ARCHIVES 001 ALLAH vs JEHOVAH  When serving their own purposes, Muslims hold forth that they worship the same God as Christians and Jews.  Nothing could be farther from the truth!  Allah is not the God of Christians and Jews, and no amount of propaganda by Muslims or rationalization by well meaning “Pollyannas” can make it so! Persons attempting to emphasis similarities between Islam and Christianity point to the numerous passages in the Koran, coinciding with stories from the Bible and Talmud.  In many instances the stories are widely divergent, and in others, read like passages from the “Arabian Nights”!  Examples: In the Koran, Abraham offered Ishmael instead of Isaac as sacrifice, and on a mountain in Arabia instead of Mount Moriah in Israel; Moses was plucked from the Nile by his own mother, not sister; and a Samaritan molded the golden calf, even though the Samaritans did not appear on the historical scene until after the exile of the Jews to Babylon.  And, in his second revelation, his “Journey to Heaven”, revered by Muslims, he was supposedly picked up by Gabriel for a trip to Heaven, and on the way prayed twice at the “Furthest Mosque”, alluding to the second Jewish Temple of Jerusalem.  Local skeptics, after Muhammad’s revelation, more knowledgeable regarding the matter, gleefully pointed out that at that time, the Temple had been a pile of rubble for over 500 years.  It might be supposed that a few lost their heads for such insolence. However, the treatment of Jesus in the Koran is even more interesting.  Jesus, or “Isa”, as he is known in the Koran, is well mentioned, but with several critical distinctions.  According to Muhammad, Isa was not the Son of Allah (God), only a special prophet, and according to Muhammad, did not die on the cross.  Instead, a man named Shabih, who resembled Jesus, took his place.  And, according to Muhammad, (Allah) Christians are mortal sinners to believe in the divinity of Christ.  He said, “Allah will forbid him the garden (Heaven) and the fire (Hell) will be his abode.”  The Koran is also explicit in its rejection of the concept of the Holy Trinity. Muhammad said, “Allah begets not, and was not begotten, that is, he is no son; and no one is like him, which means he is no Holy Spirit.” Under Islam, a passport to Heaven is based on a continuous effort based on good deeds to other Muslims, but not to infidels.  The exception is that of a Muslim who dies in Jihad,  or Holy War against infidels!  If killed fighting infidels, he then proceeds directly to Heaven, regardless of his worldly conduct.  Christians aspire to Heaven based on an acceptance that Jesus is the Son of God; good works are secondary.    The different perceptions of Heaven and Hell between Muhammad’s Allah and the Christians concept of Jehovah are certainly distinct.  Christian Heaven is a place of spiritual communion with God and his followers, and Hell is described as a “lake of fire” where the condemned will suffer.  The Koran is replete with detail regarding both of mankind’s destinations after death.  Muslim Hell is a place where the damned will be continuously tortured by having scalding water poured down their throats.  They will be burned repeatedly with fire, as fresh skin re-grows between tortures and they will be scourged with iron implements.  And, according to Muhammad, most inhabitants of Hell are women.      For Muslim men, Heaven is certainly a desirable place.  It is described as having many streams, some flowing with water, others with honey or wine.  Precious jewels abound along the stream banks.  A quote: “But the pious shall be in a secure place, amid gardens and fountains, clothed in silk and richest robes, facing one another.  Thus shall it be: and we will wed them to virgins with dark eyes.”  Allah will give each Muslim 72 of these “houris”; beautiful young women with erect, not sagging, breasts whose bodies are made of musk.  Allah will also give each man an eternally erect penis to enjoy himself.  And between bouts with the houris, three hundred young servant boys, each bearing a golden dish, will supply each Muslim with a different delicacy.  The serving boys are described as being “pure as pearls”, dressed in green garments of silk and brocade, adorned with silver jewelry, and accustomed to drinking wine.  These do not seem to be ordinary servants.  If so, why the need to be, ever young, handsome, and so well adorned?  The question arises; with whom would they be tippling, surely not the houris.      Allah’s (Muhammad’s) Muslim Heaven was deliberately designed to provide his warriors with the earthly comforts and pleasures largely denied them while alive.  They would have many women, or perhaps boys, for sex, a constantly erect penis, wine, tasty food, beautiful clothing, a pleasant climate with plenty of water, security from enemies, and unlimited wealth.  And, surely attractive for the warriors of Islam; a straight passage to Heaven, if falling in Holy Jihad, regardless of one’s earthly conduct.  If we assume that there is only one Supreme Ruler of the Universe, then He cannot be both Allah and Jehovah, unless of course, God has one face for Muslims, and another for Christians, Jews, and those of all other religions.  It is most likely, as evidenced by the atrocities committed throughout history in the name of religion that some religions have attempted to hold God hostage for their own ends.  Of this, several are guilty.   Muslims point to the Christian Crusades and the Old Testament treatment by Jews of their enemies, when attempting to justify the conduct of Islam over the last 1,350 years.  But then was then, and now is now!  Judaism has been a peaceful religion for well over 2,000 years; not responsible for a single violent subjugation of another society in that entire period.  Indeed, except for the Hindus and Persians, the Jews have suffered more deaths at the hand of Muslim Jihad than any other society and continue to suffer Muslim Jihad even today.  In contrast, Islam has, throughout its entire history, conducted systematic genocide, responsible for the deaths of not millions, but hundreds of millions, many more victims than those of Hitler’s Holocaust and those of World Communism combined!  This genocide continues even today, principally in the Sudan, Mauritania, Ivory Coast, the Philippines and Indonesia, though to a lesser extent in several other countries.             As regarding the Crusades, they were only Christianity’s belated attempts to reclaim previous Christian and Jewish lands conquered by Islam.  Facts: The Dome of the Rock Mosque, in Jerusalem, was constructed atop the Second Jewish Temple and the city of Constantinople, the previous seat of Christianity, is now called Istanbul.    To a considerable extent, the core beliefs of the Jewish and Christian faiths are well summarized by the Ten Commandments, as handed down over 3,000 years ago by Moses.  Any society, if adhering to these commandments, will live in peace and harmony with other societies.  The core belief system of Muslims, however, is based on the infallibility of Muhammad’s revelations, as set forth in the Koran, and augmented by his casual sayings in the 7th Century A.D.  “Kill, kill the unbelievers, wherever you find them”, and “I am the Prophet who laughs when killing my enemies”, are good examples. Islam, from its inception has been a religion of hate, while Christianity was founded on love for one’s fellow man.  Most Christians and Jews are taught from early childhood to love and respect others, regardless of race, creed or color; Most Muslims are taught from infancy to hate and despise all non-Muslims.  It is paradoxical that a Muslim not following Islam is a better human being, while a person professing to be a Christian or Jew, and not following his or her religion, is much less of a person.    A practicing Christian or Jew will attempt to bring an unbeliever to God through showing love for his fellow man and by peaceful means; a Muslim practicing his religion is obliged, by numerous passages of the Koran, to offer only servitude or death for those rejecting Islam.     No, Allah and Jehovah are NOT the same!                                                                 End Notes:  For those readers interested in comparing passages from the Koran and Hadith with the Bible, the following are offered. “And, when the forbidden months have passed, kill the idolaters wherever you find them and take them prisoners and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush.”  (Sura 9:5)   “Thou shalt not kill (do murder).”  (Exodus 20:13) “And, how many populations we destroyed, which exulted in their life of ease and plenty!  Now, those habitations of theirs, after them are deserted…all but a miserable few!  And, we are their heirs!”  (Sura 28:58)   “Thou shalt not covet.”  (Exodus 20:17)  “Allah sent me to complete the excellent virtues and to perfect the good actions.”  (Hadith) “For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.”  (Matthew 22:12)     On marrying his daughter-in-law, wife of his adopted son, Zaid:  “So when Zaid had accomplished what he would of her, then We (Allah) gave her in marriage to thee (Muhammad), so that there should not be any fault in the believers, touching the wives of their adopted sons, when they have accomplished what they would of them; and Allah’s commandment must be performed.”  (Sura 33:37)  “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”  (Exodus 20:14) & “Thou shalt not covet.”  (Exodus 20:17).    “A woman is a toy; whoever takes her, let him care for her.”  (Hadith) “A wife of noble character; who can find?  She is worth far more than rubies.”  (Proverbs 31:10)  “Your wives are a tilth (field) unto you, so approach your tilth when and how you will.”  (Sura 3:195)  “Husbands love your wives, just as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her.”  (Ephesians 5:25) “I have been sent in the best of the generations of the children of Adam, one generation after another generation, until I am born in the generation in which I am born.”  (Hadith)  “A man’s pride brings him low, but a man of lowly spirit gains honor.”  (Proverbs 29:23) “It is not fitting for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he has made slaughter in the land.”  (Sura 8:67)  “Thou shalt not kill (do murder).”  (Exodus 20:13)      “When We (Allah) decide to destroy a population, We 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 we destroy them utterly.”  (Sura 17:16-17)  “Thou shalt not covet.”  (Exodus 20:17) & “Thou shalt not kill (do murder).”  (Exodus 20:13)                                                             002 THE KORAN The Qur'an, or Koran, is for Muslims, Allah’s Holy Word, as revealed to Muhammad, through various supposedly divine revelations.  These revelations occurred over a period of 23 years, commencing when Muhammad was 40 and lasting until his death at age 63.  For Muslims, the Koran is infallible, as Allah’s direct word, and as such, cannot be interpreted.  This is just as well, since for well over a thousand years, not even the most studious and brilliant scholars, of Islam as well as infidels, have agreed as to the exact meanings of many of its passages.  In the words of the German scholar, Gerd-R. Puin, “About a fifth of Koranic passages make no sense at all!”  He further says, “If the Koran is not comprehensible, not even understood in Arabic, then it isn’t translatable.”  Today, even the most educated Arab speaking Muslims would need some sort of translation to make any sense of the Koran.  However, for Muslims, any attempt at an objective analysis of the Koran is considered as the most heinous heresy, and in numerous instances, has led to the death of the analyst.     Notwithstanding the difficulties of translating the Koran, several are available, and in several languages.  A good English translation is “The Meaning of The Holy Qur’an” by ‘Abdullah Yusuf  ‘Ali, published by Amana Publications.  Its main quality is the use of extensive footnotes of the translator attempting to justify Muhammad’s numerous crimes through the revelations from Allah.  Also recommended is the only modern English translation by  N.J. Norwood, published by Penguin Books.          There are several difficulties regarding any serious consideration that the Koran is the clear and immutable voice of God.  The first, being the passage of some 150 years after Muhammad’s death before the Koran was codified into its present form.  While alive,   Muhammad’s revelations were mostly committed to memory by his followers on scraps of parchment, stone, clay tablets, wood, or whatever else happened to be at hand.  The Tradition says that, about a year after the Prophet’s death, his closest friend and the First Caliph, Abu Bakr, ordered that the Koran be set down in writing.  Then, the Third Caliph, ‘Uthman (644-656), ordered that an official version of the Koran be established, and the book took more or less its present form.  He then ordered all other versions to be burned.  ‘Uthman was also one of the first Muslim martyrs to the Koran, accused of apostasy, the worst crime for a Muslim.  The Koran is roughly equivalent in length to the New Testament, and divided into 114 sections, or “suras”.  The present day version of the Koran consists of 28 suras revealed in Medina, and 86 in Mecca.  They vary considerably as to length and format, and with no chronological or thematic order as to their placement.  In general, the suras are organized according to their length, beginning with the longest first.     The Koran has borrowed extensively from the Talmud and the Christian Bible, and a significantly large part of the Koran re-tells various stories of the Bible, though with some interesting changes.  Additionally, besides these appropriations, there are several stories which could only be compared with those of “A Thousand and One Nights”.  It is not known if Muhammad was literate or not, but he always dictated his revelations.  Besides the revelations from Allah, as set forth in the Koran, several thousand sayings, often of a trivial nature, called hadiths, are revered because they were said by Muhammad.  Examples are how to entertain guests, keep one’s hair, and conduct marital relations.  Secondly, the intricacies of the Arab language, one of the most difficult in the world, can lead to gross interpretations as to the meaning of a word or phrase.  Muhammad belonged to the Quraysh clan, whose dialect differed considerably from that of the other nomadic tribesmen of the area.  According to Muslims, for the most part the Koran is written in Classical Arabic, the style of language born out of the Quraysh dialect.  This, in itself, seems to be erroneous, since most scholars agree that Classical Arabic did not become standardized until between the 8th and 9th centuries.  Unfortunately for Arabic speaking Muslims, only a limited number can understand spoken Classical Arabic, and even fewer can read it!  Colloquial dialects are spoken in all Arabic speaking countries, and the divergence between these dialects can be considerable.  However, Muslim law dictates that the Koran must always be read in Arabic, which is basically Classical Arabic.  The result is that the imam, or religious head of a mosque, well knows that most of his congregation will not understand what is read, even if he himself can read Classical Arabic.  The result is that an imam leads his congregation in rote memory recitals, in Arabic, of prayers and innocuous passages from the Koran, followed by a homily in the local language.  The expression of: “The blind leading the blind” comes to mind! Another difficulty for Muslims to understand their religion is that most Muslims do not speak Arabic.  They reside in non-Arabic speaking countries, including Turkey, Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iran, the Philippines, and the Muslim countries previously a part of the Soviet Union.  And, since they are prohibited from reading the Koran except in Arabic, they remain in abject ignorance of their own religion.   Though Muslims believe the Koran descended from Allah to Muhammad, in its present form, forgetting for the moment the interventions of Caliphs Bakr and ‘Uthman, the discovery of a “grave” in Yemen, in 1972, gives lie to this claim.  While restoring the Great Mosque of Sana’a, the workmen discovered a remarkable grave, not of human remains, but of a large cache of parchment fragments of the Koran, seeming to date back to the 8th and 9th centuries, or that is, during the first two centuries of Islam.  The president of the Yemeni Antiquities Authority, Qadhi Isma’il al-Akwa’ sought the help of a visiting German scholar.  This, in turn led to a project, funded by the German Government, to preserve and study more than 1,000 individual pieces of parchment.   Though still an ongoing project, which will take several years to complete, the overwhelming evidence is that the Koran, as Muslims proclaim, is not the timeless, perfect, and unchanging word of God!  However, considering the increasing influence of Muslims in Germany, it is extremely doubtful that the abovementioned study will ever be completed.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              003 MODERN DEMOGRAPHIC CONQUEST   As Islam was spread by the scimitar in past centuries, the religion is now being spread by demographic conquest.  The savage Muslim cavalry of the past has been replaced by millions of Muslim women, in thousands of hospital delivery rooms in Western societies doing their part to impose Dar Al-Islam on the civilized Western nations.  And, as with other aspects of Western societies’ struggles with Islam, we are paying for our own burial.  That is, most of these births are paid for by the social services of the effected countries. Over the last thirty years, several European countries have imported Muslims as a source of cheap and unskilled labor.  France has its Muslims, mostly from Algeria, Germany has favored the importation of workers from Turkey, England allows Muslims in from practically any country, and all European countries have extensive Muslim communities.  Those hundreds of thousands have now, by the highest index of demographic rate in the world, been converted into millions of under skilled, undereducated, and resentful Muslims willing to further Jihad against their host countries.  And, because these Muslims reject Western values and education, they account for a considerable percentage of the expenditures of social services of their host countries.  A good case could be made that the benefit of cheap Muslim labor has been largely, if not completely, been nullified by the cost of social services plus spiraling costs associated with rampant crime, especially in the larger European cities.  In Berlin, Paris, London, Brussels, and a score of other European cities, the Muslims have congregated in self-imposed ghettos where “dhimmis” or non-Muslims, dare not enter, not even the police!  The United States is more fortunate; it can count on Mexico as a source of cheap and unskilled labor.  Though the costs of social services and law enforcement continue to spiral upwards with the estimated 10 to 15 million illegal Mexican immigrants, the U.S. can be thankful that 99% are Catholics, and not dedicated to the violent overthrow of our country.    Though perhaps not originally planned by Muslim leaders of Jihad, the demographic conquest of Europe is working to perfection.  In large part this is fueled by the declining demographic rates of most European countries.  Of the 47 European countries, only one, Muslim Albania, has an increasing population; the 46 others are actually decreasing in numbers.  In 17 countries there are more deaths than births; more coffins sold than cradles!  In all of Europe, fully ten percent of babies are born Muslim.  Ten percent of births in France are Muslim babies, half of all births in Brussels are to Muslims and the most popular name for new born males in England is Muhammad!    The Muslim conquest of Europe is well underway, and probably irreversible.  All Europe is now under Dar Al-Sulh, or that is, the consolidation of strength before launching into Dar Al-Harb, or open warfare.  However, it appears that the Islamic conquest of Europe may never require open warfare.  It may well be accomplished by Muslim women, having more and more little Muslims, and with only an occasional act of terrorism.  The election of Liberals in Spain, and the subsequent withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq, in April of 2004, after the Madrid train bombings, is a good example.  Muslim leaders will continue to exert pressure on all governments for more power, with the threat of terrorist strikes as an alternative.  Many consider that Europe is already lost to Islam!       End Note: If wishing to understand the crisis in Europe, our readers are urged to buy or access the book written by Pat Buchanan, “The Death of the West.”                                                    004 SEXUALITY IN ISLAM Jamie Glazov [Editorial Note:  It would be exceedingly difficult to in any way improve on the following article regarding male sexuality of the Islamic World.  Its author, Mr. Jamie Glazov, the Managing Editor of frontpagemag.com , and an internationally recognized authority regarding Islam, holds a  PhD. in History, with a specialty in Soviet Studies.  The following is an article published on October 4, 2001.] THE SEXUAL RAGE BEHIND ISLAMIC TERROR           “SERIAL KILLERS, almost without exception, are severely sexually abused as children.  The kind of people who hijack a plane with innocent people and drive it into a building with thousands of other innocent people are related to this phenomenon.  When sociopath rape and kill, they do not see their victims as human beings, but only as objects.  This is because the sociopath were themselves, at one time, used as objects…as their bodily integrity was repeatedly violated.  The rage that results from sexual abuse is one thing, but when combined with living in a dysfunctional culture of repression and misogyny, where love is reduced to violent domination, it is quite another.        Throughout the Islamic Middle East, men and women are taught to be vehe-mently opposed to pleasure, especially of the sexual variety.  Men are raised not only forbidden to touch women, but to even look at them.  Sex before marriage is not just a sin…but a criminal offense!  It is punishable by a severe beating at best, or an execution at worst.      The sexual privileges that are allowed in Islamic cultures are permitted (only) to men.  Women's sexuality and social independence represent major threats to male supremacy and are tightly controlled.  Thus, as a Moroccan feminist Fitna Sabbah reveals in her book "Women in the Muslim Unconscious", there is a deep-seated fear of, and hostility to, individuality prevails, and its main disturbing conflict in the Middle East between sexual libido and repression.  A deep-seated fear of, and hostility to, individuality prevails, and its main expression exists in misogyny.        Socially segregated from women, Arab men succumb to homosexual behavior.  But, interestingly enough, there is no word for "homosexual" in their culture in the modern Western sense.  That is because having sex with boys, or effeminate men, is seen as a sexual norm.  Males serve as available substitutes for unavailable women.  The male who does the penetrating, meanwhile, is not emasculated any more than if he had sex with a wife.  The male who is penetrated is emasculated.  The boy, however, is not, since it is rationalized that he is not yet a man.  In this culture males sexually penetrating males becomes a manifestation of male power, conferring a status of hyper-masculinity.  It is considered to have nothing to do with homosexuality.  An unmarried man who has sex with boys is simply doing what men do.  As the scholar Bruce Dunn has demonstrated, sex in Islamic  societies is not about mutuality between partners, but about the adult male's achievement of pleasure through violent domination.          There is silence around this issue.  It is the silence that legitimizes sexual violence against women, such as honor crimes and female circumcision.  It is also the silence that forces Arab boys into invisibility.  Even though the Society does not see their sexual exploitation as being humiliating, the psychological and emotional scars that result from their subordination, powerlessness and humilia-tion is a given.  Traumatized by the violation of their dignity and manliness, they spend the rest of their lives trying to get it back.       The problem is that trying to recover from sexual abuse, and to recapture one's own shattered masculinity, is quite an ordeal in a culture where women are hated and love is interpreted as hegemonic control.       With women out of touch…and out of sight…until marriage, males experience premarital sex only in the confines of being with other males.  Their sexual outlet mostly includes victimizing younger males---just the way they were victimized.       In all of these circumstances, the idea of love is removed from men's understanding of sexuality.  Like the essence of Arab masculinity, it is reduced to hurting others by violence.  A gigantic rupture develops between men and women, where no harmony, affection or equality is allowed to exist.  In relationships between men, meanwhile, affection, solidarity and empathy are left out of the picture.  They threaten the hyper-masculine order.       It is excruciating to imagine the sexual confusion, humiliation, and repression that evolve in the mindsets of males in this culture.  But it is no surprise that many of these males find their only avenue for gratification in the act of humiliating the foreign "enemy", whose masculinity must be violated at all costs…as theirs once was.       Violating the masculinity of the enemy necessitates the dishing out of severe violence against him.  In the recent terrorist attacks, therefore, violence against Americans served as a much-needed release of the terrorists’ bottled-up sexual rage. Moreover, it served as a desperate pathological testament of the remasculinization of their emasculated selves.                                                                . . . . . . . .   Mr. Glazov’s article regarding the rage of Muslims, due to the shortcomings of their society when dealing with human sexuality well illustrates the dysfunctional, misogynistic and hypocritical legacy handed down by Islam’s founder, Muhammad. Before Muhammad destroyed his own society, that of the Arabian Peninsula of the 7th Century, women were seen as equals, not chattels or objects!  The women of Arabia, before Islam, such as his first wife, Khadija, were allowed to conduct business in their own name, a practice not allowed in present day Saudi Arabia.  Allah’s (Muhammad’s) revelations destroyed that equality.  Several revelations of the Koran do compliment women but their value is erased, by others that denigrate women.  Another example of Muhammad’s hypocrisy is the stern language of the Koran regarding homosexual acts, and in his personal sayings, of the Hadith.  Muhammad must have known that, whenever access to the opposite sex is denied for an extended period, such as long caravan journeys, some homosexual behavior will occur.  Remember, he spent thirteen years with his uncle’s caravans.  Why then, were his words so uncompromising regarding homosexuality?  Examples: “When a man mounts another man, the throne of Allah shakes.”, and, “Kill the one that is doing it, and kill the one that it is being done to.” It is quite possible that Allah’s (Muhammad’s) revelations regarding homosexual acts were a result of his own sexual mistreatment when a boy. At present, seven Islamic countries specifically proscribe death for homosexuals, including Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Iran.  In Iran, since the Fundamentalist revolution of 1979, the number of homosexuals executed there has been estimated between several hundred and 4,000, perhaps equaling, or even surpassing those political prisoners executed by the Shah in several previous years.  The broad range of estimates is because many sentences were not reported.  The Iranian Islamic Penal Law, made effective in November of 1991, contains these following articles.  Article 110:  “Punishment for sodomy is killing; the Shari’a judge decides on how to carry out the killing.”  Article 129:  “Punishment for lesbianism is 100 lashes for each party.”, and Article 131: “If the act of lesbianism is repeated three times and punishment is enforced each time, the death sentence will be issued the fourth time.”     As well outlined by Mr. Glazov’s article, in practice, a distinction is made between the sexual act, itself, and any possible emotional attachment, which would be unpardonable.  A man who engages in homosexual acts himself is not necessarily considered to be a homosexual; he might just be using boys or men as a substitute for women.  He would be proving his dominance, as he might prove with a woman.  What is intolerable would be the presence of love, affection, or equality between sexual partners, be they male or female.  When the sexually mistreated boys become men, an extreme distinction within Muslim societies is made concerning what are considered homosexual acts in Western societies.  The man who still permits him self to be mounted finds himself a pariah of his society, but little or no stigma is placed on the dominant partner.  In the dysfunctional Islamic societies around the world, where women are jealously guarded against any type of relationship with a man before marriage, the incidence of lesbian relationships can only be imagined.                                                                                      Perhaps a tragic incident of Saudi Arabia can illustrate the twisted mindset of Muslims regarding sexuality.  As reported by the BBC on March, 2002, a girls’ school caught fire.  Since there were no men present in the school, the girls had taken off their Islamic outer garments.  The Saudi religious police, the “Muttawa”, arriving on the scene, would not let them out of the building, since they were not properly clothed, and fifteen girls burned to death!  The reasoning, if it could such be called, was that it was preferable for the girls to die than for the men at the scene to be subjected to “impure thoughts”.                                                                  005 WOMEN UNDER ISLAM In his day, Muhammad would have been considered as one of the foremost advocates of women’s rights.  In the 7th Century, before he gained control of the Arabian Peninsula, women of the region had even fewer rights than Muslim women today.  Female babies were often buried alive, spousal abuse was the norm and women had no rights of inheritance.  After revelations from Allah (Muhammad), infanticide was prohibited, spousal abuse was codified, and a female inheritor could obtain half that of a male beneficiary.  Unfortunately, every revelation from Allah of the Koran, and every casual comment of his Prophet concerning women, became a part of Islamic Law, the Shari’a.  Thus, any improvement of women’s status since the 7th Century has been extremely difficult in all Muslim countries and practically impossible in others.        Today, Muslim women, under the calloused and cruel thumb of Islam are the most repressed of any society in the world.  A woman, even a wife, is a chattel, lower than a bondservant, and only slightly above a slave.  A woman's only purpose is to please her husband.  Allah (Muhammad) said: “Men are in charge of women because Allah has made one of them excel the other."  Other quotes are:  “The woman is a toy; whoever takes her, let him care for her.”, “Women shall with justice have rights similar to those exercised against them, according to what is equitable, but men have a degree of advantage over them.”, “Your wives are a tilth (field) unto you, so approach your tilth when and how you will.”  And another, which sanctions wife beating is: “As for those wives, from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them”.  These quotes, reflecting Allah’s (Muhammad’s) low esteem of women, have influenced the Muslim religion since its beginnings.  Muhammad was also reputed to have said that he had glimpsed Hell, and most of its population were women! Under Islam, a Muslim is allowed four wives by custom, but many men have several more.  Muhammad had more than ten; some historians say fifteen.  Another type of quasi-wife is permitted; the practice is referred to as Al-Mesyar, or “short day-time visit”.  Under this male biased arrangement, a woman receives a one-time payment, or dowry, before the “marriage”, but then relinquishes all rights to legal support, for her self and any issue from the union.  She also relinquishes any nighttime visits, in order to be able to receive her “husband” during daylight hours.  And, there are no limits as to concubines or access to slave women, even if a slave woman is married.  Thus, even adultery, for a Muslim man, is sanctioned under the Koran.  Muhammad fared even better however; he received a revelation, which permitted him, without restrictions, to marry his cousins or any other woman, even if she were married, who desired to be his wife.         As well documented by Muslims, Muhammad was 49 when making a marriage contract with his third wife, Aisha, who was either six or nine at the time.  In the 7th Century, child brides were common in several societies.  Under Islam, unfortunately, this practice continues to this day.  The Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran, married his wife when 28, and she was 10.  In this particular instance, it appears that the marriage was a success.  He appears to have been deeply in love with her; wrote tender verses to her expressing his affection, and on her death, never re-married.  He counseled Muslim fathers to, “Do your best to insure that your daughters do not see their first blood (menses) in your house.”  In Iran, in one of the more “enlightened” Muslim countries, their laws permit girls to marry when 9 and boys at 14!  A tragic by-product of child marriages sanctioned by Islam is the harm done to these child brides when becoming pregnant.  Pregnancies often occur before their young bodies are mature enough to endure childbirth without suffering serious side effects.  In a profiled case of UNICEF, the following was documented: Zeinab is 26 years old.  She was married at the age of 10, and at 12 gave birth to a girl.  However, the trauma of the early delivery was too much for her young fragile body, whose left side became paralyzed.  As a result, her husband sent her back to her family.  He eventually abandoned her completely and re-married.  She and her daughter, now 13, are now living with an aunt and earn some money selling potatoes.  But Zeinab cannot afford to send the girl to school. The above UNICEF report does not identify the poor girl as being Muslim, but Zeinab was the name of one of Muhammad’s several wives.  However, regardless of her religion or ethnic identity, this is a story repeated hundreds of times daily in the Muslim world.  That is, with the combination of child marriages and easy divorces by Muslim men, these tragedies are common.        A man can divorce his wife by simply saying, "I divorce you!” three times in succession.  In some Muslim countries divorce can also be accomplished, by a note to the wife.  A discussion is presently ongoing in some Muslim societies as to whether this can be accomplished by telephone.  However, in most Muslim countries, a woman cannot divorce her husband; she can only seek a judicial annulment.  Grounds for such a release are:  a sexual physical deficiency, mutilation, or malfunction before marriage; madness or leprosy, impotence, or a husband's vow not to have intercourse with a wife for a period of four months.  As can be imagined, there are few marriages dissolved by a wife in the Muslim world.  And, since an Islamic marriage does not produce any community property, upon being divorced, a woman is entitled to a once only payment, for an amount agreed upon before the marriage.  She then has no further recourse regarding assistance for herself or her children.  Muslims like to point out that the incidence of prostitution is quite low in Islam, but this claim is due more to semantics than reality.  Muhammad invented a short-term marriage, the “mut’ah”, a ploy to allow his troops an outlet when campaigning.  This was a marriage of three days, generally to prostitutes.  As with several other customs of Islam, the short-term marriage, has been even further corrupted, than its original corrupt concept.  Today, in Iran, a short-term marriage can mean only an hour of nuptial bliss.  A one time payment, or dowry, is paid before consummating the marriage.  Then, in a few days, or in the case of Iran, perhaps only an hour or so, three “I divorce you’s”, and a man can be on his merry way.  It might be imagined, that if the recent divorcee had excelled in her temporary marital duties, the recently divorced husband might return to marry her again, in a matter of days, or perhaps hours!  A cynic of the Western world might consider this arrangement as being prostitution, but under another name.  In Tehran today, there are an estimated 60,000 “ladies of the evening”, almost all divorcees, willing to enter into a short-term marriage of an hour or more, that is, once an acceptable amount has been agreed upon as to the dowry.     A Muslim mother loses all control over her children when a boy becomes seven, and a girl when nine.  In legal matters, two women's testimony is needed to equal that of a man.  A female inheritor is entitled to only one half of that of a male heir.  In most Muslim societies, no statistics are kept as to spousal abuse, and a male relative’s permission must generally be given before a wife or a child can be admitted to a hospital.  A wife is expected to sexually gratify her husband, but not to take any pleasure of her own.  She is to be only the vessel for his gratification.  A true Muslim considers a woman's orgasm repugnant and sinful, since it might indicate mutuality.  This mindset has led to the barbaric practice of subjecting girls, on or before reaching puberty, to a horrible and painful operation, a clitoridectomy.  This operation severs the nerves giving pleasure through the clitoris.  The practice is more prevalent in parts of Africa, but not unknown in countries of the Western world within Muslim societies.  In Africa, the operation generally entails the young girl being held to the ground by other women, often her mother or older sisters while a woman skilled in this procedure performs the actual operation.  In many cases, this atrocity is accomplished without local anesthesia or any sterilization of the knife used.  In Egypt, an estimated 80% of Muslim girls are subjected to this horrific practice.    In 2002, a Muslim family living in England was upset because Britain's National Health Service would not provide such an operation for their daughter.  They had to go abroad for the operation "to make her more desirable for marriage".  A law passed in 2003 by the English Parliament makes this barbaric practice punishable with 14 years of prison.   When a girl reaches nine years of age, she enters "Purdah", and takes the veil.  Thereafter, her every movement is severely restricted and, in most Muslim countries, cannot leave her home unless completely covered, from head to toe, and accompanied by a male relative.  As to education, in most Islamic societies, a woman, unless of the ruling class, has little chance of any additional schooling past that of the religious indoctrination of the Sunnah.  Turkey and Iran are two notable exceptions, where in both countries many women are allowed to pursue a higher education.   Much of the above is not from a history text describing conditions of medieval Arabia, but reflects life in Saudi Arabia in the 21st Century.  A considerable amount of the above information is contained in a document of the U.S. State Department, entitled: “Country Report on Human Rights Practices in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for A.D. 2002”.  This report is available in most public libraries of the United States.  Honor killings, or a better description would be "honor murders", are a phenomenon largely confined to the Muslim world.  Not a single Islamic country is free of the custom.   Honor murders have their root in a vulgar and ancient Arabic expression, "A man's honor lies between the legs of a woman."  Muslim women who have had sexual relations outside of marriage, including rape, or to have raised suspicions regarding their conduct, i.e.- be only suspected of having illicit relations with a man outside of marriage are subject to being killed to "regain the family honor."  But adultery, or the loss of virginity, or its suspected loss, is not the only justification, in the minds of Muslims, for brutal murder.  Marrying without permission of the family, disobedience, leaving home without permission, or even a flirtatious glance has provided motives for murder.  And, in a few cases, women observed smoking cigarettes has led to their deaths.  However, for whatever of the above reasons that the male members of a Muslim family feel that a female member of the family has brought dishonor to the family, the execution is generally carried out by close male relatives, generally by a father, brother, or uncle.  These murders reflect a mind-set almost incomprehensible to more civilized societies, but are every day practice in Muslim countries, and beginning to appear in other countries with Muslim populations.  Statistical evidence is difficult to obtain, not so much as a desire of the Muslim countries to hide the facts, only that "honor murders" are such an accepted custom of Muslim societies, that many officials of the different countries would be surprised of any interest in the matter.  The United Nations Population Fund estimates that around 5,000 honor killings (murders) occur each year!  Muslim courts are especially lenient concerning honor murders.  Jordan, one of the more "enlightened" countries of Islam, if this expression can be used concerning any Muslim country, has even codified honor murders.  Until quite recently repealed, Article 340 of the Jordanian Penal Code was clear on the matter.  Quote: "He who discovers his wife, or one of his female relatives committing adultery, and kills, wounds or injures one or both of them, is exempt from any penalty."  And, Jordan is one of the more "enlightened" Muslim countries.  But still on the books are other articles of the Penal Code that insure that a Jordanian man will be exempt from prosecution or be treated with leniency if conducting an honor killing (murder).  At most, the sentence would be a few months in prison.  Dr. Mu'men Hadidl, a previous Director of Jordan's National Institute of Forensic Medicine, has stated that even the conduction of a hymenal examination is practically a death warrant for a woman there.  That is, even the suspicion that an unmarried woman is not a virgin, as evidenced by an examination demanded by a male member of her family, in many instances will lead to her murder!  Dr. Hadidl further stated that he has performed post mortem examinations on several victims of honor killings (murders) that still possessed an intact hymen.  As an "enlightened" Muslim country, a good percentage of women in Jordanian prisons are there for their own protection against being subject to honor killings (murders).  In 2003, an article was reported in the "Jordan Times" newspaper, and later was used in a segment of a broadcast by the BBC.  Two sisters, 27 and 20 years of age, were hacked to death by their own brothers.  Their crimes, in the eyes of the family were that the older sister had left home to marry a man without her family's permission, and a couple of years later, the younger sister had run away to join her.  Some "well wisher" of the family revealed the sisters' address, and the brothers entered their residence with axes and hacked the women to death!  It is not known if the family was too poor to have owned a gun for the executions, which would have been rare in the Muslim world, or just that such a dishonor of the sisters deserved a more horrendous death.  According to a Jordanian policeman at the scene, "One victim's head was nearly cut clean off."  However, the family's honor had been preserved!   In Egypt, the Ministry of the Interior reported that of the 775 cases of reported homicides in 1988, 49 of the murders, or 16% of them, were to "wipe out shame", a term used in Egypt to describe honor killings (murders).  In addition to the murders, which at least in the eyes of many Muslim families, are justified; many fake honor murders occur.  These are instances where a man kills another man with the pretense that the victim had had relations with one of his female relatives, and he is only upholding the family "honor".  In this manner, he is not accused of murder and keeps his own head.  Unfortunately, in many instances, the female relative is then sacrificed on the altar of "family honor."  In some cases, the family members of a Muslim woman are relieved of the duty of protecting the family honor and the pertinent country, where a woman has dishonored her family, then assumes this obligation.  In some countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan, but certainly not exclusively limited to these countries, the pertinent country where the "dishonor" has occurred, may step forward to resolve the situation.  Then, these public executions take on the festive manta of a bullfight in Madrid or a major league baseball game in the U.S.  The main exceptions are that generally there is no charge for admission and the snacks sold by the vendors at the stadium are quite different, but the atmosphere is much the same.  And, the wild cheering of the crowds are not for a brilliant veronica by a matador or a home run knocked out of the stadium, but for the clean decapitation of a human head!  Two separate incidents illustrate the Muslim mind-set.  Several years ago, the International Monetary Fund contributed to the construction of a new sports stadium in Kabul, Afghanistan.  Until the fall of the Taliban regime, it was used for public executions and amputations.  When U.S. officials complained of this use of the stadium, the Justice Minister promised that such events would be moved elsewhere.  The second illustration, indicating Muslim attitudes towards honor murders, has to do with a public execution held in Saudi Arabia in July of 1977.  An English journalist concealed a small camera and recorded the public execution of a Saudi princess,  Mishael 'bint Fahd 'bin Mohjammad, and her lover, Khalid Muhallah.  She was a woman still married, but separated from her husband.  She and her lover, also a Saudi, had initiated a liaison when both lived in England, and were sufficiently naive to continue the relationship once returned to Saudi Arabia.  They were arrested, hurriedly tried for adultery and sentenced to death.  Before a capacity crowd, the Princess was shot six times in the head and her lover beheaded.  The photos taken by the English journalist became part of the basis for a documentary entitled "Death of a Princess", produced by Anthony Thomas.  The documentary aired in England and caused strained relations between Great Britain and Saudi Arabia.  When the program was to air on PBS, our State Department appealed to PBS not to use the documentary, and Exxon threatened to withhold its sponsorship of further support of PBS programming. With the immigration of so many Muslims to Europe,most in the last twenty-five years, honor murders are no longer confined to Muslim countries.  They have been reported in every European country, as well as Ecuador, Brazil and Canada.  In 2002, English authorities believe that twelve of their murders could be described as "honor killings".  One horrific murder was that of a sixteen year old Muslim girl who made the mistake of befriending a young Christian boy.  Her father stabbed her 17 times with a kitchen knife to maintain the "family Honor."  He was sentenced to life in prison by an English court.  The present law enforcement statistics of several Western nations do not as yet reflect the incidences of honor murders; perhaps it is time to do so!  006 SLAVERY IN ISLAM Slavery, since its inception, has been a cornerstone of Islam, for over thirteen centuries!  After consolidation of his power, Muhammad provided several revelations to justify and codify slavery.  He also set the precedent in his own life, with dozens of slaves, which he purchased, sold, traded, rented, hired, and exchanged during his lifetime. A considerable number of the Jewish women and children enslaved at the Banu Qurayzah Massacre of Medina, of which surely over 500 became his property, made him a wealthy man.  Muhammad soon reasoned that corpses were worth little, but a poll tax, the Jisyah, would insure a continuous source of wealth from conquered societies.  The Jisyah, as explained by apologists for Islam, was to provide “protection” for conquered societies, and as an exemption from service in the armies of Islam.  In few cases, if any, was protection needed from any other than the conquering hordes of Islam, and certainly Islam had little desire to incorporate recent enemies or unskilled warriors into their ranks.  However, if an unfortunate family did not have the wherewithal to pay the Jisyah, a boy or girl-child would do just fine, and was taken into slavery as payment for the Tax.  The price was generally set by local authorities of Islam, or by a mandate from higher up.     In the middle of the 7th Century, as Muslim expansion into Africa accelerated, the slave trade flourished, becoming an integral part of commerce and exchange of the Islamic World.  Depending on circumstances, men and pubescent boys of conquered societies were enslaved or put to death.  Older men and women, deemed not strong enough to serve as slaves, were killed outright.  Attractive women and pubescent girls could expect to be raped before becoming a concubine or destined for the auction block, and pre-pubescent girls and boys were also highly prized.  The boys were generally made into complete eunuchs, with many dying in the process.    In the 15th and 16th centuries, Spain and Portugal, and later other countries, purchased black African slaves for their colonies in the New World.  It is interesting to note, however, the distinctions between slaves destined for export to the Americas, and those to be used in the Muslim World.  Slaves sent to the various colonies of the New World were predominately male, as being stronger workers.  A lesser percentage of females were sent; certainly enough to provide succeeding generations, but of that primary importance.  Over ten million black Africans were taken to North, Central, and South America, and the Caribbean.  Their descendants now number in the tens of millions.  Not so in the case of the Muslim World.  With the Koran’s approval of slavery, and certainly due to an over-abundance of product, most slaves destined to the Muslim World were female, for the harems.  Male slaves were generally made into eunuchs, thus, outside of Africa, there are considerably fewer descendants sired by black slaves. The progeny of harem slave girls and their Muslim masters were sometimes incorporated into higher stations, and sometimes not. The Abolitionist fervor that swept England, and later the United States, had its roots in Christianity.  Though both the Bible and Talmud recognized slavery; neither recognized the practice as “divinely ordained”, as does Islam.  Slavery is alive and well today in the Muslim World, principally in Sudan, Mauritania, and Saudi Arabia, but to a lesser extent in the other Arab-speaking countries of Islam.  In 2001, the price of a young man in the Sudan was fifty dollars; and a few thousand miles to the East, in Afghanistan, a young girl can still be had for as little as twenty-five dollars.  Virgins command a slightly higher price. Saudi Arabia supposedly abolished slavery in 1962, and Mauritania became the last Muslim country to (again) abolish slavery in 1982.  However, an estimated 250,000 slaves, almost all women, are held in Saudi Arabia alone!  With those additionally held in Mauritania, Sudan, Afghanistan, and several other mostly Arabic speaking countries, there can be no less than a half million, but probably closer to a million slaves in the Islamic world.  Most presently held in the abovementioned countries have been obtained from sub-Saharan Africa, but not all.  Interpol files are replete with dossiers; missing persons reports, of hundreds of Caucasian women, in many instances tourists, that have disappeared over the years while visiting Muslim countries or countries bordering Muslim countries.        As an indication that slavery is still an integral part of Islam, the following quote from a lecture of a Saudi religious leader, Sheikh Saleh Al-Fawzan, in 2003, is offered:  “Slavery is part of Islam; slavery is a part of Jihad and Jihad will remain as long as Islam.”  Sheikh Al-Fawzan is a member of the Senior Council of Clerics that dictates the law in Saudi Arabia, an imam of a mosque in Riyadh, and a professor at Bin Saud University, the main Wahhabi center of learning of Saudi Arabia.  He is also the author of a religious textbook, “Al-Tawhid” (Monotheism), which is widely used both in Saudi Arabia, and in schools funded by the Saudis throughout the world.  (Editorial Note: It would be interesting to determine if the Saudi funded school of Georgetown, in Washington, D.C. uses this textbook.)      The Muslim Religion is the fastest growing religion in the World, including the United States.  And a disproportionate percentage of these converts are Black Americans.  They are pledging their lives and allegiance to the very society that most harmed their ancestors!                                                                                                        007 ONGOING GENOCIDE For several years now, the United States has placed itself as a willing accomplice, as directed by our political leaders, and well implemented through our State Department, on the side of Muslim Jihad, to pursue systematic genocides against defenseless societies.  And, in many instances, other Western nations have been guilty.  For most of the world  media these atrocities are non-events.  In several cases, this “ethnic cleansing” has been directed against Christian and Jewish societies, though Islam has always been an equal opportunity oppressor, and other infidels have suffered as well.  Though certainly not limited to the Sudan, Mauritania, and Indonesia, these three countries of the world are perhaps the best examples of the ongoing genocide of Islam.  The ending of colonial rule in Sudan and Mauritania marked the re-establishment of slavery and the beginning of systematic genocide and in Indonesia as well, but with a lesser emphasis on slavery.      THE SUDAN:  In 1983 the Muslim controlled government of Sudan instituted the strict Islamic Law, the Shari’a, in the entire Country.  Black Christians, principally of the Nuba tribe, and other non-Muslims were of course subject to this decree.  In 1992, a “fatwa”, or religious edict, was issued giving justification for the Sudanese military to commence an ongoing persecution of all non-Muslims.  A fatwa, once issued, can not be rescinded or amended!    The ongoing genocide in the Sudan was well planned by the leaders in Khartoum, the capital.  It uses systematic attrition of the non-Muslims to slowly convert the Sudan into a totally Islamic state.  First, soldiers attack villages and indiscriminately kill.  They are unpaid except by the value of the loot and slaves they can obtain.  The elderly and sick are slaughtered and food stores are set afire.  The main objective of these raids against villages is to obtain healthy slaves.  The following is an excerpt from a paper, entitled,  “Facing Genocide: The Nuba of Sudan”, published by African Rights on July 21,1995. Thousands of men, women, and children are captured when their villages are surrounded, or are snatched while tending their crops, herding their animals, or collecting water.  Many people run to hide in caves to avoid Government attacks, but they are driven even from these refuges by hunger or thirst, or by attacks using tear gas.  Captives are taken to garrisons, forced to carry their own looted possessions, or drive their own stolen animals in front of them.  These captives or “returnees”, as the Government calls them—usually never see their families or villages again.  Men are either killed or forcibly conscripted into a militia known as the “People’s Defense Force”.  Many are tortured.  Women are raped and forced to work, often in special labor camps.  All but the youngest children are separated for “schooling”, (i.e.- conversion to Islam and training for a role in the new, extremist Islamic Sudan).      The American Anti-Slavery group also published a recent expose of current conditions in the Sudan:  Women and children abducted in slave raids are roped by the neck or strapped to animals and then marched north.  Along the way, many women and girls are repeatedly gang-raped.  Children who will not be silent are shot on the spot.  In the north, slaves are either kept by individual militia soldiers or sold in markets.  Boys work as livestock herders, forced to sleep with the animals they care for.  Some who try to escape have their Achilles tendons cut to hamper their ability to run.  Masters typically use women and girls as domestics and concubines,     cleaning by day and serving the master sexually at night.  Survivors report being called “abeed” (“black slave”), enduring daily beatings , and receiving awful food. Masters also strip slaves of their religious and cultural identities, giving them Arabic names, and forcing them to pray as Muslims. According to hearings held by the first session, of the 107th U.S. Congress, (H. CON. RES. 113), “Regarding human rights violations and oil development in Sudan”, over 2,000,000 black Sudanese have been killed since the Country became subject to Islamic law.” This report is available in most public libraries.  MAURITANIA:  Slavery has flourished there since the first Muslim invasions of the 7th century.  Slavery was supposedly abolished several times, the last time in 1982.  Nevertheless, slavery is alive and well, combined with a systematic genocide similar to that of the Sudan.  This is accomplished by slave armies, the Haratines.  These are blacks that were previously captured, enslaved, and then trained to kill and enslave their fellow countrymen.  After taking over a village, they remain as the new masters, and the systematic genocide continues.  INDONESIA:  This country has also provided its share of martyrs to the avarice of Islam.   In approximate chronological order, they are: Indonesia (1965):  The then dictator Suharto unleashed an orgy of killing which took a minimum of 500,000 lives in less than a year.  Actually, no accurate records were kept; some estimates were much higher; U.S. newspapers of the day gave estimates of up to 2,000,000.  The U.S. public, told that most were Chinese Communists, applauded this genocide, but there were many Christians and other faiths represented in this massive genocide.  Perhaps needless to say, the lands and possessions of the murdered were confiscated by Indonesians.     Dutch New Guinea (1962 – 1990):  This territory was re-named Irian Jaya after being handed over to Indonesia in 1962.  By September 1973, an estimated 30,000 had been killed, and by 1990, an estimated 100,000.  Most were animists, but a considerable number of Christians were among the murdered.      East Timor (1975 – 2003):  East Timor was invaded on December 7, 1975.  Using the words of Franklin Roosevelt, this was a “day of infamy”.  But in this case, the “day of infamy” was not of Japan, but of the United States.  Gerald Ford and Henry Kissinger, his Secretary of State, were in Jakarta, and knew that Indonesia was on the brink of its invasion of East Timor.  They only asked that the invasion be delayed, until their departure.  Kissinger told reporters, “the United States understands Indonesia’s position on the question of East Timor”, and the U.S. abstained from a United Nations vote condemning the invasion.  Our then Ambassador to the United Nations, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, said in a cable to Secretary of State Kissinger, on January 23, 1976, “The United States wished things to turn out as they did and worked to bring this about.  The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook.  This task was given to me, and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success.”  Mr. Moynihan seems to have taken pride in his “laudable” accomplishment.            Perhaps an article by Lorrie Goldstein, entitled, “Our Selective Morality”, which appeared in the Toronto Sun, on September 14, 1999, might be appropriate.                    “If East Timor was Kosovo, we all know what would have happened by now.  U.S. President Bill Clinton would have gone on national television to denounce  Indonesian President B.J. Habibie as a new Hitler and a threat to world peace!  There would have been American led cries,....to indict Indonesia’s generals for war crimes.  The media would be referring to what is now happening as a “new Holocaust”.  The reason none of this is happening is obvious.  The United States, the key player in both conflicts, regards Serbia as a pariah state and Indonesia as a valued trading partner..…(It) pursued its’ interests by minimizing Indonesian       atrocities and portraying the Indonesian military and political leadership as positively as possible.  In both cases, the dead are still the dead.”   A quotation of Serge Trifkovic, from his book, “Sword of the Prophet”, epitomizes the situation:  “In the motivation, patterns, and perceptions of the actors on the ground—killers and victims alike---East Timor was an Islamic jihad against Christian infidels, identical in form and purpose to other tragedies caused by Islam’s insatiable appetite for other people’s land, property, bodies, and souls.”  Muslim genocide is presently ongoing in Indonesia, Sudan, Mauritania, Ivory Coast and the Philippines, but to a lesser extent wherever Muslims have absolute or even partial control of a country.                                                                    008 ISLAMIC  JURISPRUDENCE Hamid al-Ghazali Secular jurisprudence is almost entirely absent in Muslim countries; Islamic Law, the Shari’a rules!  This legal code is essentially based on Muhammad’s revelations, as set forth in the Koran, as well as “hadiths”, collectively known as the Hadith, or Tradition.  The Hadith is the collection of Muhammad’s sayings, as for example, how to conduct certain rituals of the faith.  The Hadith contains tens of thousands of binding precedents, which extend to such varied subjects as to how to trim one’s hair, put on slippers, and  entertain guests.  Since Muhammad was Allah’s prophet, these details must have come directly from Him.  There are six collections of “hadiths” which are regarded as being authoritative by most Muslims.  “Sunnah” is the body of law conveyed through the Koran and hadiths, and one hadith may form precedent for various parts of the Sunnah.  Over more than 1,300 years, some have become binding and supply the base for a large part of Muslim Law.  Others are non-obligatory, but can be, and are, extensively used in Muslim jurisprudence.  Early legal doctrines and practices were codified by the theologian, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, (780 – 855) and well over a thousand years later the penalties, for different crimes remain much the same.  Under the Shari’a a private citizen or judge can put forth a case, or inquiry.  Then, a religious leader, a “mufti” will render and issue a legal opinion, or “fatwa”, which is considered as a final judgment.  There is no judicial review; the “fatwa” is final, and cannot be rescinded or reversed.  A fatwa can be issued regarding practically any issue, from issuing a death sentence and offering a compensatory reward for its execution, as in the case of Salman Rushdie, or for authorizing genocide in the Sudan, or to serve more mundane purposes, such as severing a marriage between a Muslim and non-Muslim. All that Osama ‘bin Laden needed, in order to obtain a fatwa for the destruction of the United States, was a single mufti sympathetic to his cause.  This fatwa, in the mind of all true Muslims, is now an obligation, or at least a justification, for its execution! The Shari’a applies to both Muslims and infidels, but in practice infidels are judged more harshly since they have no rights under Islamic law.  A non-Muslim’s testimony is not accepted or allowed in a Muslim court, against Muslims or even non-Muslims.  Listed below are several crimes, and how they are handled under the Shari’a.   RAPE:  Rape is supposedly punishable by death, but in most circumstances, only if the woman is Muslim.  But few rapes are prosecuted in the Muslim world, even when the victim is Muslim.  Under the Shari’a, the testimony of the victim is not admissible; instead that of four Muslim men is necessary.  Additionally, their testimony must be to have seen the rape, with actual penetration!  Naturally, if four men were to see the rape, and not intervene, they would be considered, at least in practically any other society, as accomplices!  On the other hand, a Muslim woman who complains of rape may find herself executed because she had relations with a man other than her husband.  Many women of my previous society have suffered this penalty.    This corruption of justice was evidently due to an incident relating to Muhammad’s problems with his child bride, Aisha, when she was suspected of adultery.  When some suspicions concerning her conduct were revealed to the Prophet, Allah fortunately stepped in with a revelation to save her, and which thereafter dictated the requisite of the four male witnesses.  Allah (Muhammad) asked of his wife’s accusers: “Why did they not provide four witnesses to prove it?  When they have not brought the witnesses, such men, in the sight of Allah stand forth themselves as liars!” (24:13)  Though we have no way of knowing if Aisha was guilty of any indiscretion; what we do know is that, due to Allah’s (Muhammad’s) revelation, thousands of Muslim women, for over 1,300 years, have paid with their lives after being raped!  In some Muslim countries, a sizeable percentage of the inmates of women’s prisons, are actually being held for their own protection.  If released, they could be killed by male relatives, who consider that a woman has dishonored the family name, by having suffered the rape.   Since Islam was established and even today, non-Muslim women are raped as normal practice.  After rape, unless a woman is acceptably attractive, or circumstances permit her enslavement, her throat is cut!   During the recent Balkan conflict, when Muslim forces took few slaves, some Christian women escaped with their lives after being raped.  KILLING / MURDER:  One of the Ten Commandments is, "Thou shalt not kill (do murder)."  For Muslims, a similar prohibition applies only to those of their own faith.  Towards infidels, the Koran says:  "Kill, kill the unbelievers wherever you find them."  However, if a Muslim kills a fellow believer, the sentence is normally death.  But a killer may escape punishment by paying a “death duty” to the victim’s family, if acceptable to the family.  This option is not normally extended to an infidel killing a Muslim.  And, killing an infidel or “dhimmi” is not normally considered murder!  In some Islamic societies, and depending on the individual circumstances, such as the social or political importance of the victim, some action may be taken, but rarely any long imprisonment, and almost never a death sentence.  SLAVERY:  There are no prohibitions, sanctions, or penalties concerning slavery, and  slavery has been a cornerstone of Muslim society since the religion emerged.  Indeed, the Koran dedicates several passages regarding, and justifying the practice.   APOSTASY:  The worst crime is for a Muslim to renounce Islam, of which I am guilty, upon embracing Christianity.  Allah (Muhammed) ordered the death sentence for apostates, and it is the Law of the Land of all Muslim countries.  His (Muhammad’s / Allah’s) words were:  "One who changes his faith is to be killed."  A Muslim renouncing the religion may first be examined for insanity since, for Muslims, it is incomprehensible that a believer would renounce his or her religion.  This attitude is reminiscent of Communism in the former Soviet Union, when many dissidents were considered to be mental cases, and sometimes interned in mental hospitals, instead of the “gulogs.  Once the sentence has been pronounced, the execution is generally accomplished by beheading, often as a public spectacle.  Though rarely enforced, a Muslim who consistently misses prayers might also be considered to be an apostate, leading to a death sentence.    BLASPHEMY:  It is doubtful that any person of Western Civilization has been put to death for blasphemy in over 200 years.  But in Muslim countries, arrests, imprisonment, trials, torture, and frequent executions are a daily occurrence for this crime.   In many instances, those accused are Christians or Jews.  Since any non-Muslim is completely devoid of rights in a Shari’a court, a Muslim can denounce an infidel with impunity.  This has led to false charges, against which a non-Muslim can offer no defense.   Soon after the establishment of Islam, blasphemy covered any lack of respect of Allah, Muhammad, the Koran, the Muslim faith or the Shari’a, by even suggesting that any of these concepts or entities may be in any way defective.  It was, and still is, also considered blasphemy to demonstrate any lack of respect for the “umma”, the Muslim community.  This, of course, in my previous society, can mean practically anything!    Under the present day blasphemy laws of Pakistan, a person “Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad…shall be punished by death and shall be liable to a fine.”  The vague wording of this Law, can and does, lead to gross injustices, especially if directed against an infidel unable to offer a defense or even to appear in a Shari’a court. ADULTERY: This is also an offense, punishable by death.  One choice manner of punishment is to sew the adulterers into a sack and throw them from the highest building in the area, often the minaret of a local mosque.  But other forms of carrying out the death sentence are acceptable. In a news story of the New York Times (May 17, 2002), a young woman of Pakistan, who had been raped by her husband's brother, was sentenced to death, and executed, by stoning, for adultery.  The brother who raped his sister-in-law was not punished.  The judge's ruling was based on the woman's own testimony, that is, that she had had intercourse, by the rape, outside of marriage!  In the Muslim world, few husbands are convicted of adultery. SPOUSAL ABUSE / CHILD ABUSE:  Spousal abuse is sanctioned in the Koran so this crime, per se, is not recognized as a crime!  And, regardless of the circumstances or gravity of any child abuse, it would not be considered as a crime in a Shari’a court! THEFT:  Penalties for theft in Muslim countries are specific; for a first offense, the thief's right hand would be amputated.  For a second offense, the left foot is amputated.  In Muhammad’s day, he ordered that the severed hand be worn around a thief’s neck.  Interestingly, the looting of public property or embezzlement of a treasury, do not carry those sentences.  And, theft from an infidel is never considered a crime!       MAIMING OR DISFIGUREMENT:  The Code of Hammurabi comes into play in Muslim Jurisprudence; "an eye for an eye" can be invoked.  A Muslim deliberately gouging out the eye of another Muslim might also lose one of his own eyes as punishment.  Or, a person who is responsible for the loss of a limb might have his own limb removed.  In some countries, such as Egypt, my country of origin, the appropriate body part will be surgically removed in a hospital.  But in more backward Muslim countries, amputations are performed publicly in sports stadiums, sometimes as preliminary entertainment for spectators before the main event of public executions.      HOMOSEXUALITY:  The Koran, and the Shari’a are specific; death is ordained for the homosexual, and penal codes of several Muslim states reflect this.  The execution of homosexuals is common in Saudi Arabia as it was in Afghanistan, until the fall of the Taliban regime.  In Iran, since the 1979 revolution, estimates by Amnesty International, as to the number of homosexuals executed in that Country range up to 4,000.  The more accepted method of execution is, as the case with adultery, to throw the condemned from the highest building of a town or city, or by toppling a wall on top of him, but both methods are used.  Notwithstanding the mandated punishments for homosexuality, Muslim societies have the highest incidence of homosexual abuse of male children in the world, especially by older siblings or other male family members.  Though considered an abomination on earth, the Koran alludes to the righteous being served in Heaven by young boys, "pure as pearls" dressed in green garments of silk and brocade, and adorned with silver jewelry, and used to drinking wine.”  It might be supposed that homosexuality occurs with the same percentage in Muslim societies as in others.  However, in Islam, the "sin" for Muslims is not that a man commits homosexual acts with other men; the sin would be if there were to be any emotional attachment involved.  In Muslim society, the presence of any measure of equality or romantic love in a sexual union, heterosexual or homosexual, is deemed abhorrent and intolerable.     End Note:  We wish to express our appreciation to Dr. Hamid al-Ghazali for sending us this brief, but incisive article on jurisprudence.  In his communication with us, he claims to be one of the few ex-Muslims with a law degree from a Western university, who is also conversant with the Shari’a.  We understand that he now resides in Switzerland under an assumed identity. 009 ENEMY NUMBER ONE N.T. Nelosni Saudi Arabia, supposedly the most supportive Muslim country of the U.S. in the Middle East, is actually its worst enemy!  It is no coincidence that of the nineteen suicide terrorists of 9/11, fifteen were Saudis!  And their leader, Osama ‘bin Laden, the head of Al-Qaeda, is a Saudi.  In 2002, James Bissett, the ex-Ambassador of Canada to Albania, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria said: "It is common knowledge that Saudi Arabia is the most extremist of the Muslim states.  It finances the infamous Madrassas (schools) that preach a litany of hate and turn out thousands of fanatical Islamist zealots.  It indirectly provides the funding and its citizens provide most of the fighters for Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda organization.  It supports, financially, financially and by other means, the Palestinian terrorists and other Muslim anti-Western groups throughout the world."     Saudi Arabia is the Muslim country most responsible for the spread of Islamic terrorism throughout the world, bank-rolled by the billions paid that country by the United States and other countries for its oil.  The U.S., and other Western countries depend, at least partially, on Saudi Arabia for a considerable amount of their energy needs.  The U.S. alone depends on Saudi Arabia for about one fifth of its petroleum needs, paying that country around twenty billion dollars each year.  The greed of the international oil companies and our venal or uninformed politicians will almost certainly maintain this status quo for some time to come, i.e.-that the United States and other Western countries will continue to put petro-dollars into the pockets of the country most responsible for Islamic world terrorism.      And it is Saudi petro-dollars that has funded and maintained thousands of mosques and centers of Islamic studies throughout the civilized world, though there is not a single church or synagogue in Saudi Arabia.  The Saudi Government also funds, at least initialy, courses in Islamic Studies at more than 100 U.S. universities.      Saudi Arabia is the seat of Islam, the birthplace of Muhammad, and the site of Medina and Mecca, the two most revered cities of the Muslim world.  Also, the Kaaba shrine is situated in Mecca, to which every Muslim is obligated to attempt a pilgrimage during his or her lifetime.  The Country is also the most repressive society of the Muslim world.  Though nominally ruled by the Saudi Royal Family, they do so at the pleasure of the most extreme sect of Islam, the Wahhabis.  The Wahhabis, named after their founder, Abdul Wahhabi, remain the power behind the throne.  Wahhabi, born in 1703, was a zealot, who like Muhammad, married a wealthy woman.  On her death he dedicated her considerable fortune to the return of Islam to its principal goal of world domination.   In the middle of the 18th Century Wahhabi found a powerful political backer in Muhammad ‘ibn Saud, the leader of a powerful clan in Central Arabia.  Since then, the fortunes of the descendants of the Wahhabi and Saud families have been inexorably intertwined.  The Saudi Royal Family, consisting of perhaps as many as 30,000 princes and princesses, may soon be deposed by a fundamentalist revolution. When this occurs, the Wahhabis will probably endure.  The Saudis are “riding the tiger”, and sooner or later will fall off!  But until then, they dare not withhold their considerable support of Islamic world terrorism.  Their policy has been to continuously funnel funds to various terrorist groups with the understanding that these groups will conduct their attacks outside of Saudi Arabia.  This has not always been the case.       Of the mosques established in the U.S. and other Western countries, with Saudi money, about 60% of their clerics are Wahhabis….preaching hate from the pulpit!        For a better understanding of our “Enemy Number One”, we recommend a fascinating book entitled “Hatred’s Kingdom”.  Its author, Mr. Dore Gold, was an advisor to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and served as Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations from 1997 through 1999.  Copies of certain documents, as shown in his book, leave no doubt that Saudi Arabia has been the principle source of Muslim Terrorism throughout the world, and especially of Al-Qaeda! In the words of R. James Woolsey, former Director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, “If you read one book to understand the roots of al-Qaeda’s fury, it should be this one.”                                                                                                                                         End Note:  For a greatly amplified explanation of the above, please consult “The Saudi Fifth Column”, number 013 of the Archives Section, if not already read.     010                                       ALLAH’S BUTCHERS Ralph Peters                                     Perhaps the greatest blasphemers  in any religion are those who appoint themselves as God’s executioners.  When an entire civilization embraces such butchers, both the civilization and the religion are in trouble. The ritual slaughter of Paul Johnson Jr. in Saudi Arabia wasn’t simply the act of a cluster of terrorists, but a reflection of the entire Arab world.  Religions are what man makes of them.  In the Arab heartlands of Islam, Muslims are making a gory mess of their faith.  It’s time to end the politically correct baby-talk that Islam isn’t the problem.  In the decaying Arab world, Islam is the problem…because of the way bitter old men interpret and deform its more humane precepts while embracing its cruelest injunctions.      The decapitation of yet another American civilian can’t be dismissed as an aberration from “true” Islam.  The tradition of beheading unarmed prisoners dates to the earliest decades of the Muslim faith.  The butchering of Paul Johnson, Nick Berg and others isn’t a new phenomenon…it’s revivalism, “that old time religion” returning for a re-match with secular devils.  Millions of Muslims find such atrocities inspiring.  Millions more view such cruelty as just.  It’s the vicarious revenge of the self-made failure.  And for every rent-a-cleric the Saudi government pushes in front of a television camera to condemn such acts, thousands of other mullahs continue to preach anti-Western hatred…the brutal specificity of which would horrify even America’s leftists, if only they stopped apologizing to terrorists long enough to listen.  The Saudis, especially, have sown the wind and now are reaping the whirlwind.  I personally have seen their attempts to “purify” Islam and provoke anti-Western rage, from Africa to Southeast Asia, from Central Asia to the Arab homelands.  No matter how many terrorists the Saudis kill on their own soil hereafter, they will remain guilty…in great part…for every murder committed by Muslim extremists.  They created the monsters who now have run amok.  But the problem is far greater than the degenerate House of Saud.  We face a phenomenon new to history: A once-great civilization falling before our eyes.  Whether or not one subscribes to the idea of a “clash of civilizations,” we are incontestably witnessing the crash of an entire civilization, that of Middle Eastern Islam.  After centuries of self-destructive behavior, Arab civilization is unable to compete in a single field of human endeavor relevant to progress.  Instead, Arab societies are racing backward into superstition, bigotry and a narcotic culture of blame.  They have grown so impotent in every other regard…unable even to translate great wealth into minor power…that Arabs rich and poor, educated and illiterate, are enraptured by their rare “triumphs” over the West, from 9/11 to the barbaric murder of Westerners doing the work that Arabs themselves are too slothful or incompetent to do.  Baghdad fell, to the collective shame of those Arabs who prefer homegrown despots to Western-inspired democracy.  The Arab revenge is to slaughter innocent captives.  As with the worst demagogues in every religion, the apostles of terror cite religious texts selectively.  But if such practices are limited to fringe elements in other world religions in  our time, the perversion of faith pervades today’s Islamic mainstream.  One can’t say that, of course.  Arab Muslims are allowed to spew anti-Western, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, anti-Hindu, anti-everybody-else hate speech.  That’s just their culture, you see.  But it’s taboo for a Westerner to suggest that the roots of terror may go a bit deeper than a black sheep or two in a few Middle-Eastern families.   Leftist apologists for terror here in the United States attack any attempt at a frank discussion of the Middle East’s problems with charges of bigotry and neo-imperialism.  But if we examine the madness of the American Left dispassionately, we find that it’s the Noam Chomskys, Susan Sontags and their acolytes from the campus greensward who are the true bigots.  Imperialists, too.   By refusing to hold Middle Eastern civilization to reasonable standards of behavior and responsibility, our domestic Left has given new life to the “little brown brother” school of colonialist thought.  According to the Left’s internal logic, Arabs aren’t capable of the same moral reflection and behavioral maturity well-educated whites demonstrate.  And, of course, Arabs are oppressed (no matter that their oppressors are all Arabs).   Arab extremists and dictators have become the ghetto blacks of hard-Left foreign policy.  They’re all victims of Washington and bear no personal responsibility for their own errors, failures or crimes.  It isn’t the Saddams, Abdullahs, Assads or Mubaraks who oppress the Arab masses, you see.  Despots are never guilty… unless they get too chummy with the Americans.  Anyway, dictators are victims, too.  The mass graves and misery that haunt the Middle East (if such inconveniences must be mentioned at all) are my fault.  And yours, dear reader.  We’re to blame for all that’s wrong with the world.  And, don’t you forget it!  The family secret of the hard-Left is that its followers share one powerful trait with Osama 'bin Laden.  They need to look down on others, to feel superior and just.  If the lords of terror dispense with displays of pity for their victims, it’s only because they haven’t yet attained the leftist’s level of hypocrisy.  Why shouldn’t we hold a civilization accountable for its own failures and horrors?  Why does our domestic Left revel endlessly in the excesses of a few renegade guards at Abu Ghraib prison while remaining silent on the industrial-scale massacres of Saddam Hussein…and other terror regimes?  Why don’t our self-appointed “voices of conscience” speak out against the beheading of Paul Johnson Jr. or Nick Berg?  What about the hundreds of Iraqi doctors, lawyers, engineers and educators slain by terrorists for trying to build a humane government in the Middle East?  What about the countless civilians killed by car bombs?  What about the victims of 9/11?  The silence isn’t just deafening.  It’s revolting. End Note:  The above article was taken from FrontPageMagazine.com of June 21, 2002.                                                                011 BECAUSE THEY HATE Brigitte Gabriel                                           We gather here today to share information and knowledge.  Intelligence is not merely cold hard data about numerical strength or armament or disposition of military forces.  The most important element of intelligence has to be understanding the mindset and intention of the enemy.  The West has been wallowing in a state of ignorance and denial for thirty years as Muslim extremists perpetrated evil against innocent victims in the name of Allah.  I was ten years old when my home exploded around me, burying me under the rubble and leaving me to drink my blood to survive, as the perpetrators shouted “Allah Akbar!”  My only crime was that I was a Christian living in a Christian town.  At 10years old, I learned the meaning of the word “infidel.”                                                                                       I had a crash course in survival.  Not in the Girl Scouts, but in a bomb shelter where I lived for seven years in pitch darkness, freezing cold, drinking stale water and eating grass to live.  At the age of thirteen I dressed in my burial clothes going to bed at night, waiting to be slaughtered.  By the age of 20, I had buried most of my friends—killed by Muslims.  We were not Americans living in New York, or Britons in London.  We were Arab Christians living in Lebanon.  As a victim of Islamic terror, I was amazed when I saw Americans waking up on September 12, 2001, and asking themselves “Why do they hate us?”  The psychoanalyst experts were coming up with all sort of excuses as to what did we do to offend the Muslim World.  But if America and the West were paying attention to the Middle East they would not have had to ask the question.  Simply put, they hate us because we are defined in their eyes by one simple word: “infidels.”  Under the banner of Islam “la, ilaha illa allah, Muhammad rasoula allah,” (None is god except Allah; Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah) they murdered Jewish children in Israel, massacred Christians in Lebanon, killed Copts in Egypt, Assyrians in Syria, Hindus in India, and expelled almost 900,000 Jews fro  m Muslim lands.  We Middle Eastern infidels paid the price then.  Now infidels worldwide are paying the price for indifference and shortsightedness.  Tolerating evil is a crime.  Appeasing murderers doesn’t buy protection.  It earns one disrespect and loathing in the enemy’s eyes.  Yet apathy is the weapon by which the West is committing suicide.  Political correctness forms the shackles around our ankles, by which Islamists are leading us to our demise.  America and the West are doomed to failure in this war unless they stand up and identify the real enemy: Islam.  You hear about Wahabbi and Salafi Islam as the only extreme form of Islam.  All the other Muslims, supposedly, are wonderful moderates.  Closer to the truth are the pictures of the irrational eruption of violence in reaction to the cartoons of Muhammad printed by a Danish newspaper.  From burning embassies, to calls to butcher those who mock Islam, to warnings that the West be prepared for another holocaust, those pictures have given us a glimpse into the real face of Islam.  News pictures and video of these events represent a canvas of hate decorated by different nationalities who share one common ideology of hate, bigotry and intolerance derived from one source: authentic Islam.  An Islam that is awakening from centuries of slumber to re-ignite its wrath against the infidel and dominate the world.  An Islam which has declared “Intifada” on the West.  America and the West can no longer afford to lay in their lazy state of overweight ignorance.  The consequences of this mental disease are starting to attack the body, and if they don’t take the necessary steps now to control it, death will be knocking soon.  If you want to understand the nature of the enemy we face, visualize a tapestry of snakes.  They slither and they hiss, and would eat each other alive, but they will unite in a hideous mass to achieve their common goal of imposing Islam on the world. This is the ugly face of the enemy we are fighting.  We are fighting a powerful ideology that is capable of altering basic human instincts.  An ideology that can turn a mother into a launching pad of death.  A perfect example is a recently elected Hamas official in the Palestinian Territories who raves in heavenly joy about sending her three sons to death and offering the ones who are still alive for the cause.  It is an ideology that is capable of offering highly educated individuals such as doctors and lawyers far more joy in attaining death than any respect and stature, life in society is ever capable of giving them. The United States has been a prime target for radical Islamic hatred and terror.  Every Friday, mosques in the Middle East ring with shrill prayers and monotonous chants calling death, destruction and damnation down on America and its people.  The radical Islamists’ deeds have been as vile as their words.  Since the Iran hostage crisis, more than three thousand Americans have died in a terror campaign almost unprecedented in its calculated cruelty along with thousands of other citizens worldwide.  Even the Nazis did not turn their own children into human bombs, and then rejoice at their deaths as well the deaths of their victims.  This intentional, indiscriminate and wholesale murder of innocent American citizens is justified and glorified in the name of Islam.  America cannot effectively defend itself in this war unless and until the American people understand the nature of the enemy that we face.  Even after 9/11 there are those who say that we must “engage” our terrorist enemies, that we must “address their grievances”.  Their grievance is our freedom of religion.  Their grievance is our freedom of speech.  Their grievance is our democratic process where the rule of law comes from the voice of many not that of just one prophet.  It is the respect we instill in our children towards all religions.  It is the equality we grant each other as human beings sharing a planet and striving to make the world as better place for all humanity.  Their grievance is the kindness and respect a man shows a woman, the justice we practice as equals under the law, and the mercy we grant our enemy.  Their grievance cannot be answered by an apology for who, or what we are.  Our mediocre attitude of not confronting Islamic forces of bigotry and hatred wherever they raised their ugly head in the last 30 years, has empowered and strengthened our enemy to launch a full scale attack on the very freedoms we cherish in their effort to impose their values and way of life on our civilization.  If we don’t wake up and challenge our Muslim community to take action against the terrorists within it, if we don’t believe in ourselves as Americans and in the standards we should hold every patriotic American to, we are going to pay the price for our delusion.  For the sake of our children and our country, we must wake up and take action.  In the face of a torrent of hateful invective and terrorist murder, America’s learning curve since the Iran hostage crisis is so shallow that it is almost flat.  The longer we lay supine, the more difficult it will be to stand erect.    End Notes:  (1) The above article are excerpts from a speech of Ms. Gabriel given at the Intelligence Summit in Washington, D.C. on the 18th of February, 2006.  (2) A recently published book, of the same name as the above article, is now available at most book-stores.  (2)  Ms Gabriel continues her fight against Islam through her foundation, the American Congress For Truth, based in Virginia Beach, Virginia.     012 CALLING TRUTH "ISLAMAPHOBIA" Robert Spencer The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) demanded an apology from National Review and the removal of a book, “The Life and Religion of Muhammad”, from sale by National Review’s Book Service.  This was wrongfully focused: NR didn’t publish the book and wasn’t the sole source for it (it’s available from HEBookService.com), but it was revealing of what CAIR wants Americans to know…and not know…about Islam.  CAIR took issue with an advertising description of the book that touted it as explaining “why Mohammad couldn’t possibly be a true prophet.”  CAIR was angered by the ad’s assertion that “Muhammad posed as the apostle of God… while his life is marked by innumerable marriages; and great licentiousness, deeds of rapine, warfare, conquests, unmerciful bucheries, all the time invoking God’s holy name to sanction his evil deeds.”  CAIR’S Ibrahim Hooper demanded that NR clarify its position on Islamaphobic hate speech and offer a public apology for promoting a book that so viciously attacks the faith of one-fifth of the world’s population.” In fact, it’s true that “Mohammad posed as the apostle of God…while his life is marked by innumerable marriages; and great licentiousness, deed of rapine, warfare, conquests, unmerciful bucheries, all the time invoking God’s holy name to sanction his evil deeds.”  Aside from the judgment that all this is “evil,” what is CAIR actually denying?  That Muhammad was married more than once?  That’s universally acknowledged by Muslims.  So are the other points: “Great Licentiousness”:  These are judgmental words, but the judgment is not unfounded.  Just one of many examples comes from Allah allowing Muhammad to have more wives than are allowed to other Muslims (Koran 33:50).    “Deeds of Rapine”: Yet again this is not an unreasonable judgment.  The Koran assumes that Muslims will wage war and seize booty, and only insists that the Prophet get a share: “And know that whatever ye take as spoils of war, lo! A fifth thereof is for Allah, and for the messenger…(Koran 8:41). “Warfare”: Muhammad fought in many battles and enjoined warfare on his followers.  He started almost all the battles in which he fought.  His earliest biographer notes, for example, that “he made an expedition to Tabuk and he (the Holy Prophet) had in his mind (the idea of threatening the) Christians of Arabia, in Syria and those of Rome.” “Conquests”: Not only did Muhammad conquer; he won followers through his conquests.  One contemporary of the Prophet explained: The Arabs…delayed their conversion till the Conquest of Mecca…So, when Mecca was conquered, then every tribe rushed to embrace Islam.”     “Unmerciful Bucheries”: Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad’s earliest biographer (and a pious Muslim), recounts the massacre of the Jewish Banu Qurayzah: Muhammad sent for (the men of Banu Qurayzah) and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches … There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900.”  Muslim apologists try to justify Muhammad’s marriages, battles and killings in various ways, but it would be the height of chutzpah to deny they took place at all.  Would CAIR, in contrast, paint us a picture of Muhammad the Rotarian?  “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, to which CAIR compares this book, is fictional.  But the Islamic sources I have cited are not fiction.  Now that CAIR has intimidated NR, which removed the book from its web-site last week, it is a victory for those who don’t want Americans to know uncomfortable details about Muhammad.  Unfortunately, jihad terrorists know these elements of the life of Muhammad quite well and are imitating them.  Ignorance of them will only make us more vulnerable.    End Note:  The above piece appeared in a May 2005 edition of the Human Events newsletter.   013 THE  SAUDI  FIFTH  COLUMN  ON  OUR  NATION’S  CAMPUSES Lee Kaplan From Riyadh to Ramallah to the Ivy League, the Saudi Wahhabi lobby and money machine is funding the goals of radical Islam and undermining America’s efforts to prosecute the war on terror.  The press recently reported new closures by the Department of Justice of Saudi “charitable” fronts like the Muslim World League, the Al-Haramain Foundation, the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO), and others which raised money for Al Qaeda, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. [1]  But the government has so far ignored an even larger network of Saudi front groups working towards parallel ends. This network is embedded deep within our system of higher education, including many of our most prestigious universities.  The Saudis have steadily infiltrated American educational institutions, using vast infusions of money to turn the American educational system against U.S. support for Israel and in favor of the Saudi vision of a global Muslim state in which not only Jews, but Christians and all infidels will have subordinate status to the followers of the “true faith.” [2]  At the same time they look to affect American policy in the Middle East and public opinion in the U.S. in a way to aid their Wahhabist goals. [3]  Saudi Wahhabism fuels a particular hatred for the West and its liberalism regarding religious tolerance and human rights.  It views attempts by the West to promote democratic reforms in the medieval Arab monarchy of the Saudi royal family as an affront to Islam.  In other words, it shares the religious and political views of its wayward-but not forgotten-son, Osama Bin Laden.  Accordingly, the Saudi royal family has been waging its own quiet Jihad of ideas and disinformation to advance its goals.  It has also financed terrorist activities of Al Qaeda and Palestinian radicals.  The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee recently heard testimony from fellow senators and terrorism experts that the Bush administration has failed to recognize the dangers of Saudi influence, having left the Kingdom in control of most of the Muslim organizations in the United States.  For instance, 80% of the mortgages on mosques in the U.S. are paid for by the Wahhabist Saudis. Over the last 30 years the Saudi royal family has contributed upwards of 70 billion U.S. dollars to infiltrate worldwide institutions with propaganda against the West and Israel.  This sum, it has been observed, makes the one billion dollars per annum spent by the Soviet Union during the Cold War for Communist propaganda pale by comparison. [4] The Saudis see donations to our universities as a way of promoting their political and religious propaganda.  To quote their English language daily, Ain Al Yaqueen: “The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, under the custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Fahd Ibn Abdul Aziz has positively shouldered responsibility and played a promising role in order to raise the banner of Islam all over the globe and raise the Islamic call either inside or outside the kingdom.” [5] The new head of Middle East Studies at UC Santa Barbara, Stephen Humphreys, holds a chair named after Aziz himself.  The head of the Muslim American Society, W. Deen Muhammad, has stated that Saudi gifts require the receiver to prefer the Saudi “school of thought.”  While Humphreys denies there are strings attached, one wonders how likely a thesis on Saudi misogyny or their educational system teaching hatred of Americans, Jews and Christians would go over in Saudi funded departments if someone hoped to advance or be tenured. [6] One wonders why a theocratic totalitarian regime where 30% to 50% of the population is illiterate, [7] and where PhD’s teach that Jews use the blood of gentile children to make matzoh, [8] would take such interest in the American educational system instead of their own.  Yet the money the Saudis are pouring into our universities and colleges as gifts and endowments is alarming: King Fahd donated $20 million dollars to set up a Middle East Studies Center at the University of Arkansas; $5 million was donated to UC Berkeley’s Center for Middle East Studies from two Saudi sheiks linked to funding Al Qaeda; [9] $2.5 million dollars to Harvard; $8.1 million dollars to Georgetown including a $500,000 scholarship in the name of President Bush; $11 million to Cornell; $1.5 million to Texas A&M; $5 million to MIT; $1 million dollars to Princeton; Rutgers received $5 million dollars to endow a chair as did Columbia which tried to hide where the money came from. [10]  Saudi largesse included UC Santa Barbara; John Hopkins; Rice University; American University in Washington, D.C.; University of Chicago; Syracuse University;USC; UCLA; Duke University; and Howard University, among others. [11] Saudi infiltration works on several levels.  By creating new Middle East Studies Centers and such endowed chairs on campuses across the U.S., the Saudis are able to influence the curriculum taught to the next generation of American students about the Middle East situation as taught at Saudi-funded madrassas both here and abroad.  That curriculum is decidedly anti-Western and full of incitement against Christians and Jews. [12]  Based not on truth as much as the agenda of the totalitarian regime in power, it “molds” the next generation to hate Israel and to hate America as an “imperialistic” or “racist” nation. [13]  For example, according to Middle East historian Martin Kramer, Columbia University has become the “Bir Zeit (University) on-the-Hudson.” [14]  Bir Zeit is a university built for the Palestinians by Israel in the West Bank.  Instead of being a source for educational prosperity and peace, it is a breeding ground for totalitarian terrorist ideologues and their ilk.  Faculty write scholarly works about Middle East history against the U.S. and Israel as a matter of course.  At Columbia, Palestinians dominate the teaching of the modern Middle East and do not encourage a diversity of approaches in doing so. [15]  When a chair is endowed with Saudi money it is filled by academics known more for their Palestinian  or Saudi activism and less than for their scholarship. Thus, Columbia’s new chair was given to Rashid Khalidi, a University of Chicago historian and Palestinian activist.  Khalidi took over the “Edward Said Chair of Arab Studies.”  Said, who died recently, and who was raised in Egypt, was a member of the Palestinian National Council and an anti-Israel activist who thought the Oslo peace process was a “sellout.” [16]  He was an English literature professor whose expertise was Jane Austin, yet his anti-American and anti-Israel writings dominate the perspectives of Middle East departments across the nation.  Khalidi is on record defending the killing of Israeli soldiers: “Killing civilians is a war crime, whoever does it, but resistance to occupation is legitimate in international law.” [17]  Khalidi is an obsessive Israel basher and has stated that Americans are “brainwashed” by the Middle East’s only democracy.  He also considered U.S. popular support for overthrowing Saddam Hussein an “idiots’ consensus”. [18]  Another Palestinian professor in Columbia’s Middle East Studies program is Joseph Masad, who also rails against the U.S. and Israel.  Massad likes to denigrate American democracy by alluding to early 19th century history when slavery was a worldwide institution, and accuses America of nuclear genocide for using the atomic bomb to end World War II.  He has also characterized Israel as an “imperialist” and “colonial” concoction of the Europeans. [19]  With Khalidi’s appointment as chair and Massad as the main teacher of politics and history of the Middle East at Columbia, what students will be exposed to with no alternative views isn’t hard to imagine.  Even Lisa Anderson, head of International Studies at Columbia has conceded publicly that Middle East studies at Columbia are not balanced, nor are they at other Middle East Studies centers nationwide. [20]  What is more telling is that Columbia tried to conceal where the money came from to fund Khalidi’s chair until pressure from outside academics and even the State of New York required it. [21]  Daniel Pipes has remarked that choosing Khalidi for the Columbia chair is particularly egregious because he is one of a team of…“Palestinian falsifiers who are giving us all this propagandist, non-scholarly interpretation of the Middle East,” and that Columbia’s cover-up of the donors…“doesn’t smell right”.  Steve Emerson, who reports to Congress frequently on terrorism issues, has stated publicly that “Khalidi’s statements raise serious questions about his attitudes on violence.” [22]  But Columbia is not alone.  Such departments and professors are now found in Middle East Studies programs nationwide.  UC Berkeley’s Center For Middle East Studies website boasts of receiving a $5 million dollar grant courtesy of Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud and Sheikh Salahudin Yusef Hamza Abdeljawad, another major donor.  Both are linked to Islamic charities which the U.S. Government says are front groups for funding Al Qaeda and both are now a part of a $ 1 trillion dollar lawsuit by the families of the victims of 9/11. Their contributions link through a labyrinth of front banks and charitable institutions that ultimately finance terrorism against the West.  Al-Saud gives generously to the International Islamic Relief Organization International (IIRO), the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, the Muslim League and World Assembly of Muslim Youth…all established fronts for terrorist funding named by the U.S. State Department.  And