President Obama has sent Rashad Hussain — a Muslim-American of Indian descent who serves as his envoy to the OIC — to India. One of Mr. Hussain’s main goals will be to improve relations between America and the Muslim world, especially in India.

In other news, Romanian president Traian Basescu has praised the two million Romanians who work abroad, saying they deserve credit for refusing to remain in Romania and live on welfare.

To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.

Thanks to Andy Bostom, C. Cantoni, Caroline Glick, Diana West, Gaia, Henrik, Insubria, JD, JP, Lurker from Tulsa, McR, SF, Steen, TV, Winds of Jihad, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post (rather than with the news articles) so that they are more easily accessible.

[This post is a stub — nothing further here!]

A “Canadian” man has been arrested in Ottawa and charged with possessing a massive arsenal of forbidden weapons. The guy was evidently planning to go duck hunting — the IEDs would serve to startle the ducks into flight, and the silencers would help him to maintain stealth as he approached his quarry.

Wait a minute — do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multiculture.

According to the Ottawa Citizen:

Man Faces 35 Charges After Search Finds IEDs in Ottawa Home

OTTAWA — An Ottawa man has been charged after police found and seized improvised explosive devices (IEDs), firearms and other weapons from a home near Alta Vista and Heron on Thursday, according to a police statement.

Police searched the home on Finn Court and found four IEDs, two firearms, three silencers, one stun gun, one high-capacity ammunition magazine and various firearm parts and accessories.

“I don’t know how [the IEDs] were found or what condition they were found in, but they were in a condition that would support a criminal charge,” said Ottawa Police spokeswoman Const. Kathy Larouche. “I’m assuming they were capable of being detonated.”

– – – – – – – – –

Larouche said high-powered weaponry, such as the items found, are not too common, but the force has come across them before.

“All you have to do is Google explosive devices, and you can pull up some recipes,” she said. “It’s scary to think that these devices can be made from everyday household items.”

The Ottawa Police Service Guns and Gangs Section and the Provincial Weapons Enforcement Unit charged Saif Cathum, 28, with 35 criminal offences, including possession of an explosive substance, unauthorized possession of a firearm, unauthorized possession of a prohibited weapon and careless storage of a firearm.

Cathum is set to appear in court Friday.

As a matter of interest, the name “Saif” means “sword” in Arabic.

For a complete listing of previous enrichment news, see The Cultural Enrichment Archives.

Hat tip: Vlad Tepes.

Cherif El Ayouty is a civil engineer who works in the private sector in Denmark. Originally from Egypt, he has been a Danish citizen since 1975, and supports the Danish People’s Party.

Many thanks to Hans Erling Jensen for forwarding the following essay to us.

Happy Ramadan!
by Cherif El Ayouty

The new moon that signals the beginning of Ramadan, is still one week away, but the wealth of ideas, to accommodate the many unintegrated Muslims living in the Western world during the Islamic holy month, has long been underway.

Believe it or not, there are now within Western municipalities and educational institutions a number of recommendations that aim to meet Ramadan needs of Muslim pupils in state schools. These recommendations include among others “no swimming lessons” because the ability to swallow water is very high and that must not happen during fast, “no sex education” as Muslims must avoid sexual thoughts and “rescheduling of tests and exams to a later time” as test preparations for Muslim students while fasting becomes a big challenge. Plans also include reserving a larger space for daily prayers, as Muslims become more religious during Ramadan and avoiding all parents meetings because Ramadan evenings are a very busy period for Muslim families! It is still unclear whether music classes will also be canceled because of Ramadan.

But why is it just Muslims who are to be exempted from certain activities? Why not all the students? Then Muslims would not feel worse-off than the rest of the students — or maybe vice-versa?
– – – – – – – – –
Such a policy of accommodation is completely insane, because it interferes with the rest of the society’s activities and is therefore completely unacceptable.

As a well-integrated Muslim with 42 years living experience in the West, I find it quite wrong that everyone at school is forced to take account of Islamic rules when these rules are irrelevant to non-Muslims, which after all constitute the overwhelming majority. Why are there not and never have been any special adjustments to meet the religious needs of Jews, Buddhists and Hindus? I am just asking!

I know that every time the authorities are accommodating and lenient towards Muslims requests for preferential treatment, the result is extremely harmful to the moderate Muslims who want to take part in their new society on an equal basis with the ethnic population, integrate themselves and secure a better life for their descendants in the West.

The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna.
For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here.

This essay contains new material. A slightly shorter version was originally published in four parts at various sites. See: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4.

Astronomy and Natural Philosophy in Ancient Times

While writing this history, the MacTutor History of Mathematics website maintained by John J. O’Connor and Edmund F. Robertson and hosted by the University of St Andrews in Scotland proved invaluable to me. They have created extensive online biographies of hundreds of mathematicians and astronomers from around the world from Antiquity until the turn of the twenty-first century. I have found the biographical information they provide to be generally reliable and have therefore widely consulted their Internet entries when searching for background information, in addition to the entries at the Encyclopædia Britannica Online.

It is difficult to speak of “science” in prehistoric times. Perhaps the closest we can get is the systematic study of the heavens. Archaeoastronomy is the intersection between astronomy and archaeology. The patterns of stars in the night sky were far more familiar to people in ancient times than they are to us, who often suffer from light pollution from electric lights.

Paintings on cave walls and ceilings from prehistoric times, often depicting large wild animals, have been found in South Africa, Southeast Asia, Australia and South America, but some of the oldest and most spectacular ones have been discovered in Europe. Hundreds of cave paintings were created in the Chauvet Cave in south France from around 30,000 BC onward. Lascaux is the setting of a complex of caves in southwestern France with beautiful prehistoric cave paintings and spectacular drawings of bulls, horses and other animals. They were painted during the Upper Paleolithic, the final phase of the Old Stone Age, and are estimated to be more than 16,000 years old. Other paintings exist in the Cave of Altamira in Spain, dating back to at least 13,000 BC. German researcher Michael Rappenglueck believes that he has found a prehistoric map of the night sky among the Lascaux paintings. This is plausible, but we simply don’t know for sure what the function of these artistic drawings was.

According to Paul Mellars in The Oxford Illustrated History of Prehistoric Europe, “One possibility is that some of the major centres of art production (such as Lascaux in south-west France, or Altamira in northern Spain) served as major ritualistic or ceremonial centres — perhaps the scene of important ceremonies during regular annual gatherings by the human groups. Alternatively (or in addition) the production of the art could have been in the hands of particular chiefs or religious leaders who used the creation of the art, and associated ceremonial, to reinforce and legitimate their particular roles of power or authority in the societies. Clearly, all this lies in the realm of speculation. What is clear is that cave art is not uniformly distributed throughout Europe, and is concentrated in areas which (on other, independent archaeological grounds) are known to have contained some of the highest and densest concentrations of human populations.”

During the last Ice Age, much of the Northern Hemisphere was covered by thick ice sheets. Central Europe resembled the tundra of present-day Siberia. At the height of the Last Glacial Maximum around 20,000 BC, land temperatures were about 20 °C lower than they are today. After the end of the Ice Age (ca. 13,000 BC) came the gradual establishment of a milder climate similar to today’s from 9500 to 8000 BC. Because of this, the flora and fauna of the European continent changed rapidly, with species such as the woolly mammoth disappearing. The ice smelting following the retreat of the great glaciers changed the face of Europe dramatically. Much of what was then dry land is now underwater and vice versa. The same goes for other regions in Asia and the Americas as the sea level rose considerably worldwide.

During the Neolithic or New Stone Age, settled communities adopted agriculture, starting in the Balkans close to the Near East. One well-preserved natural mummy from the Copper Age, the intermediate stage between the Stone and Bronze Ages when early metal tools were developed, was found in 1991 in the Alps between Italy and Austria. The mummy from about 3300 BC, named Ötzi the Iceman, apparently died a violent death. He had many small tattoos, a cloak made of woven grass, a pair of leggings, a loincloth and excellent shoes. His coat was made of the hide of the domestic goat and he had a bearskin cap and a belt of calf’s leather.

Ötzi’s equipment consisted of 18 different types of wood and demonstrates that he and his contemporaries possessed excellent knowledge of natural materials and herbs. He carried a dagger with a flint blade, a bow and arrow set and above all a fine copper axe. While the Alpine region had rich copper deposits, only the wealthy could at this time afford copper tools, which indicates that the Iceman’s family were reasonably well-off. Ötzi himself may have been a shepherd who also had to be able to hunt and repair his clothing and equipment.
– – – – – – – – –
By the fourth millennium BC, people had been living in fixed dwellings for some time in much of Central Europe, and food was procured from farming and animal rearing. Among the plants that were cultivated were naked wheat, einkorn, emmer wheat, barley, poppy, flax and peas. In addition to the traditional hunting, gathering and fishing, domesticated cattle, pigs, sheep and goats were used as sources of meat and provided leather, milk and possibly wool.

The Goseck Circle in north-central Germany dates back to ca. 5000 BC, one of a number of similar structures in Central Europe. It is proof that Neolithic Europeans observed the heavens with greater accuracy than was previously supposed and is one of a rising number of archaeological finds aided by aerial photography. John North in his book Cosmos, 2008 Edition, writes about early European astronomy. Many attempts have been made to reconstruct the belief systems of the peoples responsible for these astronomical monuments:

“There are numerous indications of cults of the Sun and Moon, not all of them stemming from the orientation and planning of large monuments. One of the most interesting finds was that made in 1902 at Trundholm on Zealand (Sjælland, Denmark), of a Bronze Age horse-drawn disk, dating perhaps from roughly 1400 BC. There can be little doubt that this had solar significance. The Sun is shown being pulled by a horse in several crude Swedish rock carvings of much the same date. An equally rich discovery, this time from Germany, was of a disk of bronze 32 centimeters in diameter, studded with gold shapes that related to the heavens in some way. Found near Nebra at the end of the twentieth century and now known as the Nebra disk, it came more specifically from Mittelberg — a modest hill in the Ziegelroda Forest, between Halle and Erfurt. It seems to have been discovered within a pit inside what had once been a Bronze Age palisade and complex of defensive ditches.”

The Nebra sky disk from ca. 1600 BC was at first assumed to be a forgery (of which there are unfortunately quite a few in museums around the world), but closer studies eventually revealed it to be most likely authentic. The Trundholm disk or Sun chariot dates from around 1400 BC and shows a horse-drawn vehicle with spoked wheels. The whole group measures 60 centimeters in length, and the disk has a bright side covered with gold leaf. Horse-drawn chariots with spoked wheels are associated with the second phase of the Indo-European expansion and spread across Eurasia all the way to China in the second millennium BC.

According to the book Indo-European Poetry and Myth by Martin L. West, the words for “Sun” are related in nearly all the Indo-European branches. Ancient Greek writers observed what they took to be Sun-worship among other Indo-European speaking peoples such as the Persians and the Thracians, and the Germanic tribes were attributed a form of solar worship by Roman writers. The Slavs, too, were regularly credited with Sun-and Moon-worship by chroniclers and clerics. The Sun appears in Russian folklore in female persona as “Mother red Sun.” The chorus in the Greek play Oedipus Tyrannus (Oedipus the King) by Sophocles (ca. 430 BC) swears to Oedipus by the Sun god Helios that they wish him no harm. The Franks in the seventh century AD, although converted to Christianity, still had the habit of swearing by the Sun. Oaths by the Sun, Moon etc. are mentioned in Old Irish and Norse literature as well.

There is much evidence for the circular Sun being associated with a wheel, or that the Sun-god has a chariot drawn by a horse. The Trundholm disk is not unique; fragments of similar Sun-disks have been found elsewhere in northern Europe. There are also solar disks from the second millennium BC further south, in Greece and the Aegean region. There seems to be a mythology related to a many-legged animal, perhaps as an expression of speed and stamina. Slovak and Russian folklore tells of an eight-legged horse that draws the Sun. Although he has no apparent solar association it is conceivable that there is a connection from this creature to Odin’s treasured eight-legged horse Sleipnir in Norse mythology.

From roughly 4500-2500 BC, a belt of megalithic monuments (large stone structures) stretched along the Atlantic coastlands of Western Europe, Britain, the Iberian Peninsula and certain western Mediterranean islands. In Sardinia, numerous nuraghes or towers of large stones were built in the second millennium BC or earlier, many of which still exist today. Some of their entrances may have had lunar or solar orientations, but their usage is uncertain.

To read the rest of this essay, click here.

A fugitive Italian mobster named Vittorio Pirozzi was tracked down by organized crime investigators via phone calls his wife made to him every week. His wife registered her SIM card under the alias “Winnie the Pooh”, and the name was unusual enough that it caught the attention of investigators, who traced the calls to the mafioso’s apartment in Brussels. A large number of police, and even a helicopter, were used in the arrest, but Mr. Pirozzi offered no resistance and was arrested without incident.

In other news, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) is calling for the importation of more Muslim immigrants to fill the need of American employers for skilled labor. And no, this last item is not a hoax.

To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.

Thanks to 4symbols, Barry Rubin, DS, DT, Fjordman, Insubria, JD, JP, KGS, Lurker from Tulsa, NG, Steen, Vlad Tepes, Zenster, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post (rather than with the news articles) so that they are more easily accessible.

[This post is a stub — nothing further here!]

Our German translator JLH sends a pair of brief translations, and includes the following introduction:

Kirsten Heisig, as you may recall, was the German juvenile court judge who believed in swift, targeted sentences for youthful offenders, to nip their criminal careers in the bud and set them on the right path. Recently she disappeared and her body was found after an intensive search. Her death was ruled a “suicide”.

Two consecutive posts from “Black Bear” at Politically Incorrect make an ironic postscript.

The first translation is from August 2, 2010:

Forced Into Deletion

Six hours ago, I wrote a review of Das Ende der Geduld (Out of Patience) by Kirsten Heisig. Since I had seldom written reviews for Amazon, I did not think of the fact that I was posting the review under my real name, which can be found in the telephone book. Beginning as early as 6:30 PM, my telephone rang off the hook. I was threatened by diverse immigrants with the worst possible fate.

From cutting my throat to shooting me down, it’s all there. I was told to delete my review or my residence would go up in flames.

Dear Reviewers, do not be as careless as I was in giving out your personal information, I am now experiencing the facts described in the book more intensely than ever.

One day later, August 3, 2010

Amazon Deletes Evidence of Violence

– – – – – – – – –

On August 2, 2010, you posted a description of the threats I received after writing a review of Kirsten Heisig’s book, Das Ende der Geduld.

Inside of 12 hours, 300 people clicked on “help” and uncounted numbers of readers were bewildered.

I would like to inform the PI team that Amazon has deleted my entire essay. This is how Amazon is carrying out exactly what was denounced in Heisig’s book.

As anyone can easily confirm, the essay “Forced into Deletion” has disappeared.

The Danish psychologist Nicolai Sennels returns with some observations about the institution commonly known as “forced marriage”.

Forced marriages: family rape and rape by proxy
by Nicolai Sennels

The fight for and against free speech has entered another round in the Danish courts now that the historian and author Lars Hedegaard is facing a charge of “racism” for his claim that rapes are common in Muslim families.

The fact is that forced marriages are widespread in the Muslim world and marriages are often between cousins. In a forced marriage, the girl is coerced into an involuntary and often lifelong sexual relationship. Therefore, every single act of intercourse in that “marriage” actually constitutes rape.

The families — with fathers and uncles as their powerful leaders — have arranged the marriage and are therefore accomplices in the sexual abuse. Fathers and uncles are thus committing rape “by proxy” — not for the sake of their own sexual satisfaction, but in order to increase the number of family members and thereby enhance their status and economic security, and also to keep alive ancient cultural and religious traditions.
– – – – – – – – –
Which is worse: the cousin who rapes his cousin or the parents who force their daughter to marry?

Just as “family execution” is a better term than “honor killing”, “family rape” is a more fitting phrase than “forced marriage”.

Nicolai Sennels is a psychologist and the author of “Among Criminal Muslims: A Psychologist’s experiences with the Copenhagen Municipality”.

Previous posts by or about Nicolai Sennels:

2010		Jan		6		The Eternal Victim
		Feb		19		Youths, Crime, and Islam
		Apr		11		The Stigmatization Fallacy
		May		8		Islam Means Never Having to Say You’re Sorry
		Jul		28		Nicolai Sennels: An Open Letter to David Cameron

Those of us who were stirred from our slumber by the events of September 11th have spent the last nine years acquiring the rudiments of a new vocabulary. The struggle against Islamization has made the understanding of certain key Arabic words a necessity.

Just for starters, an essential list would include da’wa, deen, dhimmi, fiqh, ijtihad, ikhwan, imam, jahiliyyah, jihad, jizyah, kitman, mujahideen, mullah, shahid, shirk, tafsir, takfir, taqiyya, ulema, ummah, waqf, and zakat. Some of these terms — dhimmi and shahid, for example — have no concise equivalents in Western languages, and often require several sentences of explanation to make their meaning clear. ICLA is currently working on an “Islamic Lexicon for Dummies” with the goal of providing a handy reference guide for members of the Counterjihad.

These Arabic words and phrases are not, however, the real problem. An Arabic word in the midst of an English-language text sends a message: “This is an unfamiliar concept, and requires research.” The diligent reader then consults an encyclopedia or a search engine to learn more about the alien word.

No, the real problem for Westerners arises from certain ordinary English (or French, German, Russian, Italian, etc.) words and phrases that have clear definitions as commonly understood by all literate people. Those same words and phrases, however, mean something entirely different to Muslims. This is not a case of postmodern semantic relativism, à la Humpty Dumpty — Islamic law is very precise and pedantic, and the sense of these words is considered fixed and unchanging by sharia. Under Islam they simply mean something completely different from what we would expect.

Our understanding is further hindered by the fact that Islamic leaders find it expedient that we infidels misunderstand these key words and phrases. Their common meaning in English renders them innocuous and non-threatening, but a bit of digging will inform the researcher that the intent of such words may be something quite different — and not at all benign.

The lexicon of deliberate misdirection — which is, in fact, known in Arabic as kitman — would be huge. In this essay I will concentrate on a short list of words and phrases whose real meanings may surprise some people, and which are relevant to recent events.

Today’s new words and phrases are justice, innocent, terrorism, killing without right, and mischief.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Back in June, David Ignatius of The Washington Post wrote about a Saudi fatwa on terrorism that had been issued and publicized earlier in the spring. This new judicial ruling, which condemned terrorism and its financing, was greeted widely by Western leaders and opinion makers as a breakthrough.

I use Mr. Ignatius’ op-ed as an example not in order to pick on him, but because he is intelligent, reasonable, and well-regarded among mainstream opinion columnists. His take on the fatwa is representative of its reception in the USA, so it is useful to examine what he said in an attempt to understand how such well-informed mainstream writers could get certain facts so completely wrong.

Here’s how he began his piece (all emphasis is mine):

Saudis act aggressively to denounce terrorism

When terrorists in the Middle East attack innocent civilians, observers in the West often ask a pained question: Where’s the outrage in the Muslim world? Why don’t Islamic religious authorities speak out more forcefully against the terrorists and their wealthy financiers?

The first step in understanding “why” would be to realize that devout Muslims, especially scholars of Islamic law, do not mean what we mean by “innocent” and “terrorism”. They use the same English words — eighty percent of Muslims don’t speak Arabic, so either English or French is generally their lingua franca — but they mean something different by them than do George Will or Maureen Dowd.

It remains a potent issue: Terrorism has damaged the Islamic world far more than the West, and too many Muslims have been cowed and silent. But a powerful and so far largely unreported denunciation of terrorism emerged last month from Saudi Arabia’s top religious leadership, known as the Council of Senior Ulema.

We’ll get to the text of the Saudi fatwa a little later. For now, let’s just say that what the Saudi authorities “denounced” — that is, actions which are contrary to Islamic law — are not precisely what Mr. Ignatius and most other Westerners understand them to be.

The Saudi fatwa is a tough condemnation of terror and of the underground network that finances it. It has impressed senior U.S. military commanders and intelligence officers, who were surprised when it came out. One sent me a translation of the fatwa, and Saudi officials provided some helpful background.

That Western “military commanders and intelligence officers” could be impressed by the fatwa is an indication of how woefully compromised our intelligence services are, and how successfully the Muslim Brotherhood has penetrated our national security apparatus. The enemy has surgically excised the lexicon that would describe the threat that faces us, and has replaced it with one that suits his own strategic purposes.

This quiet and unnoticed disinformation operation is possibly the greatest strategic success in the history of information warfare. It has put the Muslim Brotherhood well on the road to victory against us, without the necessity of firing a single shot.
– – – – – – – – –

“There is no gray area here,” said a senior Saudi official. “Once it has come out like this, from the most senior religious body in the kingdom, it’s hard for a lesser religious authority to justify violence.”

Ah, but what does “justify” mean? And how do you define “violence”?

As we will soon see, the Islamic definitions of “justice” and “violence” — especially “permissible violence” — are quite different from our own.

[…]

It will be harder, too, for renegade clerics to issue rival fatwas that contradict the Saudi Ulema. The signatories are guardians of the conservative Wahhabi school of Islam, which to observers has sometimes seemed to sympathize with the Muslim extremists…

“Observers” who think that Wahhabist authorities sometimes seem to sympathize with Muslim extremists would be well-advised to observe more closely. Wahhabists always sympathize with “extremists”, because Wahhabists and extremists understand Islamic law to mean exactly the same thing.

Disagreements between the scholars and the mujahideen generally concern the consequences of the latter’s tactics. Actions that would otherwise be permissible (or even mandatory) under Islamic law become forbidden when they are determined to redound to the detriment of Islam. The issue is not whether blowing up a bus full of civilians is wrong per se, but whether the consequences of doing so would tend to cause harm to the Ummah.

Saudi sources say that King Abdullah initiated the process that led to the fatwa, by asking for a ruling on terrorist financing. His push on the issue contrasts with the royal family’s traditional wariness of challenging or offending the clerical establishment, on which its legitimacy rests.

This growing activism partly reflects a recognition that senior members of the House of Saud are themselves prime targets of al-Qaeda. A recent example was the assassination attempt in August against Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, the Saudi counterterrorism chief.

The fact that members of the House of Saud are themselves victims is material to this fatwa, and not just because it is harmful to the self-interest of the royal family. Targeting the ruling family is demonstrably a violation of Islamic law, as will become clear below.

[…]

What matters in Saudi Arabia and most other Muslim countries is what its political and religious leaders say to their own people in Arabic. By that measure, there’s a new voice for moderation coming from the Muslim clerical establishment.

In this case, the issue of Arabic vs. English matters less than one might think. It is the meaning of the English words that is significant.

Now let’s take a look at the fatwa itself. Once again, certain words and phrases have been bolded for future attention:

Council of Senior Ulema Fatwa on terror-financing

May 7, 2010

Resolution 239 dated 27 Rabi al-Thani 1431 H [April 12, 2010]

All Praise to Allah, the Lord of the world; and May peace and prayers be upon our Prophet and his family and companions; and thus:

The Council of Senior Ulema [Council of Senior Scholars] in its twentieth extraordinary session help in Riyadh, Saturday 25 Rabi al-Thani 1431 H [10 April 2010], refers to its previous decisions and statements concerning crimes committed by the corrupters on earth by undermining the security and causing grave violations of sanctity in Muslim and other countries, such as the decision of 12 Muharram 1409 H [25 August 1988] and the statements of 22 Jumada al-Thani 1416 H [16 November 1995]; 13 Safar 1417 H [30 June 1996]; 14 Jumada al-Thani 1424 H [12 August 2003].

The Council considers the ruling on the “financing of terrorism” by judging that “terrorism” is a crime aiming at destabilizing security, and constitutes a grave offense against innocent lives as well as against properties whether public or private; such as: blowing up of dwellings, schools, hospitals, factories, bridges; airplanes (including hijacking), oil and pipelines, or any similar acts of destruction or subversion outlawed by the Islamic Shariah [law]. It also regards the financing of such terrorist acts as a form of complicity to these acts that leads only to bring accessory to them, and to bring a conduit for sustaining and spreading of such evil acts.

The Council also looked into textual evidences from the Qur’an, the Sunnah (sayings and deeds of the Prophet Muhammad) and the rules of Shariah that “incriminate the financing of terrorism”. Of these evidences are the Sayings of the Almighty: “…and help you one another in Al-Birr and At-Taqwa (virtue, righteousness and piety); but do not help one another in sin and transgression. And fear Allah. Verily, Allah is Severe in punishment. [Surah Al-Ma’idah, verse 2]. He also Said: And of mankind there is he whose speech may please you, in this worldly life, and he calls Allah to witness as to that which is in his heart, yet he is the most quarrelsome of the opponents. And when he turns away, his effort in the land is to make mischief therein and to destroy the crops and the cattle, and Allah likes not mischief.” [Surah Al-Baqarah, verses 204-205]. He, the Almighty, also said: “And do not do mischief on earth after it has been set in order.” [Surah Al-A’raf, verse 56]

Al-Hafiz ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, said in Fath al-Bari: “the perpetrator and the one who provides cover for him are equal in sin.”

Furthermore, it is the established rules of Islamic Shariah: for the means is the ruling of ends. Add to this ruling the general Shariah provisions for safeguarding and protecting rights, vows and commitments in Islamic or other countries.

Thus, the Council rules that the financing of terrorism; the inception, help or attempt to commit a terrorist act whatever kind or dimension is forbidden by Islamic Shariah and constitutes a punishable crime thereby; this includes gathering or providing of finance for that end, or providing help or participating in it in any form or manner including financial or non-financial assets, regardless whether these assets are originated from legal or illegal sources.

He who committees such a crime intentionally, commits a forbidden act, and has been in a flagrant violation of Shariah that call for a punishment according to its law.

The Council also affirms that the incrimination of the financing of terrorism does not extend to ways of supporting legitimate charity to help the poor people and alleviate their sufferings, or pay for their treatment and education, hence, this Allah ruling on the money of the rich to be paid to the poor.

The Council by declaring this ruling, call upon all Muslims to adhere to the teaching of their religion and the righteous path of our Prophet, may peace and prayer be upon him, and to refrain of any act that might cause any harm to other people or transgress on them.

We invoke Allah Almighty for the good, the safeguarding, the unity and prosperity of this country, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, other Muslim countries, and also to improve the lives of all mankind, and to help spread virtue and justice all over the world, Allah is the guide and director to the righteous path. May peace and prayer be upon our Prophet, his family and companions.

It’s easy to understand why this fatwa induced such euphoria among Western observers, given the apparent meaning of the words and phrases used to describe what was being condemned.

But let’s take a closer look…

What does Islam mean by “justice”?

Islamic justice does not mean what is fair or equitable. It does not seek to determine the truth or falsity of an accusation as its primary goal.

Islamic justice is what accords with sharia, the fixed and unchanging corpus of Islamic law as described in the Koran and the hadith and amplified by the consensus of the scholars more than a millennium ago.

The laws of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are explicitly grounded in sharia law, and cannot be contrary to it. Not only does the Saudi constitution specifically declare that the laws of the kingdom are founded on sharia as derived from the Koran and the Sunnah, but the fatwa itself refers to the primacy of sharia no fewer than six times.

Therefore, in order to understand what the fatwa proscribes, we must determine the meaning of certain terms as laid down by Islamic law.

Specifically, we need to understand what the fatwa means by “terrorism”. To shed some light on that term, let’s take a look at the definitions of “corrupters on earth”, “mischief”, “innocent”, and “justice”.

In order to illumine these murky areas, I will return, as I often do, to ’Umdat al-salik wa ’uddat al-nasik, a.k.a. The reliance of the traveller and tools of the worshipper, which is commonly referred to as Reliance of the Traveller when cited in English. It was written in the 14th century by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, and is considered the definitive legal text of the Shafi’ite school of Islamic law. The version I use was edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, and all major Islamic institutions consider it to be an authoritative rendition of the original Arabic.

The section on “Justice” (o1.0 through o1.2, pp. 582-584) explains the relevant terms and concepts:

Who Is Subject to Retaliation for Injurious Crimes

(O: Injurious crimes includes not only those committed with injurious weapons, but those inflicted otherwise as well, such as with sorcery (def: x136). Killing without right is, after unbelief, one of the very worst enormities…

[…]

and in another hadith,

“The killing of a believer is more heinous in Allah’s sight that doing away with all of this world.”

Allah Most High says:

“… and not to slay the soul that Allah has forbidden, except with right“ (Koran 6:151),

and,

“O you who believe, retaliation is prescribed for you regarding the slain…” (Koran 2:178).)

o1.1 Retaliation is obligatory (A: if the person entitled wishes to take it (dis: o3.8)) against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right…

o1.2 The following are not subject to retaliation:

(1) a child or insane person, under any circumstances…

(2) a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim; [emphasis added]

As you can see, the killing of a non-Muslim by a Muslim is not considered a crime, and therefore requires no retaliation.

So what is the “terrorism” that the Saudi fatwa condemns? Obviously, if the conscientious jihadi makes certain that he kills only non-Muslim adults, he has not strayed in the slightest from the tenets of Islamic law.

The real crime is the “killing of a believer”, if it is done “without right”. So when might the killing of a believer be done “with right”?

To understand the exceptions, we need to refer to the Koran itself:

5:32: On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person — unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land — it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.

5:33: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter. [emphasis added]

The word “mischief” is crucial in this context. It’s an interesting concept, because it doesn’t mean “what naughty boys get up to when the teacher isn’t looking.” In fact, it is sometimes translated as “corruption”.

In what sense are “mischief” and “corruption” the same thing? Another Koranic verse makes it a bit clearer:

7:56: And make not mischief in the earth after its reformation, and call on Him, fearing and hoping. Surely the mercy of Allah is nigh to the doers of good.

To “make mischief in the earth” after its “reformation” means to disturb or overthrow the political order after an Islamic state has been established. This is the gravest form of sedition, and is punishable by death. Only apostasy is listed as more severe.

Now we can understand the real meaning of the Saudi fatwa. Not only might the actions of the “extremists” be painful or fatal to the princes of the House of Saud, they also threaten the legitimate political order as established under the rule of Islam. This is “mischief”, and it is what the Ulema mean by “terrorism”.

Does this imply that the indiscriminate killing of non-Muslims is not “terrorism”?

The answer to this question is generally “yes”. As the excerpt from Reliance of the Traveller shows, the killing of children, even non-Muslim children, is listed as a crime under Islamic law. However, in recent years there has been a debate among Salafist scholars as to whether other parts of Islamic law provide an exception to this rule, and thus justify the killing of infidel children. The sharia jury is still out on this one.

The killing of adult male infidels, however, is most emphatically permitted by Islamic law. Even so, there are exceptions to this rule, and to understand them we must return to the concept of “mischief”.

As an example, consider Al Qaeda’s attack on the World Trade Center on 9-11. Ignoring for the moment the Muslims, women, and children who were killed when the Twin Towers fell, it would seem that what Osama bin Laden did was perfectly acceptable — and even required — under the sections of Islamic law that govern holy war against the infidel.

However…

The consequences of the 9-11 attack arguably included the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and the resulting deaths of many thousands of innocent Muslims. This constitutes mischief in the land as sharia understands it, and, for bringing on that mischief, the agents of Al Qaeda may justly be labeled “terrorists”.

If, on the other hand, the fall of the Twin Towers had caused the political collapse of the United States and eventually resulted in the establishment of an Islamic state in America, the 9-11 attacks would not have violated Islamic law in the slightest.

So that’s what the Saudi fatwa means when it condemns “terrorism”.

This is no breakthrough.

There’s no cause for optimism.

Nothing has changed.

The Saudi authorities are just making sure that the extremist factions who target princes of the House of Saud know that they are in fact “killing without right”. They are in severe violation of Islamic law as understood by a consensus of the scholars, and thus deserve to be killed.

As a codicil to the above analysis: what about the proscription on the “financing of terrorism” as described in the fatwa?

Obviously, the only “terrorism” whose financing is prohibited is that which causes “mischief” or “kills without right”. Any other activity is not even defined as “terrorism”, and is therefore unaffected.

The Saudi scholars have given themselves an additional out by exempting “legitimate charity” from their proscription. Legitimate charity under Islam takes the form of the payment of zakat, which is legally required of every Muslim under sharia. Islamic law also requires that zakat be divided equally among eight activities, one of which is the support of jihad.

Since jihad is defined by sharia to be “making war against unbelievers in the name of Allah to establish the rule of Islam”, one-eighth of “legitimate charity” is therefore earmarked for the killing of infidels — that is, you and me.

Once again, there’s no cause for celebration here. “Moderate” Islam has not triumphed. This is business as usual in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Clever fellows, those Ulema.

While visiting the city of Hamadan today, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s motorcade was attacked with an explosive, but Mr. Ahmadinejad was unhurt. Early reports said the blast was caused by a “grenade”, while later accounts mentioned a “firecracker” set off by an excitable young man. One person was reportedly arrested.

In other news, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli says that if the federal government can order people to purchase health insurance under Obamacare, then “they can order you to do anything.”

To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.

Thanks to Barry Rubin, Fjordman, Gaia, Insubria, JD, JP, KGS, TB, Zenster, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post (rather than with the news articles) so that they are more easily accessible.

[This post is a stub — nothing further here!]

As reported in the British press, a recent opinion poll shows that ordinary people in the UK have an overwhelmingly negative opinion about Islam.

This presents a thorny problem for the British ruling class, and it’s getting worse. Despite the thick blanket of indoctrination that smothers the media and the state schools, John Bull persists in holding the wrong ideas about the Religion of Peace. Consigning the EDL to the Outer Darkness — and arresting its members on trumped-up charges — hasn’t had the intended effect.

We’re facing something similar here in the United States. As a tsunami of opposition rises against the Ground Zero mosque, the Husseinization of America is failing to inoculate the populace against incorrect ideas concerning Islam. In spite of valiant efforts by CNN and The New York Times, “Islamophobia” remains stubbornly ineradicable.

Our British correspondent JP has a few things to say on the topic:

Dear Baron,

Below is the dirt on the Guardian story you carried yesterday [in the news feed] where three-quarters of those polled in a recent survey had a negative impression of Islam.

To accompany it, here’s a ditty I composed after somber reflection on this stupidity:

I repudiate Islam

I repudiate Islam as a Christian for its heresy
I repudiate Islam as an atheist because of its mumbo-jumbo
I repudiate Islam as a Buddhist because it’s bad for my karma
I repudiate Islam as a Jew because I’m smart
I repudiate Islam as a pagan because where the brook babbles and the flowers grow there is no need of Islam
I repudiate Islam as a Sikh because Islam murdered my ancestors
I repudiate Islam as a Hindu because it is not my way

Altogether now —-

We repudiate Islam because it’s getting up our nose

(Note: the ‘pud’ in repudiate should be pronounced as in ‘spud’)

JP

And here’s the dirt from Harry’s Place:

Stoking anti-Muslim bigotry

Earlier this week, the Guardian reported on a poll, carried out for the Islamic Education and Research Academy (IERA) which revealed high levels of hostility to Muslims and dislike of Islam in Britain.

George Readings, at Left Foot Forward argues that anti Muslim bigotry is fueled by rabble raising groups and a press which fails to distinguish between ordinary British Muslims, and vocal Islamists and hate preachers: people like Bilal Phillips and Zakir Naik, who have been excluded from Britain by the Home Secretary.

– – – – – – – – –

However, there’s a twist. George Readings reveals that the IERA is fronted by Greek convert, Hamza Tzortzis: who is himself linked to Hizb ut Tahrir. And two of its advisers are — Bilal Philips and Zakir Naik! I can’t understand how the Guardian could have missed this important information.

But there’s more that George could have said about IERA. Its Chairman is old Ampleforthian and Jesus-impersonator, Abdurraheem Green, who believes that adulterers and gays should be stoned to death, and has been banned from Australia.

Hilariously, the IERA’s study proposes the following solution to anti Muslim bigotry:

“Invite people to adopt the Islamic world view”

Readers may spot a certain circularity in this argument. If only people accepted the political perspectives of Tzortzis, Green and Philips then they wouldn’t object so strongly to them. Of course!

Here’s an alternative suggestion. Why don’t Tzortzis, Green and Philips just shut up.

Pat Condell says he has been excommunicated by his fellow atheists for speaking out against Islam:

Hat tip: Henrik Ræder Clausen.

[Post ends here]

Our Norwegian correspondent Zylark sends a report about a recent enricher vs. enricher conflict over the wearing of hijab. Below is his translation from today’s Dagbladet:

Police dispatched to hijab-row

Photo caption: “Hijab conflict: Two Islamic families argue over the use of hijab in Drammen [city outside of Oslo]”

During recent weeks the police in Drammen have been dispatched twice after arguments between two Muslim families over the use of hijab.

A Kurdish-Iranian and an Iraqi family are neighbors in a municipal housing, but can’t stand living next door to each other because of a disagreement over the use and non-use of hijab, writes Drammens-Tidende. [The original article in Drammens-Tidende reveals that the Kurds are Shia, and the Iraqis are Sunni, which I am sure does not quite ease the tensions between the two families. — translator]

In the Kurdish family from Iran the daughters do not wear hijab. In the Iraqi family the daughters always wear hijab whenever they are outside of the house. The issue has led to many arguments, and several times resulted in physical fights [translator’s note: Norwegian; håndgemeng, “low-level violence”, such as pushing, slapping, wrestling, etc.] between the two families.

Want to decide for themselves

“I must be able to decide for my own family, without others telling me what is right or wrong,” says the Kurdish-Iranian mother to Drammens-Tidende.

The last time violence [translator’s note: again the Norwegian håndgemeng is used] occurred, one of the children was sent to the emergency room with minor injuries. The police confirm that the incident centered around disagreement between the families on the use or non-use of hijab.

“Are equals”

Iraqi family members deny that their attitude is condemnatory towards the neighbor family.

“We do not care that they do not use hijab. We are equal human beings still,” says the Iraqi mother.

Both families have been in contact with the municipality and the police to get help, and both wish either to move, or that the other family should vacate the building. (NTB — Norwegian Telegram Bureau)

Zylark adds these comments:
– – – – – – – – –

I tend to mistrust the family that practices Islam more strictly, in this case the Iraqi family. They force their own daughters to wear the hijab, and I am pretty certain they rail on the more secular Kurdish-Iranian family, because the Iraqi daughters might just have asked daddy dearest why they must wear a hijab, whilst their less strict Muslim neighbors don’t force their daughters to wear that little sign of subjugation.

It is hardly surprising that the Iraqi mother then proceeds to lie through her teeth to the Norwegian press about how much this bothers her. All Muslim fundies practice this taqqiya. Say one thing amongst themselves, say what the infidels want to hear to the outside world.

That the Kurdish-Iranian family is the more secular does not surprise me. In my experience most Iranians, whether Persian or Kurdish in origin, tend to be rather vaccinated against allowing religious thuggery. Perhaps they’ve had one or two bad experiences with the morality-police in Iran, and did not fancy it that much. Something our own politicians and authorities might lend an ear to before crawling to bed with the vilest of the vile Islamic sharia-practicing and -promoting elements of the Muslim communities here in the West — and elsewhere.

For a complete listing of previous enrichment news, see The Cultural Enrichment Archives.

Christine Brim has an important post today at Big Peace about the danger posed by the appointment of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.

Please spread the following article as widely as possible:

Shariah Comes to the Supreme Court: Elena Kagan’s Decisions
by Christine Brim

The Senate should not confirm Elena Kagan, because her views render her the first Supreme Court Justice who actively favors the introduction of Shariah law into national Constitutions and legal systems. To excuse themselves for voting for her confirmation, Senators of both parties have told themselves this vote for Kagan’s confirmation will result in a harmless swap: the substitution of one liberal justice for another.

The reality is far more threatening and unprecedented in American history. A vote to confirm Elena Kagan’s nomination will bring a liberal, pro-Shariah justice to our highest Court. And if she is confirmed, her behavior as Obama’s Solicitor General indicates she will refuse to recuse herself on any Shariah-related decision but instead will lead the charge to legitimate Shariah law in America.

Senators have told themselves they have little evidence on which to evaluate Kagan, because other than her work as Obama’s Solicitor General, she has no judicial experience.

But Kagan has made repeated and very public decisions about a judicial system — Shariah — and Senators should be obligated to take into account those decisions when they vote for her. Her 2003-2009 career as Dean of Harvard Law School is a history of those decisions, and every one of them shows her “deep appreciation” of Shariah law.

Every vote for Kagan is a vote to bring a pro-Shariah view to the Supreme Court. Here are five reasons to vote against Kagan’s nomination:

1. PRO-SHARIAH MISSION: With Kagan’s direction, Harvard’s Islamic Legal Studies Program developed a mission statement (here on 9/2008, also 6/2009 ) dedicated “to promote a deep appreciation of Islamic law as one of the world’s major legal systems.” That mission statement guided her actions and those whom she directed as Dean.

Under Kagan’s direction, her chief staff at the Islamic Legal Studies Program aggressively expanded non-critical studies of Shariah law — fulfilling her mission “to promote a deep appreciation of Islamic law.” In 2003, the year Kagan became Harvard Law School Dean, Islamic Legal Studies Program Founding Director Frank Vogel and Associate Director Peri Bearman founded the Massachusetts-based International Society for Islamic Legal Studies. In 2007, Bearman and Vogel founded the Islamic Law Section of the Association of American Law Schools (inaugural panel audio here ).

2. PRO-SHARIAH MONEY: When Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal offered $10 million to New York City’s Rudy Guiliani on October 11, 2001, Guiliani refused to accept it, because the prince insisted that U.S. policies in the middle east were responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attack. Guiliani stated flatly, “There is no moral equivalent for this act.” But — when Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal offered $20 million to the Islamic Legal Studies Program in December 2005 — Kagan accepted it; after all, the Saudi royal family had funded the program since its inception, to establish the moral and legal equivalency between Shariah law and U.S. Constitutional law. As Newt Gingrich has noted, Harvard Law School currently has three chairs endowed by Saudi Arabia, including one dedicated to the study of Islamic sharia law.
– – – – – – – – –
In 2001 Guiliani made a decision not to accept Talal’s blood money; In 2005, Kagan made a decision not just to accept it, but to implement Talal’s policies at Harvard.

And not just at Harvard. As reported earlier this year, “Kagan is the main reason why the Supreme Court ruled against the 9/11 families” in a suit filed by thousands of 9/11 family members that traced funding for the 19 hijackers to certain Saudi royals, along with banks, corporations and Islamic charities. Kagan, as Obama’s Solicitor General, said in her brief “that the princes are immune from petitioners’ claims” and that the families’ claims that the Saudis helped to finance the plots fell “outside the scope” of the legal parameters for suing foreign governments or leaders.

Let’s review Kagan’s decisions so far: she actively solicits Saudi financing to promote Shariah law in the U.S.; she actively protects Saudi financial backers for terrorism against the U.S., as being immune from claims by 9/11 families.

3. PROMOTING THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD AND SHARIAH CONSTITUTIONS: In December, 2006, Kagan hired Noah Feldman, architect of Iraq’s Constitution requiring Shariah, as a star faculty member at Harvard Law School. On March 16, 2008, Feldman published his controversial article “Why Shariah” in the New York Times Magazine, which promoted “Islamists” — the Muslim Brotherhood — as a progressive democratic party, and promoted Shariah as a model not just for Muslim-majority countries but for all: “In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world…” The article was adapted from his book The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State, which was published in late March, 2008.

On September 16, 2008, Kagan whole-heartedly endorsed Feldman’s promotion of the Muslim Brotherhood and Shariah by honoring him with the endowed Bemis Chair in International Law. Feldman’s speech on receiving the award was revealing: he advocated for an international, “outward interpretation” of the Constitution that could “require the U.S. to confer rights on citizens of other nations,” and allow for an “experimental Constitution.”

As to the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist worldwide political organization that Feldman and Kagan support? Their motto is as revealing as Feldman’s speech:

“Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

Given that slogan, you could well ask if Feldman really meant the Muslim Brotherhood when he wrote about “Islamists” in the book Kagan so admired that she gave him an endowed chair. And he anticipated that question; in the second footnote in his book he states, “Throughout this book, when I refer to Islamists or Islamism, I have in mind mainstream Sunni Muslim activists loosely aligned with the ideology of the transnational Muslim Brotherhood (MB)…the Brotherhood broadly embraces electoral politics, but without eschewing the use of violence in some circumstances, notably against those whom it defines as invaders in Iraq and Palestine.”

So let’s review. Kagan made the decision to honor Feldman, author of “big-lie” forms of pro-Shariah propaganda, supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood, with an endowed chair. Feldman states flatly that the Muslim Brotherhood, whom he admires, does not “eschew the use of violence….against those whom it defines as invaders in Iraq and Palestine.” Kagan’s financial backer, Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, insisted that the U.S. policies in the Middle East, specifically in Israel and Palestine were a cause of the 9/11 attacks. Like the Muslim Brotherhood, the Prince did not “eschew the use of violence” against the U.S. And when 9/11 families sued the Saudi royals who funded the September 11, 2001 “use of violence” against the U.S., Kagan used her power as Solicitor General to protect the group that had been her financial backers at Harvard.

But wait. There’s more.

4. PROMOTING SHARIAH IN CONSTITUTIONS WORLDWIDE: On May 1, 2007, Kagan initiated a lecture series on Shariah Law, named for Abd al-Razzaq al-Sanhuri, a legal scholar who had drafted constitutions throughout the Middle East between the 1930s and 1960s. There are literally dozens of legal reformers throughout the Muslim world that she could have chosen; but she chose al-Sanhuri.

Sanhuri’s entire career was dedicated to making sure that the civil and criminal legal codes throughout the Middle East were Shariah-compliant. He drafted the laws that ensured Shariah law took precedence over secular laws. As much as any single individual, he was responsible for the legal drafting for the “Constitutionalization” of Shariah in previously secular Muslim-majority nations in the 20th century, in concert with the political pressure for Shariah by the Muslim Brotherhood, and the financial pressure for Shariah by the Saudi Royal Family.

As legal scholar Enid Hill wrote in her biography of al-Sanhuri, “The outlines of the future dialectic are thus able to be detected if al-Sanhuri’s specifications are followed: Islamic legal theory versus Western legal rules, and when the Western rules reflect a different underlying theory they are to be eliminated and new rules put in their place, rules that are reflective of Islamic legal theory.” (h/t Andy Bostom) Or as al-Sanhuri states himself in his book The Arab Civil Code, “The goal towards which I am striving is that there will be an Arab civil code derived primarily from the Islamic Shari’a.”

Kagan presided over four of the al-Sanhuri lectures before her departure to become Obama’s Solicitor General

5. PROMOTING SHARIAH IN THE JUDICIAL COUP IN PAKISTAN

Kagan consistently used her position at Harvard to promote and legitimate the introduction of Shariah provisions into national constitutions, and indeed into Supreme Courts of other nations. In Pakistan, her influence is having dire consequences.

On November 19, 2008, Elena Kagan presented the Harvard Law School Medal of Freedom to Iftikhar Chaudhry, the controversial Chief Justice of Pakistan. Chaudry had been deposed from his post in 2007 by President General Pervez Musharraf in a complex dispute that included the issue of independence of the judiciary. Musharraf later resigned, and on March 16, 2009, the Prime Minister Gilani re-appointed Chaudhry as Chief Justice.

As noted by Department of Defense attorneys from the Clinton and Reagan eras, Kagan’s honoree has mounted a Shariah judicial coup:

“Contrary to the constitution of Pakistan, Chaudhry usurped the right of appointment of vacancies in the court from the elected prime minister and president…In a previous ruling, Chaudhry reaffirmed the right of the court to disqualify members of Parliament, the president and all ministers of the cabinet from serving if they violate “Islamic injunctions,” or do not engage in ‘teaching and practices, obligatory duties prescribed by Islam. “

The U.S. Senate has the evidence it needs to vote NOT to confirm Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. A vote for Kagan is a vote to bring Shariah to the highest court of the land.

Elena Kagan is fifty years old. She could easily serve to the age of eighty or longer. Her confirmation to the Supreme Court will begin a thirty-years legal war to protect the Constitution against Shariah.

Please tell your Senators to keep Shariah out of the Supreme Court, and to vote against confirming Kagan. You can find their names and phone numbers here. Call today.

Fox News has reported that the New York City Landmarks and Preservation Commission has voted against granting “landmark status” to the building near Ground Zero which Muslims have chosen to plant their so-called Cordoba Mosque Initiative.

The news didn’t come as a surprise, but it is deeply wounding nonetheless. In fact, even after all these months it’s hard to grasp the idea that this nightmare could become a reality.

If they actually were what they claim – i.e., “moderates”, they’d be sensitive enough to know that putting a mosque in that spot makes a mockery of the very notion of “moderation”. There is nothing moderate about building a triumphal edifice to Islam on the graveyard of three thousand people who were brutally slaughtered solely by Muslims.

These innocent souls were incinerated, or asphyxiated, or jumped to their deaths on September 11th, 2001. They all died horribly and Ground Zero is their cemetery. No amount of Kumbayah and toxic tolerance can make those ashes disappear or bring back all those mothers and fathers and sons and daughters.

How dare the blunted human beings pushing for their “initiative” be permitted to erect this sacrilege? They can proclaim their innocence all they want to the Western press (who will eat it up), but Muslims in other countries read their message loud and clear: the killers of 9/11 have triumphed.
– – – – – – – – –
Their message isn’t credible:

• Why name a mosque Cordoba unless you’ve got an agenda, one every other Muslim will understand instantly?
• A mosque flying under the euphemistic colors of an “initiative”? They’re afraid to call it by its real name until it’s too late to do anything.
• A mega-mosque smack dab on Bin Laden’s prize black hole? No wonder he’s mad.
• As in all real estate, this horror is all about location, location, location.

Lots of people have chimed in on this desecration.

The Left has its usual talking points about peace love and understanding. Their self-righteous tolerance is utterly witless, but feel free to find their explanations. I’m certainly not going to link to any of them. However, there are some stories I want to share with you.

The first one is an anecdote I’d never heard before. Bless William McGurn for remembering it. His editorial today, “the Auschwitz Nuns”, in the Wall Street Journal relates a story about Pope John Paul II’s “grace and wisdom” in handling a similar situation with some Carmelite nuns. With the best of intentions but little discernment, this group of nuns moved into an abandoned building near Auschwitz in order to pray for those who had suffered and died there.

As you may know, the Carmelite order is contemplative. Their secluded routine is taken up with a round of prayers from well before the sun rises and on into the last hours of the day. They maintain silence except for the chanted psalms during the formal hours of prayer.

As you probably also remember, the record of anti-Semitism among Polish Catholics is a blot on that country’s history. Yes, there were many brave exceptions, but the betrayals and greed were widespreasd.

Back in the 1980s when this incident occurred, there were even more living survivors of Auschwitz than now. They were justifiably suspicious and insulted. “Why there?” If the nuns wanted to pray do it somewhere less conspicuous and painful than Auschwitz.

Eventually, when the nuns didn’t get it, and the situation became more complicated with Polish nationalists and outside Catholic groups, the Pope stepped in:

He acknowledged that his letter would probably be a trial to each of the sisters, but asked them to accept it while continuing to pursue their mission in that same city at another convent that had been built for them.

Mr. McGurn suggests this parallel:

Let’s remember what this means. By their own lights, the nuns believed they were doing only good. They may have had a legal title to be where they were. And it is likely that they never would have been forced to move by local authorities had they insisted on staying.

Ah, yes, those legal rights. A good example of a lethal law, had it been carried out. Unfortunately, in New York City, the law is going to be used as a scimitar:

not all big questions can-or should-be reduced to legal right. Living together as neighbors in a free and inescapably diverse society requires more skills than just knowing how to hire sharp lawyers. Sometimes it requires leaders willing to sound a grace note, even yielding to the feelings of others who may not see our plans the same way we do.

For their part, the two people at the heart of this center-Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his wife, Daisy Khan-defend the center as an antidote to 9/11. “Our religion has been hijacked by the extremists,” Ms. Khan told National Public Radio, “and this center is going to create that counter-momentum which will amplify the voices of the moderate Muslims.”

Perhaps. But it’s hard to argue with the Anti-Defamation League’s assessment that the controversy created by building the center at this location “is counterproductive to the healing process.”

As Mr. McGurn noted, John Paul knew the difference between having the right to do something and being able to discern whether your “right” is the best or wisest thing to be done. Unfortunately, Mayor Bloomberg is no Pope John Paul II.

And New York City is awash in suicidal but influential leftist Jews. Not to mention the machinations of Abdul and Daisy, so utterly sure of their righteous presence even though the majority of New Yorkers, Americans, and survivors of September 11th want them to move their “initiative” somewhere else. Anywhere but Ground Zero.

In the video below, Sam Nunberg, Deputy Political Director of the ACLJ, is interviewed by “Andy Bluecollar” immediately after the Commission ruling. In a previous meeting he reminded the Landmark group they have set aside some 22,000 buildings in New York City, including six percent which have been done solely for historical reasons. How about the house where Bill Ayers and his Weather Underground were building bombs when one detonated? That’s a spot worthy of preserving??

If the commission felt it appropriate to landmark that building, the location under debate now surely deserves landmark status due to the fact that a wheel from 9-11 ringleader Mohammed Atta’s hijacked American Airlines Flight 11 – imbedded in the building itself.

At the hearing, Sam put the issue clearly into perspective:

“The Landmark of 45-47 Park Place is important not only to maintain the character of the neighborhood and also to preserve the unique architectural design that would otherwise be lost, but even more importantly because of the tragic events of September 11, 2001. It is important to grant the landmark status in order to freeze construction of buildings that do not belong at the location near Ground Zero and would irreparably change the look of the neighborhood. Not only has the building stood there for over 150 years, but it has also felt the impact of the 9/11 attack unlike any other building in the area.”

“It would be a travesty to permit this building to be removed. It would be like removing the sunken ships from Pearl Harbor in order to erect a memorial for the Japanese Kamikazes killed in the surprise attack of US Troops.”

If Pearl Harbor had happened in the last decade we might be doing just what Mr. Nunberg describes. Our culture has become so degraded that we celebrate our murderers and toss our real victims on the ash heap.

Speaking of leftists, Juan Williams was surprisingly contrarian in his summation of the details in this debacle. Jennifer Rubin on Commentary gave him full credit:

Williams…didn’t parrot the left’s “tolerance” line. Instead…he criticized the lack of “transparency” in funding. But he did not stop there. He called building the mosque a “thumb in the eye” of those who lost their lives and suffered trauma. He concluded that, contrary to the imam’s claimed intention, the construction is “not promoting dialogue or understanding; in fact it is polarizing.”

Ms. Rubin adds:

This is the proper and entirely compelling rebuttal to liberals’ fixation with “tolerance.” Liberals assume that we must respect the Muslim group’s sensibilities and refrain from denying them their monument to Islam. (And we certainly can’t question their motives or associations.) But Williams quite rightly doesn’t take the imam’s argument at face value. What about the mosque builders’ tolerance and respect for others? Quite obviously, it is entirely absent.

I will be addressing this total absence of Islam’s respect for others in a future post, but meanwhile, Ms. Rubin sees clearly the consequences of patronizing indulgence so prevalent on the left – prevalent, that is, as long as you fit under their Victimology rubric:

And there’s the rub. In the left’s vision, “tolerance” and indulgence of aberrant conduct is our burden and obligation, and ours alone. That not only leads to cultural surrender; it also infantilizes Muslims.

…what’s intriguing, and to a degree horrifying, is what it tells us about the left’s cockeyed view of “tolerance” and its inability to engage and refute the arguments of those who wish to destroy our society and murder our fellow citizens.

Finally, Andrew Bostom reaches back to 1685, only two years after the first September 11th, to bring us John Locke’s A Letter Concerning Toleration. Here’s a snip from Locke’s epistle (read more at his link):

It is ridiculous for any one to profess himself to be a mahometan only in religion, but in every thing else a faithful subject to a christian magistrate, whilst at the same time he acknowledges himself bound to yield blind obedience to the mufti of Constantinople…

Yes, indeed. It is ridiculous, so ridiculous that none of us who have read the Koran and understand the doctrine of abrogation believes for a New York minute that this is an honest operation.

The smoke and mirrors used by the Khans fool only the Left, and it is only too willing to be deceived if in the process of bringing dishonor on itself, it can also bring its enemies down, too. Those useful idiots have a lot more in common with homicidal jihadists than would be apparent at first blush.

This is a very sad day. It was obvious the Landmark Commission was going to rule in favor of Cordoba, but the decision was nonetheless painful for that.

Three months after 9/11/01, the Baron and I were in New York City for a few days. He was there on business, but our evenings and Saturday were free. So of course we watched the skaters at Rockefeller Center, and then made our way slowly to Ground Zero. I will never forget the smell of those still-smoking ruins.

As we passed the wrought iron fence of the nearby Wall Street churchyard, I used a pill bottle to gather dust from the top of the fence. Even though it was unseasonably warm for December, the white dust covering the graves looked eerily like snow.

In addition to all the detritus from the destroyed skyscrapers, contained in that dust are at least a few molecules of the almost three thousand human beings who were sacrificed to this primitive political theology. They didn’t deserve their fate.

The Khans – and whoever is funding them – don’t deserve their Cordoba Mosque at Ground Zero, either.