Is the threat over?

Mideast analyst Barry Rubin disputes the claim that the threat from radical Islam is gone now that Osama Bin Laden is dead. He offers a long list of countries where Islamist movements either control the state or are advancing politically, noting that the threat is not confined to traditional Muslim countries.

As he puts it: "Serious Islamist movements have gained political hegemony over growing Muslim communities all over the West. While many Muslims are indifferent to the movement and a few courageous dissidents combat it, Western governments and elites often blindly favor the Islamists ... In fact, the degree that Western governments, elites, and societies are blind to the actual threat defies belief."

This is what happens when you don't define your problem correctly: when you worry only about 'violent extremism,' not 'extremism:' the act of terror but not the ideology that underlies and justifies it. We don't have unlimited time to 'wake up and smell the coffee.'

Wilders on trial

Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician who has spoken out against Islam, is on trial in The Netherlands, although the exact charges against him seem to be moving around a bit. According to FrontPageMag, the prosecutors recommended dropping the group defamation charge against him, admitting that he has criticized Islamic texts and teachings but not Muslims themselves.

However, the prosecutors still want him to face charges of inciting hatred; the fact that what he said was true is apparently not relevant. Of course, when the state can determine which truths may be told in public and which may not, there isn't much left to freedom of speech. Or to freedom, for that matter.

Flushing out Islamists

Bill asked just what it is that Zuhdi Jasser would ask Islamists in public in order to make them reveal their true positions. Here's a recent analysis Jasser did of a video purporting to turn Muslims against terrorism. It's rather long and detailed, but gives an idea of his approach. Essentially, he argues that meaningless verbiage about 'extremism' is just that - meaningless.

For a short version of the key questions to ask, here's a 'quiz' developed by Dr. Tawfik Hamid, an Egyptian-American who once belonged to a radical group and is now an outspoken opponent of Islamism. Dubbed the Radical Islam Support Test, it's presented in his excellent book, Inside Jihad (pp. 114-15):

Apostates: Do you support killing them? Should leaving the faith of Islam be punishable by death?

Beating women: Is beating women ever acceptable and if not, do you reject those decrees of Islamic law that sanction the beating of women? Do you also accept stoning women to death for committing adultery?

Calling Jews 'pigs and monkeys': Do you believe that Jews are in any way sub-human and if not, do you reject Quranic interpretations that claim they are?

Declaring Holy War: Do you support declaring war against non-Muslims to subjugate them to Islam? Do you believe that it is fair and reasonable to offer non-Muslims three options: Conversion, Paying the Jizya (discriminatory poll tax), or Death?

Enslavement: Do you support the enslavement of female war prisoners and having sex with them as concubines? If not, do you reject those interpreations in Islamic Law ... which justify such actions?

Fighting Jews: Do you support perpetual war against Jews to exterminate them, and if not, should those Muslims who incite such war be punished?

Gays being killed: Do you believe it is acceptable to kill Gays, and if not, do you reject those edicts in Sharia Law which claim it is?

Hamid concludes: "If a Muslim or Islamic organization fails this quiz, they can safely be regarded as Salafists (Islamic fundamentalists) regardless of any title they use to describe themselves."

More on 'non-violent' radical Islam

Sydney asked me to expand the discussion of 'non-violent' radical Islam, which I think is the true threat that the West faces.

'Non-violent' Islamist organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood are called that because they say they do not support terrorism. However, like terrorists, they want to establish a global Caliphate ruled by sharia law. What does that mean in practice? Replacing Western law, with its guaranteed rights and principle of equality before the law, with a legal system that discriminates between Muslims and non-Muslims; between men and women; and promotes holy war, or jihad, as a basic principle. Or, as an internal memo of the Muslim Brotherhood puts it:

"The [Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

I think many 'non-violent' Islamists reject violence primarily because it's ineffective. After all, if you go around murdering people, someone's bound to notice. Coming in under the radar is much smarter. The goal, however, is the same.

These groups may say they oppose terrorism, but like 'moderate' Imam Rauf, the fellow promoting the mega-mosque project, they usually refuse to condemn Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations. Like Rauf, they'll also tell you that we brought 9/11 on ourselves. So it's not too surprising when the FBI, as it did in the Holy Land Foundation trial, discovers secret links between 'non-violent' organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood and jihad. Or when you find out that Rauf is linked to one of the groups that organized the Turkish flotilla.

Nor does 'non-violent' really mean 'non-violent.' If you believe that, under sharia, the punishment for leaving Islam (apostasy) is death, that's a pretty violent way of dealing with people who want to leave the faith. Adding, as one imam did after he threatened to kill Ayaan Hirsi Ali, that 'of course, that doesn't apply here,' shouldn't fool anyone. Or look at the travails of Rifqa Bary, the young girl in Ohio who converted to Christianity.

Ditto with 'honor killings' or wife-beating, considered OK if they keep troublesome women in line. If any 'non-violent' Islamist group has denounced the 'moderate' Muslim leader in Buffalo who beheaded his uppity wife, I haven't heard of it.

If you want to learn more, there are many excellent websites (see links on the right). Jihad Watch and Pajamas Media are great for giving you an idea of what's going on; The Investigative Project follows, among other things, court cases brought against 'non-violent' Islamist as well as terrorist groups. The American Islamic Forum for Democracy blog shows what real 'moderate' Islam could look like.

If you want a Truly Brilliant Analysis of what's going on in Europe, where this process is more advanced, see my article of several months ago.

The 9/11 Mosque and the Arab world

Raymond Ibrahim surveys commentary from Arab countries on the Mega-Mosque proposal and finds prominent spokesmen, including from the Al-Azhar University in Cairo, who think it's a really bad idea. Indeed, so bad that they assume it's a Zionist conspiracy to link Islam to 9/11. (Hint: dubbing anything a 'Zionist conspiracy' is not/not a compliment!)

As for me, I've decided the Mega-Mosque proposal has had a very positive impact. Islamists succeed by lulling people to sleep, disarming potential resistance. I think the deep sleep phase, which began well before 9/11, is drawing to a close. The events of 9/11 woke Americans up to the terrorist threat, but now they've caught on to the underlying threat from 'non-violent' radical Islam - and they're mad.

That's an absolutely essential first step. Now all we have to do is wake up our political and media elite, starting with our president.

What our leaders don't know

Jeff drew my attention to this article on the Political Islam blog which points out how little our senior leaders, whether it is Gen. Stanley McChrystal, Sara Palin, or the minister of the local church, know about political Islam.

The article argues that repeated avoidance of any clear thinking on ideological or religious issues leaves our leadership essentially disarmed for the fundamental clash, which is the war of ideas between Islamists and the West.

And, indeed, how can anyone (Gen. McChrystal in this case) argue that our opponents in Iraq and Afghanistan are 'insurgents'? 'Insurgents' are people who live in the country. Yet, as Michael Noonan points out in an FPRI e-note (not yet posted on the FPRI website), in Iraq foreign fighters accounted for less than 5 percent of opposition forces but were likely responsible for over 90 percent of high lethality attacks.

These fighters are not 'insurgents'. They are 'jihadists', and not calling them by their proper name in no way diminishes their lethality. Nor does refusing to probe and understand their motivation make it easier to combat them.

Sharia and US law

American Muslim Zuhdi Jasser takes issue here with the idea that traditional Islamic sharia law is "God's law, and it is not that far from what we read in the Declaration of Independence." In his view, any time 'God's law' is incorporated into a political system, that system simply becomes a theocracy: "once it is interpreted and enacted by Muslims it becomes human law regardless of what we may call it." And there is no way that the rights of non-Muslims, or of women, are protected in the same way as they are under U.S. constitutional law.

Jasser's conclusion: "There must be a clear demarcation between the domain of the cleric's laws and the domain of our government's laws -- i.e. our Establishment Clause."

More on words, words, words

In this article, Raymond Ibrahim lays out an excellent argument for using real, precise terms instead of euphemisms to fight Islamist terror. In particular, he reviews the accepted Sunni definition of jihad - a term the U.S. government has banned from use by its officials.

The reason: Americans use 'jihad' in imprecise ways because they don't really know what it means; and, since 'jihad' is a positive value for Muslims, why glorify terrorists who claim they are waging 'jihad'?

Lost in that puffery are two key points: Muslims are unlikely to be swayed by the words infidels use to describe them; and the U.S. government's first responsibility is to inform and communicate with its own citizens. (Thanks to the Middle East Forum.)

Defining extremism

The Policy Exchange think tank in the UK has just published a report, Choosing our friends wisely, that reviews British policy for countering extremist Muslim ideology and finds it severely flawed.

One major drawback it identifies "is the premise that non-violent extremists can be made to act as bulwarks against violent extremists." As a result, "Some of the government's chosen collaborators in 'addressing grievances' of angry young Muslims are themselves at the forefront of stoking those grievances against British foreign policy; western social values; and alleged state-sanctioned 'Islamophobia.'"

The report is chock-full of information and pulls no punches; good job by Policy Exchange. (Thanks to Jeff).

I'm confused

This morning's news is that the Obama administration has a new approach to combat Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan; that Al Qaeda represents a very serious threat to the United States. This threat analysis is confirmed here, in an article on the administration's commitment to keep counterterrorism as the top priority of the Department of Justice and the FBI.

Why then is Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano talking about 'man-caused disasters', rather than terrorist acts? She says the terminology is intended to move the American public away from the politics of fear, and that it represents a radical departure from Bush administration policies.

I think the new language is simply a further extension of the speech code advanced at the end of the Bush administration: anything to avoid calling Islamist terror by its real name. That would also explain why we now apparently are to talk about 'global contingency operations' rather than the 'global war on terror.'

This is no way to win the war of ideas.

Geert Wilders and the OIC

Scholar Bat Ye'Or, in this op-ed, describes the pressure being brought to bear on Europe by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIG), which includes 57 Muslim countries. The OIC, whose power and influence is on prominent display at the UN, wants European governments to prosecute Geert Wilders, among other steps to stifle dissent.

The OIC, she argues, is the organization that 'seeks to become the reincarnation of the Caliphate'. (Thanks to Jeff.) Please note that an earlier entry reported that President Obama has sent a letter to the OIC, the text of which has not been released, proposing closer ties. Does anyone besides me wonder about the direction of U.S. foreign policy?

Iraqi elections

Remember how President Bush was ridiculed for trying to bring democracy to Iraq? Well, the recent elections there suggest he may not have been so crazy after all. Charles Krauthammer describes here how secular parties have defeated Islamist ones; and how prime minister Maliki, who pursued close security relations with the United States, has emerged stronger than before. As Amir Taheri puts it, "All the parties that had 'Islamic' or 'Arab' in their names lost. By contrast, all those that had the words 'Iraq' or 'Iraqi' gained."

Two thoughts about this story, beyond the obvious (that these elections are worth celebrating):

-- Primary credit for the largely peaceful, clean elections goes to the Iraqis. However, the lack of media coverage suggests that they perceive the outcome as also due to Bush's policies - and that they don't want to say anything positive about Bush.

-- President Obama has talked about the need to show respect to the Muslim world. I would argue that we showed respect to the Iraqis by taking them seriously and that they responded in kind.

Ah, true love!

Valentine's Day probably conjures for you an image of greeting cards, chocolate, or maybe a romantic dinner. Well, your life is unbearably dull. If you believe Egyptian Sheikh Hazem Shuman, it's an appalling event that leads good Muslims to act just like Jews and Christians. Horrors! Click here to watch him fulminate, thanks to MEMRI. What an admission of weakness, to have to rage against Valentine's Day.

(Actually, you must first register with MEMRI before you can access the clip. Doesn't cost anything, though, and if you do, you'll be able to see future clips when they're posted as well.)

The clash of civilizations

Commentator Mark Steyn argues that the West will never understand what is motivating Hamas or the current Iranian regime unless it acknowledges that many others are not motivated primarily by the desire for better economic or educational opportunities.

Steyn doesn't believe that these civilizational differences are immutable. But he does think that, unless the West is willing to stand up and defend its culture at least as fiercely as the Saudis and Iranians defend theirs, we won't prevail.

As usual, Steyn works factual nuggets into his piece: did you know that, in its 2007 struggle with Hamas, Fatah seized 1,000 Qassam rockets being stored at the Islamic University in Gaza, along with seven Iranian military trainers? Or that as a 'multicultural balance' to the Queen's Christmas message, British Channel 4 featured an alternative Yuletide address by Iranian President Ahmedinejad?

Enough of radical Islam

That's the title of a recent opinion piece by Ben Shapiro (brought to my attention by Jeff, who doesn't necessarily endorse it). Shapiro argues that we need to 'get real':

-- we're not in a war against terrorism, but in a war against militant Islam.

-- Muslim extremists aren't just a tiny minority of all Muslims: "It's a dominant strain of evil that runs rampant in a population of well over 1 billion."

-- They hate us not because of what we do but because of who we are, and because we don't want to surrender to them.

-- The terrorists will only quit when they are dead: "It is our job to make them so."

I'm curious to know what you think - just for the record, I agree with him.

How to combat radical Islam

Andrew Bostom offers an excellent suggestion: why doesn't the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which represents over 50 Muslim governments, take the lead in opposing radical Islam? OIC states have declared their opposition to terrorism. They have money, arms and armies; why are they not sending forces to help Pakistan defeat the Islamists? It is an excellent question.

Geert Wilders in Jerusalem

Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders gave an excellent speech at a conference in Jerusalem in which he argued that the war against Israel is not territorial but ideological. It is in fact jihad; Israel, like Kosovo, Chechnya, South Thailand, and many other hot spots lies on the fault line between Islam and the non-Islamic world.

Wilders is scathing about the failure of the European governments and political elite to understand the threat posed by the Islamicization of Europe, let alone to defend the rights of people like him to exercise rights such as freedom of speech. Read the whole speech here, thanks to Andrew Bostom.

Terrorists and the media

Bret Stephens argues here that Western media are doing an outstanding job of supplying terrorists with excuses for their actions. All too often, what they're 'reporting' are actual lies, such as Newsweek's false allegations about Koran's being flushed down the toilet at Guantanamo, or the alleged death of 12-year-old Mohammed al-Dura.

To quote Stephens: "...it's worth wondering why a media that treats nearly every word uttered by the U.S., British or Israeli governments as inherently suspect has proved so consistently credulous when it comes to every dubious or defamatory claim made against these governments." Good question, to which I'd like to add one of my own: Will the media treat Obama with the same suspicion and contempt, once's he's sworn in?

Who's a Neo-Nazi?

Last month, an "Anti-Islamization Congress" was blocked in Cologne by violent protesters and a supportive city government. Their actions were greeted by the German and international media as a victory against 'right-wing extremists'.

But is that true - are the right-wing extremists really on the side of opposing the Islamists? Certainly, it was not true in the past, as shown by the links between the Nazis and the Muslim Brotherhood and the Mufti of Jerusalem documented in books like Matthias Kuentzel's Jihad and Jew Hatred.

And it turns out not to be true now, according to a report issued by the domestic intelligence service in Hamburg. The neo-Nazi groups rail against foreigners, apparently, but are careful to avoid criticizing Islam - and they have been openly hostile to the group that sought to organize the Anti-Islamization Congress. For more details about this sordid scene, read John Rosenthal's piece at Pajamas Media.

Next time someone is tarred as a neo-Nazi or right-wing extremist, please ask for details. Could be completely the opposite case - and, if so, why should you fall for the smear?

Wafa Sultan again

Last June, I posted a video of an interview with Arab-American psychiatrist Wafa Sultan. Vonnie just sent me this link to a 2006 interview on Al-Jazeera, translated by MEMRI, in which Wafa is just as outspoken and articulate. She calls the shots like she sees them, and she doesn't put up with any nonsense from Islamic clerics or anybody else.

Wafa argues that the 'clash of civilizations' began 1,400 years ago when Muslims differentiated between themselves and non-Muslims, not when Samuel Huntingdon wrote his article of that name. She urges Muslims to stop killing people and start working and gaining knowledge.