A German woman judge has refused a Moroccan-born woman permission to file for divorce by interpreting the Koran as allowing husbands to beat their wives.

"Where are we living? Woman judge allows beating in marriage... and invokes the Koran," said a front-page headline in Germany's top-selling Bild newspaper, reflecting the widespread angry reaction on Thursday.”

"When the Koran takes precedence over the German Basic Law, then I can only say: Good night Germany," Ronald Pofalla, the secretary general of the conservative Christian Democratic Union of Chancellor Angela Merkel, told Bild.”

No commentary necessary.

You can read the whole article here
The France24 newsprogram can be seen online here. (Note: this link will open in Internet explorer, but may not work in other browsers, such as Mozilla.)
You can read a similar article about the event at the New York Times. Login may be necessary.
The full article links are:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/germanyjusticeislam&printer=1;_ylt=A0SOwk_pBQxGiRoBvAKROrgF
mms://video.france24.com.edgestreams.net/EN NW PKG JUGE ALLEMAGNE CO_400.wmv
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/23/world/europe/23germany.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=world&pagewanted=print
Link to this Entry: http://www.worldunderfire.com/inthenews.htm#03282007

“The decisive battle against Islamic extremists will not be fought in Iraq, but in Europe. It is not in Baghdad but in cities like Antwerp, Belgium, where the future of the West will be decided,” writes Paul Belien, in the Washington Times.

In his article, Belien, editor of the Brussels Journal, describes how Antwerp city politicos, pandering to Salafist groups, are helping enable the slow radicalization of the city. Apparently, this phenomenon is not unique to Antwerp. The same thing, he says, is happening in cities across Europe.

These kinds of battles, reflecting a dangerous preferential treatment of one group or ideology, or the lack of substantial response to actions by these groups, are not isolated to Europe. Local governments in the United States are also accommodating or overlooking the rise of Islamism in their midst. Adrian Morgan has written about the alleged indoctrination going on today in American public schools, today, with the implicit approval of local authorities.

Educating children about Islam does not appear to be the problem. Describing a court battle over one California elementary school program designed to teach pupils about Islam, Morgan writes:

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center said of the Islamic sessions at Excelsior: "No federal court would have permitted a class where public school students were taught to 'become Catholics' for three weeks, selected a saint's name, wore identification tags that displayed their new name and a Crucifix, and engaged in Catholic religious practices. Here, however, students were subjected to Islamic religious indoctrination and propaganda and the courts turned a blind eye.

While few would claim that the Excelsior students were being taught Radical Islamic theology, or that the Antwerp officials are advocating jihad, the results of these policies, and the absence of pro-active response to them, helps empower Salafist groups, and helps them promote their long-term goals of an overall Islamicization of the West.

You can read the full articles here: http://washtimes.com/op-ed/20070313-090315-9588r.htm
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/challenges.php?id=801946
Link to this Entry: http://www.worldunderfire.com/inthenews.htm#03202007

A recent 60 Minutes news segment—“jihad.com”—shows the powerful role the Internet is playing in radicalizing Muslims, and encouraging them to wage jihad.¹

"Without a doubt, the Internet is the single most important venue for the radicalization of Islamic youth," says Army Brigadier General John Custer, who is the head of intelligence at central command, responsible for Iraq and Afghanistan. Custer says he knows where the enemy finds an inexhaustible supply of suicide warriors. "I see 16, 17-year-olds who have been indoctrinated on the Internet turn up on the battlefield.”

Films readily available online at various jihadi forums, youtube, and elsewhere online, are one tool used to incite youth to join the war.

"If you want to go wage jihad, you've got to let them know that there's a jihad going on and lead them to believe that this is something they want to be involved in. And so these videos are essentially, you know, all recruitment films, you know, join the army, see wonderful places, kill people," [says Aaron Weisburd, a programmer who has been successfully attacking jihadi websites].²

The forums also play on the ignorance of these youth by convincing them they are not proper Muslims and providing the gateway to a true Islamic lifestyle. According to Stephen Ulph, a consultant to West Point who appears in the 60 minutes piece,³

"They throw a bomb into his mental universe… And, they say, 'And, you're not a proper Muslim, nor are your parents.' Very important implication there. If your parents aren't proper Muslims, if the sheik of a mosque isn't a proper Muslim, what are you doing obeying them?"

Asked what they're told a proper Muslim is, Ulph says, "Well, once they've softened him up and he's now in freefall, they say, 'This is your identity. We're gonna put the "j" back into Islam. It's jihad.'"

Dr. Khaleel Mohammed, an Islamic scholar and cleric, further explains the danger of religious illiteracy in regards to extremism, in a response to reactions to criticisms he has leveled.⁴

Muslims in Canada are among the most sophisticated citizens, the holders of degrees and some of the most demandingly intellectual professions. That, however, does not erase the pervasive religious illiteracy that, like a malignant cancer, threatens to destroy the entire corpus of what was once, and still can remain, a great religion.

Scholar Scott Appleby of Notre Dame describes "religious illiteracy" as the low-level or virtual absence of moral reflection and basic theological knowledge among faith followers that could lead to violence against perceived threats. In Islam, this is particularly applicable.

This illiteracy is exacerbated by the Arab media, which does little to counter the messages students are seeing online, according to former Dean of Islamic Law at Qatar University, Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari.⁵

As you know, the Gulf media refers to what happens in Iraq as "resistance" and "Jihad." If, for example, someone blows himself up in a mosque, in a mourners' gathering, in a hospital, or at a bus station, the media calls it martyrdom-seeking and Jihad.

The community can’t always rely on the clerics to ameliorate the problem, as has been seen in the case of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi⁶. Regarding claims that the community would fire illiterate imams whose views perpetuate the crisis, Dr. Mohammed asked ⁷

How is the flock going to know when the imam is wrong? After all, he is the leader, the supposed exegete, the scholar who may have suddenly been imbued with Islamic scholarship by some miracle because he happens to be a medical doctor.

In the face of challenges like these, parents, teachers and those in the media need to engage in a campaign of reeducation, to counter these messages. Perhaps most important to countering the illiteracy that is promoting the crisis, is teaching students how to weigh the issues for themselves. Dr. Hanaa Mutlaq, Professor of Psychology at King Saud University, said in an interview⁸

They have been brainwashed, it is easy to brainwash them. We made them who they are. We have made our children easy prey for anyone who wants to brainwash them, because we have trained them to obey… When he comes to ask a question, one should not give him the answer. We must say, go and find the answer.

Link to this Entry: http://www.worldunderfire.com/inthenews.htm#03132007

Muslim groups have praised Qatari cleric Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi for his moderation. Among these is The American Muslim, which describes him as being “known for his open-minded attitude and for his willingness to address [issues] of vital contemporary concern in a spirit of genuine dialogue.”¹ The Islamic Society of Boston—responding to an article by the Boston Herald identifying the cleric as a radical—praises him as “a voice of moderation.”²

Other groups note him as a valuable source for information on Islamic perspectives. Among these is the University of Rochester Muslim Students Association (MSA), which posts links to several websites associated with him.³

Prominent non-Muslim sources such as the Washington Post have called him “a reformer, a voice not afraid to defy 1,300 years of sometimes sclerotic religious study.”⁴ The Christian Science Monitor describes him as “a moderate Egyptian cleric.” ⁵ Additionally, London mayor Ken Livingstone referred to him as “one of the most moderate Islamic figures.”⁶ Livingstone has been noted for his favorable relationship with the Sheikh.⁷ In one dossier released by his office, he states, “Qaradawi has been one of the foremost Muslim scholars in combating socially regressive interpretations of Islam on issues like women's rights and relations with other religions”⁸

The cleric is praised as a moderate. But how progressive is he on the important issues singled out by Mayor Livingstone, as well as on other critical issues?

Regarding women’s rights, he is on the record as being in favor of female genital mutilation—a primitive procedure in which all or part of a women’s genitals are removed—though he does note that the issue is one of great dispute:

The most moderate opinion and the most likely one to be correct is in favor of practicing circumcision in the moderate Islamic way indicated in some of the Prophet's hadiths – even though such hadiths are not confirmed to be authentic… Actually, Muslim countries differ over the issue of female circumcision; some countries sanction it whereas others do not. Anyhow, it is not obligatory, whoever finds it serving the interest of his daughters should do it, and I personally support this under the current circumstances in the modern world…⁹

On relations between Islam and other ideologies: The Guardian wrote that Qaradawi has been described as the spiritual leader of a group known as the Muslim Brotherhood, founded to replace Western influences with lslamic laws and values. The Washington Post quoted the cleric as saying

“Conquest through dawah, that is what we hope for," said Qaradawi, an influential Qatari imam who pens some of the religious edicts justifying Hamas suicide bombings against Israeli civilians. "We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America, not through the sword but through dawah," said the imam, who has condemned the September 11 attacks but is now barred from the United States.¹⁰

Regarding the punishment of homosexuals under Islamic law, Sheikh Qaradawi told an interviewer on Al-Jazeera TV that

“Some say we should throw them from a high place, like God did with the people of Sodom. Some say we should burn them, and so on. There is disagreement.”¹¹

A number of figures in the Arab world have spoken out against the moderate cleric’s views. For example, a 2004 New York Times article stated that he had “issued a fatwa, or religious ruling, calling for the killing of American and foreign ‘occupiers” in Iraq, military and civilian.”¹² Among those who publicly responded to edicts like these was Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, the general manager of the widely watched Arabic satellite TV station Al-Arabiya, who was quoted in the New York Times article as saying

"Let us contemplate the incident of this religious sheik allowing, nay even calling for, the murder of civilians," he wrote. "How can we believe him when he tells us that Islam is the religion of mercy and peace while he is turning it into a religion of blood and slaughter?"

A columnist for the Kuwaiti newspaper Al Siyassa, Faisal al-Qina'I, also took aim at Sheik Qaradawi. "It is saddening," he wrote, "to read and hear from those who are supposed to be Muslim clerics, like Yusuf al-Qaradawi and others of his kind, that instead of defending true Islam, they encourage these cruel actions and permit decapitation, hostage taking and murder."¹³

Although Sheikh Qaradawi’s appeal is not monolithic, he is a highly learned figure, with much influence throughout the Islamic world.

"When you talk about Sheik Qaradawi, you're talking about an audience of hundreds of millions of Muslims across the world, someone who actually creates public opinion," said Azzam Tamimi, director of the Institute of Islamic Political Thought in London.¹⁴

Granted, the cleric has spoken out against terrorism, notably in the case of the September 11 attacks on The World Trade Center.¹⁵ Additionally, his perspectives are likely more lenient than other Muslim Brotherhood-associated figures, like Osama bin Laden’s deputy, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri.¹⁶ Nevertheless, his stance in important areas like women’s rights, the promoting of Islamic conquest through missionary activity, homosexuality, and support of terror activities, should be reason of concern to many in the West.

Many Muslims in places like America are not likely to be swayed by these radical viewpoints. The Wall Street Journal, discussing last year’s cartoon riots, stated

We find it telling that the two places where Muslim communities have shown restraint and moderation is in the United States and Iraq. American Muslims are overwhelmingly middle class, upwardly mobile and not very susceptible to the atavistic urgings of distant dictatorships. In Iraq, an unsilent majority has repeatedly made its views plain about the religious fanatics who demand to speak in their name.¹⁷

That said, when certain individuals are well respected within a community, it is reasonable to suggest that many will follow their perspectives without questioning them. Clothed in the figure of someone like Qaradawi, with his scholarship, prestige and mass appeal, it makes for a dangerous combination.

One way to respond to concerns is for individuals and communities to distance themselves from him. This could include British groups protesting to Parliament, in order to prevent his entry to the UK. Families can turn off Al Jazeera when his broadcasts appear, or boycott the service altogether. Visitors to websites educating on these issues can request that links to his material be removed, or, alternatively, be very careful to review what appears in his name.

There are many other well-educated, moderate clerics today, whose messages are not as mixed and sometimes threatening as Sheikh Qaradawi’s. Organizations and websites can turn to those figures whose overall views reflect the ideals they wish to see embodied in their communities, and help promote these clerics to others.

Above all, it is perhaps most important for people to engage in healthy dialogue with their leadership, regardless of their faith or political perspective, and critically examine the information they are receiving.

Link to this Entry: http://www.worldunderfire.com/inthenews.htm#03072007

Most Muslims in the West have many similar values to other citizens. But, as a number of studies and articles have shown, there is a significant minority who would be very content to see Islamic Shari’ah law established—violently if need be—and whose values are strikingly different from those of their countrymen.

In Obsession, Palestinian journalist Khaled Abu Toameh comments, “What is worrying is that there is a silent majority that is not speaking out in a very strong voice against these groups.” Tashbih Sayyed, the editor of Pakistan today said that many Muslim or Arabs are limited in what they can state publicly about these issues. For example, he says, “He will be lynched in a Muslim society if he says that Hamas is a terrorist [organization].”

Despite the risk, there are some individuals who have taken active steps against the threat within their community. Among them is Mubin Shaikh, a 31-year-old family man living in Toronto. According to Los Angeles Times staff writer Maggie Farley, Shaikh was responsible for helping uncover a jihadist plot “to explode three truck bombs in front of Toronto police and intelligence headquarters and Parliament Hill, then take politicians hostage and behead them one by one. The group of 18 had acquired 3 tons of what it thought was explosive material when police moved in, authorities say.”

Farley writes that Shaikh’s actions, which some say protected Canada and Islam [and arguably saved hundreds of lives], have been rewarded with death threats and cold shoulders.

"I didn't do it to be a hero. I did it for Islam, because we don't support terror, and if those guys had succeeded, it would have made all Muslims look bad," he said, anger sparking in his dark brown eyes. "And I did it for Canada. I was born here, and I want this to be a place where people can live together without suspicion."

To many, he was a hero. After he revealed his identity in July, an editorial in the Globe and Mail headlined "In Praise of Mr. Shaikh" said: "He is an observant Muslim who acted against an alleged terrorist ring. For that, Canadians of all stripes should be grateful."

But within Toronto's multifaceted Muslim community, gratitude was in short supply.

"Individuals cannot credibly spy on their own community while remaining a member of it," said Safiyyah Ally, the host of the TV program "Let the Quran Speak." "Our community is fragile enough as is, and our leaders are our moral anchors."...

"There has been a lot of hostility." [Shaikh] said. "But that is trivial compared to not doing it, because it could have led to something so devastating, so tragic."

Many of today’s role models attain their status because of celebrity. Some heroes work in silence, helping change the world through unrecognized deeds; taking active steps to benefit their families and their community, however personally difficult those steps may sometimes be.

It is possible that if more people were to follow Shaikh’s lead, taking those difficult steps, that the silent majority in the West would reverse current trends. In turn, they would help ensure that their local and global communities continued to reflect their shared ideals, and aid in their continuity.

You can read the full article at www.latimes.com
Link to this Entry: http://www.worldunderfire.com/inthenews.htm#02272007

Muslim-majority Malaysia is currently developing a hi-tech animated children’s series, named Saladin, that brings back to life the wars that ultimately forced the Christian Crusaders from Jerusalem hundreds of years ago, and returned the city to Islamic control.

According to Reuters, the series, which is being marketed globally, is part of an effort to spur growth in Malaysia’s IT industry.¹ In addition to serving economic considerations, the series also aims, ostensibly, to provide today’s children with a hero they can identify with. According to the website, “Saladin is an animation project inspired by the life of Salah Al-Din Yusuf Ibn Ayyub, the Islamic hero who united the Muslims in the holy war against the Crusades in the 12th century.”²

If the online promo can provide any insight about the project, then it appears that it could inspire similar controversy to what was raised with Ridley’s Scott’s 2005 film, Kingdom of Heaven. The promo features Saladin's army setting ablaze a crusader fleet—replete with masts painted with giant crosses—killing most of those on board. Although the Crusaders are defeated in this battle, there will surely be more battles to come; as Saladin tells his comrade, “Our lands are safe for now. But Amalric will return, as will others, and next time, they will not be so careless.”

Children have always benefited from strong role models. If a series built around an iconic figure like Saladin can provide healthy guidance to Muslim youth, it will be to their boon. However, in our increasingly divided world, it is possible that this show could also incite further division. In the Islamic world today, TV stations regularly show programs presenting inflammatory messages against the West.³ Crusader imagery is regularly invoked by Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Al-Qaeda’s number two, in his missives against America and others in the West. An episodic show like this, about the war between the Christian crusaders and the hero Saladin, could only serve to reinforce some of these messages, and further inflame tensions.

It is always a good thing if parents are able to discuss with their children the messages they are exposed to on TV, and in the world around them. This could potentially be critical with Saladin, given the sensitive issues reflected in today’s political backdrop. Hopefully these concerns are unfounded, and the show will serve to build bridges, rather than further burn them.

Salahadin is scheduled to premiere in 2008.
You can watch the trailer, which is in English, at http://www.saladin.tv/main.php.

Link to this Entry: http://www.worldunderfire.com/inthenews.htm#02192007

“Arouse the Spirit of Islamic Jihad” as a Mainstream Educational Goal

In Saudi Arabia—a country viewed as an ally of the U.S. in the war on terror—mainstream educational goals include arousing the spirit of Islamic jihad.

A Saudi Education Ministry document titled "Educational Policy" stated that one of the educational goals was "to prepare students physically and mentally for jihad for the sake of Allah" (Goal No. 104). Another goal was "to arouse the spirit of Islamic jihad in order to fight our enemies, to restore our rights and our glory, and to fulfill the mission of Islam" (Goal No. 60).¹

In their schoolbooks, Saudi students learn that

The Crusades never ended, and identify the American Universities in Beirut and in Cairo, other Western and Christian social service providers, media outlets, centers for academic studies of Orientalism, and campaigns for women’s rights as part of the modern phase of the Crusades.

Jihad in the path of God – which consists of battling against unbelief, oppression, injustice, and those who perpetrate it – is the summit of Islam. This religion arose through jihad and through jihad was its banner raised high. It is one of the noblest acts, which brings one closer to God, and one of the most magnificent acts of obedience to God.

Denounce Muslims who do not interpret the Koran literally.²

Wahhabism, a radical strain of fundamentalism—with which these kinds of teachings are often identified—has historically been the ideological backbone of the Saudi Kingdom’s approach to Islam.³ As the government’s oil wealth has grown, so, too, have Saudi activities outside the Kingdom, spreading these ideas. According to an article in US News & World Report.

Over the past 25 years, the desert kingdom has been the single greatest force in spreading Islamic fundamentalism, while its huge, unregulated charities funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to jihad groups and al Qaeda cells around the world.

The Saudi funding program, [Alex] Alexiev [a former CIA consultant on ethnic and religious conflict] says, is "the largest worldwide propaganda campaign ever mounted"—dwarfing the Soviets' propaganda efforts at the height of the Cold War. The Saudi weekly Ain al-Yaqeen last year reported the cost as "astronomical" and boasted of the results: some 1,500 mosques, 210 Islamic centers, 202 colleges, and nearly 2,000 schools in non-Islamic countries.⁴

North America has not been immune to this activity. The United States has been the recipient of millions of dollars of Saudi largesse. Journalist Stephen Schwartz testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security, that Saudi-Wahhabi entities have invested over 100 million dollars in promoting Islam in the United States, with influence in over 300 mosques.⁵

Senator Charles Schumer, D-NY, said in 2003, that

There is mounting evidence that Saudi sponsored groups are trying to hijack mainstream Islam here in the United States – in mosques, in schools, and even in prisons and the military—and replace it with Wahhabism....

Prominent members of the Saudi royal family – including Prince Naif, Saudi Arabia’s Interior Minister and anti-terror czar – have set up charities that funnel money to Wahhabi madrassah schools throughout the Middle East and Pakistan, making these areas hotbeds of anti-American sentiment and extremism....

The Council on American Islamic Relations [CAIR] – perhaps the most famous of these groups – reportedly received financial support from Saudi-funded organizations to build its $3.5 million headquarters here in Washington. This may explain why in April 2001, the Council released a survey saying that 69% of Muslims in America say it is “absolutely fundamental” or “very important” to have Wahhabi teachings at their mosques.⁶

Senator Schumer goes on to note that he doesn’t believe the figures presented by CAIR “reflect the true feeling of the American Muslim community because the extremist Wahhabi ideology is violent, exclusionary and intolerant.” Nevertheless, Wahhabism seems to be making inroads in its control of U.S. Islamic institutions. Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, a Sufi sheik and leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of America, said that extremists control “more than 80 percent of the mosques that have been established in the US.”⁷

Given what is being taught in Saudi schools, how does all this translate to what is actually being taught in Saudi funded institutions in the United States?

In 2005, the Center for Religious Freedom did a study of Saudi ideology being promoted in American mosques. Among the teachings the study found being disseminated were:

To be true Muslims, we must prepare and be ready for jihad in Allah’s way. It is the duty of the citizen and the government. The military education is glued to faith and its meaning, and the duty to follow it. (From a textbook collected from the Islamic Center of Oakland in California.)

[O]ur doctrine states that if you accept any religion other than Islam, like Judaism or Christianity, which are not acceptable, you become an unbeliever. If you do not repent, you are an apostate and you should be killed because you have denied the Koran. (Collected from King Fahd Mosque, Culver City, CA)⁸

A 2006 report by the Center showed that these messages have also been found in teaching academies run by the Saudi government. The report states that the Islamic Saudi Academy in Alexandria, VA “is the American branch of a worldwide network of 19 schools supervised and funded by the Saudi state.

In 2002, the Washington Post provided a rare glimpse into what is taught at the Academy: “Then [the students] file into their Islamic studies class, where the textbooks tell them the Day of Judgment can’t come until Jesus Christ returns to Earth, breaks the cross and converts everyone to Islam, and until Muslims start attacking Jews.” An American citizen who was the valedictorian of his class there was convicted on March 29, 2006 of plotting to assassinate President George W. Bush and of being a member of al Qaeda, and sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.⁹

That Saudi funded institutions in the United States would teach such things should not seem surprising, as they are the same ideals the Saudi government promotes at home. It’s logical that they’ll espouse the same values at institutions they fund abroad, whether they be universities, day schools, consulates or mosques. Why would they teach anything other than the same ideals they espouse in their homeland?

What can be done about this state of affairs?

Saudi reformists have articulated the process of transformation that needs to occur within the Kingdom, saying, "We need these young people who are being misled [by extremist perceptions] for building the homeland. But we must do this by directing the students in the educational institutions, and by correcting their ideological deviations..."¹⁰

While it is unlikely Americans will convince the Saudis to change their policies on the Arabian peninsula, it is possible for them to influence Saudi funded endeavours, on their own shores.

On a basic level, citizens can be watchful of the ideas being promoted in institutions and programs that receive Saudi-Wahhabi grants. Muslim families can ensure sure their children are not being inculcated with this hatred, by playing an active role in the schools. Arabic speakers can review the Arabic language materials being distributed at their local places of worship. College students in Saudi funded Political Science or Middle Eastern Studies programs can be watchful that the instruction they receive is balanced and scholarly.

On the level of public policy, Americans should consider whether a nation that espouses such views can be considered a true ally.

Concerned citizens of all faiths can engage in dialogues and activities that will give them an opportunity to transcend their differences in peaceful ways, and speak out against this hatred. For both children and adults within the local and national community, such actions can send a strong message of the vision they want for their world, and help provide foundations for building it.

Link to this Entry: http://www.worldunderfire.com/inthenews.htm#02122007

A follow up to last week's entry on the Iranian nuclear threat...

Professor Bernard Lewis spoke last week at Hebrew University, following a screening of Obsession. He had the following to say, in response to a question from the audience, about his thoughts on a direct confrontation with Iran, and the solution to the crisis.

"I think there only one solution to the Iranian problem presented by Iran, and that can come only from the Iranian people.

Iran is a real threat. A mortal threat. And I think one has to take the nuclear threat in Iran very seriously. One also has to take account of what I think only be described as the apocalyptic mood of Ahmadinejad and his circle.

In Islam as in Christianity and as in Judaism, there is what you might call an end of times scenario. There will be final battles between the forces of good and evil. The Mahdi in Islam, the return of Jesus, the Messiah for Jews, will fight against Gog and Magog; Dahjal for Muslims. Or whatever else the adversary is called. There will be the final struggle which of course will end in the triumph of the forces of good, and the destruction of the forces of evil.

Muslims have a similar scenario, and Ahmadinejad and his group clearly believe—and I don’t doubt the sincerity of their belief—that that time is now. That we are now entering the apocalyptic age. The final battles are taking place between the forces of good and evil, and will result, of course, inevitably, in the triumph of their messianic figure. And Muslims like Jews believe that one can take some steps to hasten the process. This I think is extremely dangerous and extremely alarming, because, if you consider the situation during the cold war, both sides—the United States and the Soviet Union—had nuclear weapons. Neither side used them because each side knew that the other would retaliate in kind. This was known as Mutual Assured Destruction. MAD for short. MAD doesn’t work with these people, because Mutual Assured Destruction is not a deterrent; it’s an inducement. And they believe that the end of time will bring the triumph of their cause. If many of their people perish, they will be doing them a favor; they will be giving them a quick free pass to heaven and all its delights. To the divine brothel in the skies."

Writing about the potential of a popular uprising in the near future, an article published in the Middle East forum asked, "Will Iran experience another revolution? It remains uncertain. But Iranian society is bubbling, and the stakes are huge."

Several Iranian groups working to promote positive change within the country are the Student Movement Coordinating Committee for Democracy in Iran and Regime Change in Iran.com. Additionally, Activist Chat supports a number of online petitions to the UN and others, on issues of relevance to the Iranian people and the current crisis.

Link to this Entry: http://www.worldunderfire.com/inthenews.htm#0252007

Would the Iranian government ever launch a nuclear weapon at another state?

Most people would say 'No.' This seems like a reasonable way of thinking. To our ears, this is logical.

If the Iranian leadership ever carried out a nuclear attack, they would likely find themselves the target of a retaliatory strike which would result in their own deaths, and millions of others. The country would be crippled. For decades, this desire for self-preservation, and the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), was a primary war deterrent between the United States and the Soviet Union (notwithstanding notable challenges along the way, like the Cuban Missile Crisis). It's also played a role in other nuclear flashpoints, like Pakistan and India (although, granted, the red lines in that conflict have sometimes been less clear).

But what if a state player or non-state player didn’t perceive certain death as a deterrent? What if causing others to die was viewed—in certain contexts—as an act of kindness? What if someone was so was convinced about this, that they encouraged their children to engage in behaviors which they knew would kill them?

In an article published last year, respected scholar Matthias Kuentzel broached this subject. In it, he recalled the policy of the Iranian regime during the Iran-Iraq war, of sending children to clear minefields on the battlefield—using their bodies to detonate landmines, as part of the war campaign.

In pondering the behavior of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I cannot help but think of the 500,000 plastic keys that Iran imported from Taiwan during the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88. At the time, an Iranian law laid down that children as young as 12 could be used to clear mine fields, even against the objections of their parents. Before every mission, a small plastic key would be hung around each of the children’s necks. It was supposed to open for them the gates to paradise...

“In the past,” wrote the semi-official Iranian daily Ettela’at, “we had child-volunteers: 14-, 15-, and 16-year-olds. They went into the mine fields. Their eyes saw nothing. Their ears heard nothing. And then, a few moments later, one saw clouds of dust. When the dust had settled again, there was nothing more to be seen of them...

Already in one of his first television interviews, the new President enthused: “Is there an art that is more beautiful, more divine, more eternal than the art of the martyr’s death?”

Examining the Iranian behavior during that war as a “glimpse of things to come,” and applying this cult of martyrdom to a potential nuclear threat, Kuentzel asks:

What is the implication of atomic weapons in the hands of those who interpret death in the battle field as a spiritual triumph?

In December 2001, then Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani broached this question. He explained that “the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything”. On the other hand, even in the case of a nuclear response on the part of Israel, it “will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.”… Some hundred thousand or so additional martyrs for Islam – the price is not too high to pay.

Rafsanjani’s counting on a hundred thousand deaths might seem on first glance like a worst-case scenario. But it is not. For Rafsanjani is a representative of the “pragmatic” wing of the Iranian Revolution. In contrast to the apocalyptic wing of the Revolutionary Guard, who in 1988 wanted to pursue the war against Iraq no matter the costs, the “pragmatists” are concerned that any war should have a “worthwhile” outcome. What atomic weapons could mean in the hands of the “apocalyptic” faction is virtually unimaginable.

It can be difficult to fathom that death or MAD would cease to be a deterrent, and that someone would be content—perhaps even see it as divinely inspired—to put a compatriot’s life in jeopardy. It seems illogical, because people in Europe and America and many other parts of the world were not raised with these values. But that is what we face today with the Iranian regime.

Only by understanding the threat can we hope to defeat it.

The article can be found in its entirety at: Matthias Kuentzel
Link to this Entry: http://www.worldunderfire.com/inthenews.htm#01302007

The threat from Iran (and other Islamist leaderships) is frequently explained in the context of a political response to the overall conflict in the Middle East, or the threat from American aggression. In truth, the crisis with Iran is rooted in the religious perspective of its ruling theocracy. To remove the crisis from that context is to completely misunderstand their motivations and goals. An additional challenge, compounding the crisis, is the lack of response from most Western leaders, indicating that they don't take seriously their words or actions. Until we understand the problem, and are willing to confront it head on, it will be impossible to find an enduring solution. Former CIA director Jim Woolsey, had the following to say at a recent conference in Herzliya.

I believe that the Vilayat Faqih ¹ in Iran is a theocratic totalitarian movement for which destruction of Israel and the United States is not a policy but its very essence. It defines itself in that way. Saying that is should change its policy with respect to destroying Israel and the United States is like trying to persuade Hitler away from anti-Semitism. It was his essence and it is the essence of the Iranian Vilayat Faqih. I believe that the nuclear weapons program of Iran is an important part of this and as Bernard [Lewis] said the recent up tick in fanaticism, the Hujetia—the End of Time Movement—does represent a real and crazed part of Iranians today and the Iranian Shiite ideology...

In 1979, which I think is probably the key year of the modern explosion in fanaticism in this part of the world; the seizure of the great mosque in Mecca and the rise to power of a Shiite theocracy in Iran produced an intense increase of Wahabi fanaticism as expressed in the madrasas of the Middle East and Pakistan. These expressions in the sermons, in mosques, and in the United States, are all very heavily funded by the increased price of oil. Little boys are being taught to dream of being suicide bombers in both Pakistani Madrasas and in the West Bank with Wahabi oil money, and that money is a huge part of our problem...

So, what do we need to move forward today? First of all we need to take their theocratic totalitarianism authority seriously. We should pay attention to what they say. Hitler meant it when he said he wanted to exterminate the Jews. It was all spelled out in Mein Kampf. We need to take seriously what people like Ahmadinejad and others say to their own followers. They are not lying; they are stating their true objectives. Secondly, we need clarity. We need to make sure that we call a spade, a spade. That when we are accused of being Islam-phobes, I think it's fair to say: No, we are not, but we are theocrat-phobes. We should not let our sense of fairness lead to creeping Shari'a. It is beginning in Europe and even a bit here in the United States among the Muslim communities.

You can read his full speech here:Herzliya Conference
Link to this Entry: http://www.worldunderfire.com/inthenews.htm#01232007

Recent incidents at two college campuses show the challenge confronted in engaging a public debate on the issue of Radical Islam. In both incidents, a student group was prevented by administration or the MSA, in their attempts to screen Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West.

Pace University administrators threatened to sic the cops on a Jewish-student club if it went ahead with plans to screen a critically acclaimed film about radical Islam, the head of the group charged yesterday.

Michael Abdurakhmanov, president of Pace Hillel, said two deans warned that showing the documentary film would implicate club members as suspects in two hate crimes involving the desecration of the Koran at the university's lower-Manhattan campus last fall.

In addition, Abdurakhmanov said an assistant dean physically restrained him as he attempted to defend the film and his group in a meeting with administrators.

"The message was pretty clear, if you show this film, you're going to incriminate yourself," Abdurakhmanov said.

A similar scenario took place at Brown University when the Hillel club planned to invite one of the featured speakers in Obsession, FrontPage Magazine contributor Nonie Darwish, to give a talk exposing the radical Islamic in Gaza. Again, the MSA chapter at Brown protested the event, complaining that Darwish was "too controversial." After a heated debate, Hillel timidly backed down and cancelled the event, not wanting to "upset its 'beautiful relationship' with the Muslim community." (Brown's Muslim community had no trouble marring the "beautiful relationship" by holding anti-Israel events during "Palestinian Solidarity Week.") One FrontPage article notes that Nonie Darwish's is an Arab voice that needs to be heard, and it is "too bad the young Muslims and their Jewish enablers at Brown won't hear it."

Students, educators, and citizens alike should be concerned, and respond to these and similar actions stifling public debate, as they serve as indicators of the overall climate today on many college campuses. Without a free exchange of ideas, and open critical debate on many other uncomfortable issues, our universities sacrifice their very ability to act as true institutions of higher learning. The potential long term impact on America as a liberal open-minded society is chilling.

You can read both articles in their entirety here:
NY Post
FrontPage Magazine
Link to this Entry: http://www.worldunderfire.com/inthenews.htm#01112007