13] It might also be true that some people may genuinely believe that these characteristics are estimable and thus women should aspire to acquire them anyway. But then some women are compelled. Many women in Iraq not an exceptional case by any means are harassed and sometimes have acid thrown in their faces and at their legs, or are made to suffer even worse. In general, in most Islamic homes the pressure on women is a matter of daily routine and some of them are inculcated from very young ages so that by the time they are young adults they lack the capacity to see themselves in any different way. This is no wonder considering what the Koran enjoins. [14] It might be thought that this shortcoming is of limited importance, since the potential victims are only a few Islamic women here and there. But there are wider ramifications. Men marry within this tradition, and belief in its morality would be likely to reinforce it and thus perpetuate it. They might enlist other young Muslim men to enforce the tradition. This practice would engender a feeling that womenfolk are in the custody of men and those men who fail it fail as men. Within the multicultural area, we can even expect that pressure be put in order to deter young men from other cultures from contacting Muslim females. The culture of how to treat women has acquired a life of its own. Muslim men, whether pious or not, usually restrict the freedom of their womenfolk. Even the men who would allow themselves out of marriage sexual relations women, Muslims or

non-Muslims, would not allow the same freedom to their female relatives. Men are made to feel a great stigma for having strange men accessing their womenfolk. This social stigma leads to two outcomes. The first outcome is that the intensity of the social stigma leads many men and even their womenfolk to participate in killing their renegade female relatives. However, I should also mention that this EPT does not assume that the so-called honour killing stems only from the dynamics of preserving male-female relationships within Islamic culture. The culture of violence arises from another source as well. This point is outlined more elaborately in my manuscript; here I will give only a short account. In ideological regimes the violence would be conducted not only against ideological opponents. There are a number of dynamics that give rise to violence within the ideological groups. Violence may be used by the ruler against his rivals for power. Violence may be used against groups and individuals who oppose the concentration of power, which is necessary for the survival of ideological regimes. Violence is also used against the moral dissenters within the ideological group who may oppose the corruption, which is made possible and easy for the ruler and his henchmen because of the enormous concentration of power. Violence may also be used against the different subgroups within the ideology who may feel left out by the rules. Discrimination against subgroups within the ideological groups happens because the concentration of power and the immoral acts that are involved in the process leads to a situation that leaders bring in their relatives and depend on the kin-loyalty or personal relations as a substitute for loyalty based purely on the ideology. This would result eventually in favouring one ethnicity against others, one tribe within other tribes of the favoured ethnicity and one clan within the favoured tribe. The corruption and violence and the perception of the injustice would leave disillusionment in their wake. One perception would be that might is right: force and terror are what decide everything. This is the intellectual gate for leading double lives. You try to say what is acceptable or pay lip service to the ideology but you should also know that reality is different- as people say, you should not take everything at face value. Behind the scenes of ideological political correctness the degradation of women and minorities, and sexual abuses of children goes on also the less ominous activities, like romances, adultery and homosexuality, which are officially non-extant. This is a culture which gives a great respect to fearsomeness. And being feared would ease a persons life enormously. To prove oneself to be someone, a man should have proved that, at least, he is feared by his women relatives and the sign of this is shying away from allowing other men access to themselves. In this sense, honour killing becomes a sign of manhood. The second outcome is this: because illegal sex within this culture with someones female relative becomes a source of dishonour; it can be used just to effect that very end. This is the background mentality of the Pakistani village elders who sanctioned rape against the sister of man accused of relations with women of a higher cast. Similarly, Saddams regime used it extensively to subdue men or terrorise others away from contemplating dissension. It is also the reason why, in most Islamic countries, males, in the course of trading insults, refer to sex with the enemies women relatives.

So within this perspective we will not need to assume that all men who oppress women within the Islamic culture are strictly Islamists in the type of Bin Laden or Abo Bakri. However, although neither honour killing nor female genital mutilation are provided for theoretically in the Koran, Islamic religious authorities have not outlawed these practices through religious edicts or fatwas. This is consistent with the general moral attitude of the Koran towards women. This morality is not concerned with women equality. Nor it could be said that it is aimed at encouraging sexual abstinence. Sexual restrictions are not imposed on men who are able to afford to marry or afford to capture at war. [15] Indeed, the fact that polygamy and sex with prisoners of war are allowed can only give the impression that women are regarded as sex objects. [16] The restriction, it seems, is made to apply to women and those men who cannot afford marriage. Seen from the evolutionary perspective this morality, then, looks like the morality of a Homo Sapiens alpha male, or a warlord doing the bidding of his genes, unaware of the evolutionary theory, not minding using violence to gain dominance, who allies himself with other worriers and in return allows them access to female Homo sapiens captured in war. [17] In the West, this morality fits perfectly, those men would not bother to learn the culture of their host countries, nor would their competition for sexual partners depend on distinguishing themselves through arts, literature or science, these men would tune themselves to accumulate wealth and thereby import for themselves wives from their countries of origin. It is also a morality that suits greatly anyone who would take advantage of the host country and culture. In the name of Islam they recruit other young men to police their streets and women for them and in the process sow a seed of future unrest and potential civil war. What is needed, if integration was desirable, is to focus on preventing all forms of violence and threats of violence against women and also against men from other cultures who may enter into a relation with Muslim women. Preventing the imposition of dress codes. Restricting the right for religion schools or banning them altogether. Strictly prohibiting polygamy and female genital mutilation. An Epilogue It needs to be realised that all religions and other ideologies, like communism and fascism, are antithetical to liberal democracy. They cannot survive without rejecting it and undermining it. Communists and Christianity, which submitted to liberal democracy ,are undergoing disintegration and fragmentation. Ideologies, like Islam, which have not submitted to liberal democracy yet, are virulent and dangerous. Specifically, because liberal democracy, with the traditional but outdated and inaccurate self-image that it has, is exposed and vulnerable. Liberal democracy, should insist that morality is human artefact and it is needed to protect creative life styles. Having different groups adhering to conflicting sets of moral rules or having groups that deny human authorship of moral values can lead only to conflicts and potentially pending civil and international wars. Moreover, traditional Liberal democracy is not equipped with the required moral outlook. Consequently, it leaves some ground onto which religions and other ideologies can move and take root without being able to fight them off effectively.

The multi-culturists vision of a colourful society where different cultures are expected to enrich and inspire each other, has no theoretical room for a reality posed by Islam. Their vision of social harmony and universal love is just a misguided and inauspicious illusion. Their vision would have been realistic if the differences were just limited to arts, cuisines, dances and music and a few curiosities here and there. When different communities insist on enforcing their own moralities we can only expect tension and insecurity which might lead to open civil wars. Multiculturalism when based on ideologies can coexist insofar as each ideological entity is able to counterbalance the threat of its rivals or insofar as it can entrench itself behind natural or man-made barriers and indeed, without giving the slightest regard to human rights or freedom of thoughts or conscience, when these precepts allowed challenging the system. Even today the homogeneity and vigour of Islam is due to the rejection of human right. So within the current liberal democratic intellectual climate allowing an ideological group is like allowing an extension of a conflicting system into its domains. To have level field, liberal democracies should demand the same access into the conflicting systems. A world that aspires to live together should have universal moral rules that should be chosen through the liberal democratic procedure because it is the only peaceful procedure. To survive Islam and suppress terrorism, liberal democracy needs to take the lead and abandon this meek and the supplication to Islam. Islamic terrorists think they occupy the moral high ground and think of what they do as deserving punishing for moral transgression that others commit. This image has to change if we are to dry up the well of terrorism. They should be told the truth: that their morality is primitive and harmful and advised them to give it up. However, as a first step, every Muslim admitted to the West, at least, should acknowledge other peoples rights to believe and express themselves regarding Islam or religions without fear. Most importantly, Muslims should accept that if we are meant to live in one world peacefully we are then answerable to each other. That is why we should be able to express our opinion regarding their beliefs and moralities and they are duty bound to explain themselves and accommodate in accordance with liberal democratic rules. Having moral rules means having ideas and values about the way you treat and deal with other people. That is why morality is not a personal matter or a matter between you and your god. No one is living with a God or Allah in a country or a house. People live with other people and that is why their morality should be agreed upon collectively through liberal democracy. Muslims should be encouraged to abandon Islam. All atrocities perpetrated in Iran, Iraq, Saudi and Sudan and in hundreds of other areas and countries are the responsibilities of the Islam. Atrocities are to be expected considering that Islam is an ideology and this is the way ideologies behave. Islam cannot be different to fascism, Baathism, communism or racism and it is no wonder that each has a record full of atrocities, although with Islam it is continuing and unfortunately hardly challenged. Notes: 1. (FBI) describes terrorism as the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or

any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives (Encyclopaedia Britannica). 2. The possibility of the leadership challenges is inherent within any ideological systems. The systematic use of violence and other means of domination that prevent the emergence of rivalling leadership is what forestall the organisation of massive opposition. For Bin Laden therefore being in Afghanistan was crucial for the emergence of the Al-Qaida movement. In general, such leadership needed a power vacuum to emerge. 3. This formula allowed Muslims to kill what they call the infidels and enemies of Allah, and take their possessions and women. This explains why early Islamic armies had mercenaries from among other religious groups. 4. Marxists and most leftists view world problems usually as a manifestation of economic deprivation. One of their prefabricated explanations of Islamic terrorism is that terrorists come from poor and disadvantaged backgrounds, and if the economic situation is improved, terrorism will lose its force. As it could be predicted their inference is that the rich countries of the world should pour their resources onto the poor. The problem of these leftists and liberals is that they fail to recognise that the generation of wealth itself is an outcome of liberalism and not capitalism (for more on this see my book due to be published soon). Ideological systems around the world have proved that they ruin economy, culture and civilisation eventually. The conditions of Muslims are the consequence of Islam. However, if we wanted to speculate regarding what can happen if the balance of power shifts in favour of Muslims, we can take our lead from history. Muslims invaded the world when they had the manpower and organisation fuelled by the pillaging and prospect of pillaging. Nothing in the culture or mentality of Islam has changed to preclude this prospect. Muslims are capable of doing the pillaging, massacring and commit atrocities against each other, as they do in Iran and Sudan and have done in Iran. So these leftist and liberals who advice humility and self-blame on the part of the West are just trying to deceive themselves and the world to the detriment of the world. 5. It is not for true believersmen or womento order their own affairs if God and His apostle decree otherwise. He that disobeys God and His apostle strays grievously into error (The Koran, 33:36) 6. The Believers who stay at home apart from those that suffer from a grave disability are not the equals of those who fight for the cause of God with their goods and their persons. God has exalted the men who fight with their goods and their persons above those who stay at home. God has promised all a good reward; but far richer is the recompense of those who fight for Him: ranks of His own bestowal, forgiveness, and mercy. Surely God is forgiving and merciful (The Koran, Dawood, 4:91, p. 93). 7. These verses give guidance as to what the relation between Muslims, Christians and Jews should be: Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as belief in neither God nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued (ibid., 9:29, p. 190) 8. See the above quotation from the Koran, in which Muslims are forbidden from

ordering their own affairs (The Koran, Dawood, 33:36, p. 422). 9. No doubt, many a Muslim may reply that no matter how Islam is the commitment to it enjoined by God. Now even if we ignore the fact that there is no evidence that God exists, we will still have a difficult task to explain, should a merciful and compassionate God exist, why should He sanction a religion like Islam. Why of all of other methods of communication should he need to send Gabriel to Mohammed and enjoin wars and mayhem. Why should God give a brain and then disallow you to design your own morality. More absurdly, how is it God could not figure out that liberal democracy is the best way to resolve struggle over political power. This should have been important to Him since Mohammeds companion killed each other over power. And of course, Mohammed did not know of this and thus had to fight and pillage in order to fund and pour fuel to his warring machine. 10. It was such demoralisation that contributed to the demise of communism despite the fact that communism as a theory is still theoretically intractable for traditional liberalism 11. Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number God does not guide the wrongdoers (Koran, Dawood, 5:51, p. 116). 12. O ye who believe! The idolaters only are unclean. So let them not come near the Inviolable Place of Worship after this their year. If ye fear poverty (from the loss of their merchandise) Allah shall preserve you of His bounty if He will. Lo! Allah is Knower, Wise (The Koran, Pickthal, 9:028). It is not for any soul to believe save by the permission of Allah. He hath set uncleanness upon those who have no sense (The Koran, Pickthal, 10:100). However, friendship is not allowed even with ones own father and brothers if they are not believers in Islam.O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you taketh them for friends, such are wrong-doers (The Koran, Pickthal, 9:25). Wed not idolatresses till they believe; for lo! a believing bondwoman is better than an idolatress though she please you; and give not your daughters in marriage to idolaters till they believe, for lo! a believing slave is better than an idolater though he please you. These invite unto the Fire, and Allah inviteth unto the Garden, and unto forgiveness by His grace, and expoundeth His revelations to mankind that haply they may remember (The Koran, Pickthal 2:221). 13. And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands' fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters' sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigour, or children who know naught of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that ye may succeed(The Koran, Pickthal, 24:31).

14. Men Have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and forsake them in beds apart, and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme (The Koran 4:34, p. 83). 15. Mohammed allowed himself even to marry prisoners of war. Likewise, he allowed other Muslim to do so. O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war, and the daughters of thine uncle on the father's side and the daughters of thine aunts on the father's side, and the daughters of thine uncle on the mother's side and the daughters of thine aunts on the mother's side who emigrated with thee, and a believing woman if she give herself unto the Prophet and the Prophet desire to ask her in marriage - a privilege for thee only, not for the (rest of) believers - We are Aware of that which We enjoined upon them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess - that thou mayst be free from blame, for Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful ((The Koran, Pickthal, 33:50). Obviously it is not sex which is disapproved. Otherwise, sex would have been promised in heaven. Lo! for the duteous is achievement - Gardens enclosed and vineyards, And voluptuous women of equal age; And a full cup. There hear they never vain discourse, nor lying (The Koran, Pickthal, 78:31-34). 16. Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will, and send (good deeds) before you for your souls, and fear Allah, and know that ye will (one day) meet Him. Give glad tidings to believers, (O Muhammad) (The Koran, Pickthal, 8:11). 17. Perhaps, we call them Homo sapiens ignoramus, be it a bit oxymoronic.