JIHAD! Watch and learn....

**American Patriot** · January 16th, 2007, 14:33

Watch these videos please.

BBC reports undercover on mosques in the UK.

This is EXACTLY what we are fighting, if you're still saying we ought to be "tolerate" of this crap, then you need to pull your head out of your ASS and wake the hell up.

I no longer believe we need to be tolerant.

**American Patriot** · January 16th, 2007, 14:34

Part II

**American Patriot** · January 16th, 2007, 14:34

Part III

**American Patriot** · January 16th, 2007, 14:37

UK Mosques. Part 1 Of 3.
09:37

This investigation into Britain's mosques, by Channel 4's respected Dispatches programme,has revealed worrying evidence of just how rife Islamic extremism is among Muslim preachers. The undercover TV inquiry, conducted over ten months, reveals some religious clerics urging their congregations to start preparing for jihad (holy war) against infidels or non-Muslims. Another is caught on camera telling families to hit their daughters for not covering their heads with the veil or hijab. One imam from a Derby mosque, called Dr Ijaz Mian, was filmed calling for the creation of an Islamic 'state within a state' in Britain before the country is taken over by Muslims. Addressing a group of youths, he said: 'King. Queen. House of Commons ... if you accept it, you are part of it. If you don't accept it, you have to dismantle it. So you being a Muslim, you have to fix a target. There will be no House of Commons ... Muslims just grow in strength ... then take over.' The programme paints an alarming picture of how preachers, even at what are regarded as the most moderate mosques, urge their followers to reject Britain's legal system in favour of shariah law and its radical rulebook. The investigators spent four months filming undercover at one mosque, Green Lane in Birmingham, which caters for thousands of worshippers. The main preacher is Abu Usamah, an American convert to Islam, who studied at Medinah University in Saudi Arabia, before coming to Britain. He is seen telling worshippers not to believe that Islamic terrorists are operating in Britain, as all non-Muslims are liars. In another sequence, he is heard saying that Christians and Jews are 'kuffaars' (non-believers) and the enemies of Islam. 'No one loves the kuffaar, not a single person loves the kuffaar,' he rants. 'We hate the kuffaar!' Then he adds, triumphantly: 'Allah has not given those people who are kuffaar a way over the believer. They shouldn't be in authority over us. Muslims shouldn't be satisfied with anything other than a total Islamic state. 'I encourage all of you to begin to cultivate ourselves for the time that is fast approaching - where the tables are going to turn and the Muslims are going to be in the position of being uppermost in strength. And when that happens, people won't get killed - unjustly,' he promises. As for women, he says they are 'deficient, even if they have a PhD. Her intellect is incomplete. She may be suffering from hormones that will make her emotional. It takes two witnesses of a woman to equal the one witness of a man.' He goes on to say that gays deserve to die. 'If I were to call homosexuals perverted, dirty, filthy dogs who should be murdered ... that's my freedom of speech, isn't it?' The TV investigators also bought damning videos and DVDs of speeches by Muslim preachers from a shop at the London Central Mosque in Regent's Park. The mosque has always been hailed by the Muslim Council of Britain and the Government as a symbol of reason and mainstream Islamic life in this country. But the programme's team found copies of films of preachers decrying the equality of women as a 'bunch of foolishness' and claiming that Christian missionaries put the Aids virus into medicines in order to poison the people of Africa. The TV exposÃ©, like the Mail's own investigation in Surrey, shows that the systematic brainwashing of Muslims by their religious leaders is now commonplace. And it appears to be producing results. Twenty-eight per cent said they believed Britain should be an Islamic state. In another worrying sign, one in three young Muslims said that the London bombings were justified because Britain had joined America in the 'war on terror'. http://www.channel4.com/news/dispatc...?id=1066#start

UK Mosques. Part 2 Of 3
07:31
This investigation into Britain's mosques, by Channel 4's respected Dispatches programme,has revealed worrying evidence of just how rife Islamic extremism is among Muslim preachers. The undercover TV inquiry, conducted over ten months, reveals some religious clerics urging their congregations to start preparing for jihad (holy war) against infidels or non-Muslims. Another is caught on camera telling families to hit their daughters for not covering their heads with the veil or hijab. One imam from a Derby mosque, called Dr Ijaz Mian, was filmed calling for the creation of an Islamic 'state within a state' in Britain before the country is taken over by Muslims. Addressing a group of youths, he said: 'King. Queen. House of Commons ... if you accept it, you are part of it. If you don't accept it, you have to dismantle it. So you being a Muslim, you have to fix a target. There will be no House of Commons ... Muslims just grow in strength ... then take over.' The programme paints an alarming picture of how preachers, even at what are regarded as the most moderate mosques, urge their followers to reject Britain's legal system in favour of shariah law and its radical rulebook. The investigators spent four months filming undercover at one mosque, Green Lane in Birmingham, which caters for thousands of worshippers. The main preacher is Abu Usamah, an American convert to Islam, who studied at Medinah University in Saudi Arabia, before coming to Britain. He is seen telling worshippers not to believe that Islamic terrorists are operating in Britain, as all non-Muslims are liars. In another sequence, he is heard saying that Christians and Jews are 'kuffaars' (non-believers) and the enemies of Islam. 'No one loves the kuffaar, not a single person loves the kuffaar,' he rants. 'We hate the kuffaar!' Then he adds, triumphantly: 'Allah has not given those people who are kuffaar a way over the believer. They shouldn't be in authority over us. Muslims shouldn't be satisfied with anything other than a total Islamic state. 'I encourage all of you to begin to cultivate ourselves for the time that is fast approaching - where the tables are going to turn and the Muslims are going to be in the position of being uppermost in strength. And when that happens, people won't get killed - unjustly,' he promises. As for women, he says they are 'deficient, even if they have a PhD. Her intellect is incomplete. She may be suffering from hormones that will make her emotional. It takes two witnesses of a woman to equal the one witness of a man.' He goes on to say that gays deserve to die. 'If I were to call homosexuals perverted, dirty, filthy dogs who should be murdered ... that's my freedom of speech, isn't it?' The TV investigators also bought damning videos and DVDs of speeches by Muslim preachers from a shop at the London Central Mosque in Regent's Park. The mosque has always been hailed by the Muslim Council of Britain and the Government as a symbol of reason and mainstream Islamic life in this country. But the programme's team found copies of films of preachers decrying the equality of women as a 'bunch of foolishness' and claiming that Christian missionaries put the Aids virus into medicines in order to poison the people of Africa. The TV exposÃ©, like the Mail's own investigation in Surrey, shows that the systematic brainwashing of Muslims by their religious leaders is now commonplace. And it appears to be producing results. Twenty-eight per cent said they believed Britain should be an Islamic state. In another worrying sign, one in three young Muslims said that the London bombings were justified because Britain had joined America in the 'war on terror'.

UK Mosques. Part 3 Of 3
08:08
This investigation into Britain's mosques, by Channel 4's respected Dispatches programme,has revealed worrying evidence of just how rife Islamic extremism is among Muslim preachers. The undercover TV inquiry, conducted over ten months, reveals some religious clerics urging their congregations to start preparing for jihad (holy war) against infidels or non-Muslims. Another is caught on camera telling families to hit their daughters for not covering their heads with the veil or hijab. One imam from a Derby mosque, called Dr Ijaz Mian, was filmed calling for the creation of an Islamic 'state within a state' in Britain before the country is taken over by Muslims. Addressing a group of youths, he said: 'King. Queen. House of Commons ... if you accept it, you are part of it. If you don't accept it, you have to dismantle it. So you being a Muslim, you have to fix a target. There will be no House of Commons ... Muslims just grow in strength ... then take over.' The programme paints an alarming picture of how preachers, even at what are regarded as the most moderate mosques, urge their followers to reject Britain's legal system in favour of shariah law and its radical rulebook. The investigators spent four months filming undercover at one mosque, Green Lane in Birmingham, which caters for thousands of worshippers. The main preacher is Abu Usamah, an American convert to Islam, who studied at Medinah University in Saudi Arabia, before coming to Britain. He is seen telling worshippers not to believe that Islamic terrorists are operating in Britain, as all non-Muslims are liars. In another sequence, he is heard saying that Christians and Jews are 'kuffaars' (non-believers) and the enemies of Islam. 'No one loves the kuffaar, not a single person loves the kuffaar,' he rants. 'We hate the kuffaar!' Then he adds, triumphantly: 'Allah has not given those people who are kuffaar a way over the believer. They shouldn't be in authority over us. Muslims shouldn't be satisfied with anything other than a total Islamic state. 'I encourage all of you to begin to cultivate ourselves for the time that is fast approaching - where the tables are going to turn and the Muslims are going to be in the position of being uppermost in strength. And when that happens, people won't get killed - unjustly,' he promises. As for women, he says they are 'deficient, even if they have a PhD. Her intellect is incomplete. She may be suffering from hormones that will make her emotional. It takes two witnesses of a woman to equal the one witness of a man.' He goes on to say that gays deserve to die. 'If I were to call homosexuals perverted, dirty, filthy dogs who should be murdered ... that's my freedom of speech, isn't it?' The TV investigators also bought damning videos and DVDs of speeches by Muslim preachers from a shop at the London Central Mosque in Regent's Park. The mosque has always been hailed by the Muslim Council of Britain and the Government as a symbol of reason and mainstream Islamic life in this country. But the programme's team found copies of films of preachers decrying the equality of women as a 'bunch of foolishness' and claiming that Christian missionaries put the Aids virus into medicines in order to poison the people of Africa. The TV exposÃ©, like the Mail's own investigation in Surrey, shows that the systematic brainwashing of Muslims by their religious leaders is now commonplace. And it appears to be producing results. Twenty-eight per cent said they believed Britain should be an Islamic state. In another worrying sign, one in three young Muslims said that the London bombings were justified because Britain had joined America in the 'war on terror'.

**American Patriot** · January 16th, 2007, 15:04

UK Mosques. Part 1 Of 3.
09:37

This investigation into Britain's mosques, by Channel 4's respected Dispatches programme,has revealed worrying evidence of just how rife Islamic extremism is among Muslim preachers. The undercover TV inquiry, conducted over ten months, reveals some religious clerics urging their congregations to start preparing for jihad (holy war) against infidels or non-Muslims. Another is caught on camera telling families to hit their daughters for not covering their heads with the veil or hijab. One imam from a Derby mosque, called Dr Ijaz Mian, was filmed calling for the creation of an Islamic 'state within a state' in Britain before the country is taken over by Muslims. Addressing a group of youths, he said: 'King. Queen. House of Commons ... if you accept it, you are part of it. If you don't accept it, you have to dismantle it. So you being a Muslim, you have to fix a target. There will be no House of Commons ... Muslims just grow in strength ... then take over.' The programme paints an alarming picture of how preachers, even at what are regarded as the most moderate mosques, urge their followers to reject Britain's legal system in favour of shariah law and its radical rulebook. The investigators spent four months filming undercover at one mosque, Green Lane in Birmingham, which caters for thousands of worshippers. The main preacher is Abu Usamah, an American convert to Islam, who studied at Medinah University in Saudi Arabia, before coming to Britain. He is seen telling worshippers not to believe that Islamic terrorists are operating in Britain, as all non-Muslims are liars. In another sequence, he is heard saying that Christians and Jews are 'kuffaars' (non-believers) and the enemies of Islam. 'No one loves the kuffaar, not a single person loves the kuffaar,' he rants. 'We hate the kuffaar!' Then he adds, triumphantly: 'Allah has not given those people who are kuffaar a way over the believer. They shouldn't be in authority over us. Muslims shouldn't be satisfied with anything other than a total Islamic state. 'I encourage all of you to begin to cultivate ourselves for the time that is fast approaching - where the tables are going to turn and the Muslims are going to be in the position of being uppermost in strength. And when that happens, people won't get killed - unjustly,' he promises. As for women, he says they are 'deficient, even if they have a PhD. Her intellect is incomplete. She may be suffering from hormones that will make her emotional. It takes two witnesses of a woman to equal the one witness of a man.' He goes on to say that gays deserve to die. 'If I were to call homosexuals perverted, dirty, filthy dogs who should be murdered ... that's my freedom of speech, isn't it?' The TV investigators also bought damning videos and DVDs of speeches by Muslim preachers from a shop at the London Central Mosque in Regent's Park. The mosque has always been hailed by the Muslim Council of Britain and the Government as a symbol of reason and mainstream Islamic life in this country. But the programme's team found copies of films of preachers decrying the equality of women as a 'bunch of foolishness' and claiming that Christian missionaries put the Aids virus into medicines in order to poison the people of Africa. The TV exposÃ©, like the Mail's own investigation in Surrey, shows that the systematic brainwashing of Muslims by their religious leaders is now commonplace. And it appears to be producing results. Twenty-eight per cent said they believed Britain should be an Islamic state. In another worrying sign, one in three young Muslims said that the London bombings were justified because Britain had joined America in the 'war on terror'. http://www.channel4.com/news/dispatc...?id=1066#start

UK Mosques. Part 2 Of 3
07:31
This investigation into Britain's mosques, by Channel 4's respected Dispatches programme,has revealed worrying evidence of just how rife Islamic extremism is among Muslim preachers. The undercover TV inquiry, conducted over ten months, reveals some religious clerics urging their congregations to start preparing for jihad (holy war) against infidels or non-Muslims. Another is caught on camera telling families to hit their daughters for not covering their heads with the veil or hijab. One imam from a Derby mosque, called Dr Ijaz Mian, was filmed calling for the creation of an Islamic 'state within a state' in Britain before the country is taken over by Muslims. Addressing a group of youths, he said: 'King. Queen. House of Commons ... if you accept it, you are part of it. If you don't accept it, you have to dismantle it. So you being a Muslim, you have to fix a target. There will be no House of Commons ... Muslims just grow in strength ... then take over.' The programme paints an alarming picture of how preachers, even at what are regarded as the most moderate mosques, urge their followers to reject Britain's legal system in favour of shariah law and its radical rulebook. The investigators spent four months filming undercover at one mosque, Green Lane in Birmingham, which caters for thousands of worshippers. The main preacher is Abu Usamah, an American convert to Islam, who studied at Medinah University in Saudi Arabia, before coming to Britain. He is seen telling worshippers not to believe that Islamic terrorists are operating in Britain, as all non-Muslims are liars. In another sequence, he is heard saying that Christians and Jews are 'kuffaars' (non-believers) and the enemies of Islam. 'No one loves the kuffaar, not a single person loves the kuffaar,' he rants. 'We hate the kuffaar!' Then he adds, triumphantly: 'Allah has not given those people who are kuffaar a way over the believer. They shouldn't be in authority over us. Muslims shouldn't be satisfied with anything other than a total Islamic state. 'I encourage all of you to begin to cultivate ourselves for the time that is fast approaching - where the tables are going to turn and the Muslims are going to be in the position of being uppermost in strength. And when that happens, people won't get killed - unjustly,' he promises. As for women, he says they are 'deficient, even if they have a PhD. Her intellect is incomplete. She may be suffering from hormones that will make her emotional. It takes two witnesses of a woman to equal the one witness of a man.' He goes on to say that gays deserve to die. 'If I were to call homosexuals perverted, dirty, filthy dogs who should be murdered ... that's my freedom of speech, isn't it?' The TV investigators also bought damning videos and DVDs of speeches by Muslim preachers from a shop at the London Central Mosque in Regent's Park. The mosque has always been hailed by the Muslim Council of Britain and the Government as a symbol of reason and mainstream Islamic life in this country. But the programme's team found copies of films of preachers decrying the equality of women as a 'bunch of foolishness' and claiming that Christian missionaries put the Aids virus into medicines in order to poison the people of Africa. The TV exposÃ©, like the Mail's own investigation in Surrey, shows that the systematic brainwashing of Muslims by their religious leaders is now commonplace. And it appears to be producing results. Twenty-eight per cent said they believed Britain should be an Islamic state. In another worrying sign, one in three young Muslims said that the London bombings were justified because Britain had joined America in the 'war on terror'.

**American Patriot** · January 19th, 2007, 16:45

The Quranic Concept of War
Parameters, U.S. Army War College ^ | Winter 2006/2007 | JOSEPH C. MYERS

Review Essays

From Parameters, Winter 2006-07, pp. 108-27.
Joseph C. Myers, “The Quranic Concept of War,” pp. 108-21.
George H. Quester, “Asia's Nuclear Dilemma,” pp. 122-24.
Larry M. Wortzel, “Resolving China and Taiwan's Differences,” pp. 124-27

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/P...er/win-ess.htm

“The universalism of Islam, in its all-embracing creed, is imposed on the believers as a continuous process of warfare, psychological and political, if not strictly military. . . . The Jihad, accordingly, may be stated as a doctrine of a permanent state of war, not continuous fighting.”2 — Majid Khadduri

Political and military leaders are notoriously averse to theory, but if there is a theorist about war who matters, it remains Carl von Clausewitz, whose Vom Kriege (On War) has shaped Western views about war since the middle of the nineteenth century.”3 Both points are likely true and problematic since we find ourselves engaged in war with people not solely imbued with western ideas and values or followers of western military theorists. The Hoover Institution’s Paul Sperry recently stated, “Four years into the war on terror, US intelligence officials tell me there are no baseline studies of the Muslim prophet Muhammad or his ideological or military doctrine found at either the CIA or Defense Intelligence Agency, or even the war colleges.”4

Would this be surprising? When it comes to warfighting military audiences tend to focus on the military and power aspects of warfare; the tangibles of terrain, enemy, weather, leadership, and troops; quantifiables such as the number of tanks and artillery tubes—the correlation of forces. Analysts steer toward the familiar rather than the unfamiliar; people tend to think in their comfort zones. The study of ideology or philosophy is often brushed aside, it’s not the “stuff of muddy boots;” it is more cerebral than physical and not action oriented. Planners do not assess the “correlation of ideas.” The practitioners are too busy.

Dr. Antulio Echevarria recently argued the US military does not have a doctrine for war as much as it has a doctrine for operations and battles.5 The military has a deficit of strategic, and, one could add, philosophic thinking. In the war against Islamist terrorism, how many have heard of the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Project”?6 Is the political philosophy of Ayatollah Khomeini, who was in fact well-grounded in western political theory and rigorously rejected it, studied in our military schools? Are there any implications to his statement in 1981 that “Iran . . . is determined to propagate Islam to the whole world”?7

108-09

To understand war, one has to study its philosophy; the grammar and logic of your opponent. Only then are you approaching strategic comprehension. To understand the war against Islamist terrorism one must begin to understand the Islamic way of war, its philosophy and doctrine, the meanings of jihad in Islam—and one needs to understand that those meanings are highly varied and utilitarian depending on the source.

With respect to the war against the global jihad and its associated terror groups, individual terrorists, and clandestine adherents, one should ask if there is a unique method or attitude to their approach to war. Is there a philosophy, or treatise such as Clausewitz’s On War that attempts to form their thinking about war? Is there a document that can be reviewed and understood in such a manner that we may begin to think strategically about our opponent. There is one work that stands out from the many.

The Quranic Concept of War

The Quranic Concept of War, by Brigadier General S. K. Malik of the Pakistani Army provides readers with unequalled insight. Originally published in Pakistan in 1979, most available copies are found in India, or in small non-descript Muslim bookstores.8 One major point to ponder, when thinking about The Quranic Concept of War, is the title itself. The Quran is presumed to be the revealed word of God as spoken through his chosen prophet, Mohammed. According to Malik, the Quran places warfighting doctrine and its theory in a much different category than western thinkers are accustomed to, because it is not a theory of war derived by man, but of God. This is God’s warfighting principles and commandments revealed. Malik’s attempts to distill God’s doctrine for war through the examples of the Prophet. By contrast, the closest that Clausewitz comes to divine presentation is in his discussion of the trinity: the people, the state, and the military. In the Islamic context, the discussion of war is at the level of revealed truth and example, well above theory—God has no need to theorize. Malik notes, “As a complete Code of Life, the Holy Quran gives us a philosophy of war as well. . . . This divine philosophy is an integral part of the total Quranic ideology.”9

Historiography

In The Quranic Concept of War, Malik seeks to instruct readers in the uniquely important doctrinal aspects of Quranic warfare. The Quranic approach to war is “infinitely supreme and effective . . . [and] points towards the realization of universal peace and justice . . . and makes maximum allowance to its adversaries to co-operate [with Islam] in a combined search for a just and peaceful order.”10 For purposes of this review, the term “doctrine” refers to both religious and broad strategic approaches, not methods and procedures. Malik’s work is a treatise with historical, political, legalistic, and moralistic ramifications on Islamic warfare. It seemingly is without parallel in the western sense of warfare since the “Quran is a source of eternal guidance for mankind.”11

The approach is not new to Islamists and other jihad theorists fighting according to the “Method of Mohammed” or hadith. The lessons learned are recorded

109/10

and form an important part of Quranic surah and jihadist’s scholarship.12 Islamic scholars both Muslim and non-Muslim will find much to debate in terms of Malik’s view of jihad doctrine and Quranic warfare. Malik’s work is essentially modern scholarship; although he does acknowledge the classical views of jihad in many respects.13

Malik’s arguments are clearly parochial, often more editorial than scholarly, and his tone is decidedly confident and occasionally supremacist. The reach and influence of the author’s work is not clear although one might believe that given the idealism of his treatise, his approaches to warfare, and the role and ends of “terror” his text may resonate with extremist and radicals prone to use terroristic violence to accomplish their ends. For that reason alone, the book is worth studying.

Introduction

The preface by Allah Bukhsh K. Brohi, the former Pakistani ambassador to India, offers important insights into Malik’s exposition. In fact, Brohi’s 13-page preface lays the foundation for the books ten chapters. Malik places Quranic warfare in an academic context relative to that used by western theorists. He analyzes the causes and objects of war, as well as war’s nature and dimensions. He then turns attention to the ethics and strategy of warfare. Toward the end of the book he reviews the exercise of Quranic warfare based on the examples of the Prophet Mohammed’s military campaigns and concludes with summary observations. There are important jus en bellum and jus ad bellum implications in the author’s writings, as well as in his controversial ideas related to the means and objectives of war. It is these concepts that warrant the attention of planners and strategist.

Zia-Ul-Haq (1924-88), the former President of Pakistan and Pakistani Army Chief of Staff, opens the book by focusing on the concept of jihad within Islam and explaining it is not simply the domain of the military:

Jehad fi sabilallah is not the exclusive domain of the professional soldier, nor is it restricted to the application of military force alone.

This book brings out with simplicity, clarity and precision the Quranic philosophy on the application of military force within the context of the totality that is JEHAD. The professional soldier in a Muslim army, pursuing the goals of a Muslim state, cannot become ‘professional’ if in all his activities he does not take the ‘colour of Allah,’ The nonmilitary citizen of a Muslin state must, likewise, be aware of the kind of soldier that his country must produce and the only pattern of war that his country’s armed forces may wage.14

General Zia states that all Muslims play a role in jihad, a mainstream concept of the Quran, that jihad in terms of warfare is a collective responsibility of the Muslim ummah, and is not restricted to soldiers. General Zia emphasizes how the concept of Islamic military professionalism requires “godly character” in order to be fully achieved. Zia then endorses Malik’s thesis as the “only pattern of war,” or approach to war that an Islamic state may wage.

110/11

Battling Counter-initiatory Forces

In the preface Ambassador Brohi details what might be startling to many readers. He states that Malik has made “a valuable contribution to Islamic jurisprudence” or Islamic law, and an “analytic restatement of the Quranic wisdom on the subject of war and peace.” Brohi implies that Malik’s discussion, though a valuable new version, is an approach to a theme already well developed.15

Brohi then defines jihad, “The most glorious word in the Vocabulary of Islam is Jehad, a word which is untranslatable in English but, broadly speaking, means ‘striving’, ‘struggling’, ‘trying’ to advance the Divine causes or purposes.” He introduces a somewhat cryptic concept when he explains man’s role in a “Quranic setting” as energetically combating forces of evil or what may be called, “counter-initiatory” forces which are at war with the harmony and the purpose of life on earth.16 For the true Muslin the harmony and purpose in life are only possible through man’s ultimate submission to God’s will, that all will come to know, recognize, and profess Mohammed as the Prophet of God. Man must recognize the last days and acknowledge tawhid, the oneness of God.17

Brohi recounts the classic dualisms of Islamic theology; that the world is a place of struggle between good and evil, between right and wrong, between Haq and Na-Haq (truth and untruth), and between halal and haram (legitimate and forbidden). According to Brohi, it is the duty of man to opt for goodness and reject evil. Brohi appeals to the “greater jihad,” a post-classical jihad doctrine developed by the mystical Sufi order and other Shia scholars.18

Brohi places jihad in the context of communal if not imperial obligation; both controversial formulations:

When a believer sees that someone is trying to obstruct another believer from traveling the road that leads to God, spirit of Jehad requires that such a man who is imposing obstacles should be prevented from doing so and the obstacles placed by him should also be removed, so that mankind may be freely able to negotiate its own path that leads to Heaven.” To do otherwise, “by not striving to clear or straighten the path we [Muslims] become passive spectators of the counter-initiatory forces imposing a blockade in the way of those who mean to keep their faith with God.19

This viewpoint appears to reflect the classic, collective duty within jihad doctrine, to defend the Islamic community from threats—the concept of defensive jihad. Brohi is saying much more than that; however, he is attempting to delineate the duty—the proactive duty—to clear the path for Islam. It is necessary not only to defend the individual believer if he is being hindered in his faith, but also to remove the obstacles of those counter-initiatory forces hindering his Islamic development. This begs the question of what is actually meant by the initiatory forces. The answer is clear to Brohi; the force of initiative is Islam and its Muslim members. “It is the duty of a believer to carry forward the Message of God and to bring it to notice of his fellow-men in handsome ways. But if someone attempts to obstruct him from doing so he is entitled as a matter of defense, to retaliate.”20

111/12

This formulation would appear to turn the concept of defense on its head. To the extent that a Muslim may proclaim Islam and proselytize, or Islam, as a faith, seeks to extend its invitation and reach—initiate its advance—but is unable to do so, then that represents an overt threat justifying—a defensive jihad. According to Brohi, this does not result in the “ordinary wars which mankind has been fighting for the sake of either revenge or for securing . . . more land or more booty . . . [this] striving must be [is] for the sake of God. Wars in the theory of Islam are . . . to advance God’s purposes on earth, and invariably they are defensive in character.” In other words, everywhere the message of God and Islam is or can be hindered from expansion, resisted or opposed by some “obstruction” (a term not clearly defined) Islam is intrinsically entitled to defend its manifest destiny.21

While his logic is controversial, Brohi is not unique in his extrapolation. His theory in fact reflects the argument of Rashid Rida, a conservative disciple of the Egyptian Muhammad Abduh. In 1913 Abduh published an article evaluating Islam’s early military campaigns and determined that Islam’s early neighbors “prevented the proclamation of truth” engendering the defense of Islam. “Our religion is not like others that defend themselves . . . but our defense of our religion is the proclamation of truth and the removal of distortion and misrepresentation of it.”22

No Nation is Sovereign

The exegesis of the term jihad is often debated. Some apologists make clear that nowhere in the Quran does the term “Holy War” exist; that is true, but it is also irrelevant. War in Islam is either just or unjust and that justness depends on the ends of war. Brohi, and later Malik, make clear that the ends of war in Islam or jihad are to fulfill God’s divine purpose. Not only should that be a holy purpose, it must be a just war in order to be “Holy War.”23

The next dualism Brohi presents is that of Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb, the house of submission and the house of war. He describes the latter, as “perpetuating defiance of the Lord.” While explaining that conditions for war in Islam are limited (a constrained set of circumstances) he notes that “in Islam war is waged to establish supremacy of the Lord only when every other argument has failed to convince those who reject His will and work against the very purpose of the creation of mankind.”24 Brohi quotes the Quranic manuscript Surah, al-Tawba:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.25

Acknowledging western critics who believe that Islam is in a state of perpetual struggle with the non-Islamic world, Brohi counters in a clearly dismissive tone by explaining that man is the slave to God, and defying God is treason under Islamic law. Those who defy God should be removed from humanity like a cancerous growth. Islam requires believers “to invite non-believers to the fold of Islam” by using “persuasion” and “beautiful methods.” He continues, “the first duty” of a Muslim

112/13

is dawa, a proclamation to conversion by “handsome ways.” It is only after refusing dawa and the invitation to Islam that “believers have no option but in self-defense to wage a war against those threatening aggression.”

Obviously, much turns on how threats and aggression are characterized. It is difficult to understand, however, based on the structure of his argument, that Brohi views non-believers and their states as requiring conversion over time by peaceful means; and when that fails, by force. He is echoing the doctrine of Abd al-Salam Faraj, author of Al-Farida al-Ghaibah, better known as The Neglected Duty, a work that is widely read throughout the Muslim world.26

Finally, Brohi examines the concept of the ummah and the international system. “The idea of Ummah of Mohammad, the Prophet of Islam, is incapable of being realized within the framework of territorial states.” This is a consistent view that underpins many works on the concept of the Islamic state.27 For Muslims, the ummah is a transcendent religious and cultural society united and reflecting the unity (tawhid) of Islam; the idea of one God, indivisible, one community, one belief, and one duty to live and become godly. According to the Prophet, “Ummah participates in this heritage by a set pattern of thought, belief and practice . . . and supplies the spiritual principle of integration of mankind—a principle which is supra-national, supra-racial, supra-linguistic and supra-territorial.”28

With respect to the “law of war and peace in Islam” Brohi writes it “is as old as the Quran itself. . . . ” In his analysis of the law of nations and their international dealings, he emphasizes that in “Islamic international law this conduct [war and peace] is, strictly speaking, regulated between Muslims and non-Muslims, there being, from Islamic perspective, no other nation. . . . ” In other words, war is between Muslims and non-Muslims and not in actuality between states. It is transnational. He adds, “In Islam, of course, no nation is sovereign since Allah alone is the only sovereign in Whom all authority vests.”29 Here Brohi is echoing what Islamic scholars such as Majid Khadduri have described as the “dualism of the universal religion and universal state that is Islam.”30

The Divine Philosophy on War

General Malik begins by categorizing human beings into three archetypes: those who fear Allah and profess the Faith; those who reject the Faith; and those who profess, but are treacherous in their hearts. Examples of the Prophet and the instructions to him by God in his early campaigns should be studied to fully understand these three examples in practice. The author highlights the fact that the “divine philosophy on war” was revealed gradually over a 12 year period, its earliest guidance dealing with the causes and objects of war, while later guidance focused on Quranic strategy, the conduct of war, and the ethical dimensions of warfare.31

In Chapter Three, Malik reviews several key thoughts espoused by western scholars related to the causes of war. He examines the ideologies of Lenin, Geoffery Blainey, Quincy Wright, and Frederick H. Hartman each of whom spoke about war in a historical or material context with respect to the nature of the state system. Malik finds these explanations wanting and turns to the Quran for explanation, “war could only be

113/14

waged for the sake of justice, truth, law, and preservation of human society. . . . The central theme behind the causes of war . . . [in] the Holy Quran, was the cause of Allah.”32

The author recounts the progression of revelations by God to the Prophet that “granted the Muslims the permission to fight . . . .” Ultimately, God would compel and command Muslims to fight: “Fight in the cause of Allah.” In his analysis of this surah Malik highlights the fact that “new elements” were added to the causes of war: that in order to fight, Muslims must be “fought first;” Muslims are not to “transgress God’s limits” in the conduct of war; and everyone should understand that God views “tumult and oppression” of Muslims as “worse than slaughter.”33 This oppression was exemplified by the denial of Muslim’s right to worship at the Sacred Mosque by the early Arab Koraish, people of Mecca. Malik describes the situation in detail, “. . . the tiny Muslim community in Mecca was the object of the Koraish tyranny and oppression since the proclamation of Islam. . . . The enemy repression reached its zenith when the Koraish denied the Muslims access to the Sacred Mosque (the Ka’aba) to fulfill their religious obligations. This sacrilegious act amounted to an open declaration of war upon Islam. These actions eventually compelling the Muslims to migrate to Medina twelve years later, in 622 AD. . . .”34

Malik argues that the pagan Koraish tribe had no reason to prohibit Muslim worship, since the Muslims did not impede their form of worship. This historical example helps to further define the concept that “tumult and oppression is worse than slaughter” and as the Quran repeats, “graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members.” Malik also notes the Quran distinguishes those who fight “in the cause of Allah and those who reject Faith and fight in the cause of evil.”35 In terms of Quranic just war theory, war must be waged “only to fight the forces of tyranny and oppression.”36

Challenging Clausewitz’s notion that “policy” provides the context and boundary of war; Malik says it is the reverse, “‘war’ forced policy to define and determine its own parameters” and since that discussion focuses on parochial issues such as national interests, and the vagaries of state to state relations it is a lesser perspective. In the divine context of the Quran war orients on the spread of “justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere.” According to the author war is to be fought aggressively, slaughter is not the worst evil. In the course of war every opportunity for peace should be pursued and reciprocated. That is every remonstrance of peace by the enemies of Islam, but only as prescribed by the Quran’s “clear-cut philosophy and methodology” for preserving peace.37

Understanding the context in which the Quran describes and defines “justice and peace” is important. Malik refers the reader to the battle of Badr to elucidate these principles. There is peace with those pagans who cease hostilities, and war continues with those who refuse. He cites the following surah, “as long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them, for Allah doth love the righteous.”38 Referring to the precedent setting Hodaibayya treaty in the ninth year of the hijra, or pilgrimages to Mecca, Malik outlines how Allah and the Prophet abrogated those treaties with the pagan Meccans.

114/15

Pagans who accepted terms voluntarily without a treaty were respected. Those who refused, the Quran directed, were to be slain wherever found. This precedent and “revelations commanded the Muslims to fulfill their treaty commitments for the contracted period but put them under no obligations to renew them.”39 It also established the precedent that Muslims may conclude treaties with non-believers, but only for a temporary period.40 Commenting on western approaches to peace, Malik views such approaches as not standing the “test of time” with no worthwhile role to play even in the future.41 The author’s point is that peace between states has only secular, not divine ends; and peace in an Islamic context is achieved only for the promotion of Islam.

As the Prophet gained control of Mecca he decreed that non-believers could assemble or watch over the Sacred Mosque. He later consolidated power over Arabia and many who had not yet accepted Islam, “including Christians and Jew, [they] were given the option to choose between war and submission.” These non-believers were required to pay a poll-tax or jizya and accept the status of dhimmitude [servitude to Islam] in order to continue practicing their faith. According to Malik the taxes were merely symbolic and insignificant. In summarizing this relationship the author states, “the object of war is to obtain conditions of peace, justice, and faith. To do so it is essential to destroy the forces of oppression and persecution.”42 This view is in keeping with that outlined by Khadduri, “The jihad, it will be recalled, regarded war as Islam’s instrument to transform the dar al-harb into dar al-Islam . . . in Islamic legal theory, the ultimate objective of Islam is not war per se, but the ultimate establishment of peace.”43

The Nature of War

Malik argues that the “nature and dimension of war” is the greatest single characteristic of Quranic warfare and distinguishes it from all other doctrines. He acknowledges Clausewitz’s contribution to the understanding of warfare in its moral and spiritual context. The moral forces of war, as Clausewitz declared, are perhaps the most important aspects in war. Reiterating that Muslims are required to wage war “with the spirit of religious duty and obligation,” the author makes it clear that in return for fighting in the way of Allah, divine, angelic assistance will be rendered to jihad warriors and armies. At this point The Quranic Concept of War moves beyond the metaphysical to the supernatural element, unlike anything found in western doctrine. Malik highlights the fact that divine assistance requires “divine standards” on the part of the warrior mujahideen for the promise of Allah’s aid to be met.44

The author then builds upon the jihad warrior’s role in the realms of divine cause, purpose, and support, to argue that in order for the Muslim warrior to be unmatched, to be the bravest and the most fearless; he can only do so through the correct spiritual preparation, beginning with total submission to God’s will. The Quran reveals that the moral forces are the “real issues involved in the planning and conduct of war.”45 Malik quotes the Quran: “Fighting is prescribed for you . . . and ye dislike a thing which is good for you and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”

The Quran instructs the jihad warrior “to fight . . . with total devotion and never contemplate a flight from the battlefield for fear of death.” The jihad warrior,

115/16

who dies in the way of Allah, does not really die but lives on in heaven. Malik emphasizes this in several Quranic verses. “Think not of those who are slain in Allah’s way as dead. . . . Nay, they live finding their sustenance in the Presence of the Lord.” Malik also notes that “Not equal are those Believers . . . Allah has granted a higher grade to those who strive and fight . . . .”46

The Quranic dimensions of war are “revolutionary,” conferring on the jihad warrior a “personality so strong and overbearing as to prove themselves equal to, indeed dominate, every contingency in war.”47 This theme of spiritual preparation and pure belief has appeared in the prolific jihad writings of Usaman Dan Fodio in the early 1800s and repeated by the Saudi writer Abdallah al-Qadiri in 1992, both emphasizing the role of the “greater jihad.” Becoming a purer and more disciplined Muslim serves the cause of Islam better in peace and war.48

Malik, like Brohi, acknowledges critics who say that Islam has been “spread by the sword,” but he responds that Islam is spread through restraint in war and in “the use of force [that] have no parallel.” He then argues that restraint in warfare is a “two-sided affair.” Where the enemy (not defined) fails to exercise restraints and commits “excesses” (not defined) then “the very injunction of preserving and promoting peace and justice demands the use of limited force . . . . Islam permits the use of the sword for such purpose.”49 Since Malik is speaking in the context of active war and response to the “excesses of war” it is unclear what he means by “limited force” or response.

The author expands on the earlier ideas that moral and spiritual forces are predominate in war. He contrasts Islamic strategic approaches with western theories of warfare oriented toward the application of force, primarily in the military domain, as opposed to Islam where the focus is on a broader application of power. Power in Malik’s context is the power of jihad, which is total, both in the conduct of total war and in its supporting strategy; referred to as “total or grand strategy.” Malik provides the following definition, “Jehad is a continuous and never-ending struggle waged on all fronts including political, economic, social, psychological, domestic, moral and spiritual to attain the objectives of policy.”50 The power of jihad brings with it the power of God.

The Quranic concept of strategy is therefore divine theory. The examples and lessons to be derived from it may be found in the study of the classics, inspired by such events as the battles of the Prophet, e.g., Badr, Khandaq, Tabuk, and Hudaibiyya. Malik again references the divine assistance of Allah and the aid of angelic hosts. He refers to the battles of Hunain and Ohad as instances where seeming defeat was reversed and Allah “sent down Tranquility into the hearts of believers, that they may add Faith to their Faith.” Malik argues that divine providence steels the jihadi in war, “strengthens the hearts of Believers.” Calmness of faith, “assurance, hope, and tranquility” in the face of danger is the divine standard.51

Strike Terror into their Hearts

Malik uses examples to demonstrate that Allah will strike “terror into the hearts of Unbelievers.”52 At this point he begins to develop his most controversial and conjectural Quranic theory related to warfare—the role of terror. Readers need to understand that the author is thinking and writing in strategic terms, not in the vernacular

116/17

of battles or engagements. Malik continues, “when God wishes to impose His will on his enemies, He chooses to do so by casting terror into their hearts.”53 He cites another verse, “against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts) of the enemies of Allah . . . .” Malik’s strategic synthesis is specific: “the Quranic military strategy thus enjoins us to prepare ourselves for war to the utmost in order to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies, known or hidden, while guarding ourselves from being terror-stricken by the enemy.”54 Terror is an effect; the end-state.

Malik identifies the center of gravity in war as the “human heart, [man’s] soul, spirit, and Faith.” Note that Faith is capitalized, meaning more than simple moral courage or fortitude. Faith in this sense is in the domain of religious and spiritual faith; this is the center of gravity in war. The main weapon against this Islamic concept of center of gravity is “the strength of our own souls . . . [keeping] terror away from our own hearts.” In terms of achieving decisive and direct decisions preparing for this type of battlefield first requires “creating a wholesome respect for our Cause”—the cause of Islam. This “respect” must be seeded in advance of war and conflict in the minds of the enemies. Malik then introduces the informational, psychological, or perception management concepts of warfare. Echoing Sun Tzu, he states, that if properly prepared, the “war of muscle,” the physical war, will already be won by “the war of will.”55 “Respect” therefore is achieved psychologically by, as Brohi suggested earlier, “beautiful” and “handsome ways” or by the strategic application of terror.

When examining the theme of the preparatory stage of war, Malik talks of the “war of preparation being waged . . . in peace,” meaning that peacetime preparatory activities are in fact part of any war and “vastly more important than the active war.” This statement should not be taken lightly, it essentially means that Islam is in a perpetual state of war while peace can only be defined as the absence of active war. Malik argues that peace-time training efforts should be oriented on the active war(s) to come, in order to develop the Quranic and divine “Will” in the mujahid. When armies and soldiers find limited physical resources they should continue and emphasize the development of the “spiritual resources” as these are complimentary factors and create synergy for future military action.

Malik’s most controversial dictum is summarized in the following manner: in war, “the point where the means and the end meet” is in terror. He formulates terror as an objective principal of war; once terror is achieved the enemy reaches his culminating point. “Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose . . . .” Malik’s divine principal of Islamic warfare may be restated as “strike terror; never feel terror.” The ultimate objective of this form of warfare “revolves around the human heart, [the enemies] soul, spirit, and Faith.”56 Terror “can be instilled only if the opponent’s Faith is destroyed . . . . It is essential in the ultimate analysis, to dislocate [the enemies] Faith.” Those who are firm in their religious conviction are immune to terror, “a weak Faith offers inroads to terror.” Therefore, as part of preparations for jihad, actions will be oriented on weakening the non-Islamic’s “Faith,” while strengthening the Islamic’s. What that weakening or “dislocation” entails in practice remains ambiguous. Malik concludes, “Psychological dislocation is temporary; spiritual dislocation is permanent.” The soul of man can only be touched by terror.57

117/18

Malik then moves to a more academic discussion of ten general categories inherent in the conduct of Islamic warfare. These categories are easily translatable and recognizable to most western theorists; planning, organization, and conduct of military operations. In this regard, the author offers no unique insight. His last chapter is used to restate his major conclusions, stressing that “The Holy Quran lays the highest emphasis on the preparation for war. It wants us to prepare ourselves for war to the utmost. The test . . . lies in our capability to instill terror into the hearts of our enemies.”58

Evaluation of The Quranic Concept of War

While the extent and reach of Malik’s thesis cannot be confirmed in the Islamic world neither can it be discounted. Though controversial, his citations are accurately drawn from Islamic sources and consistent with classical Islamic jurisprudence.59 As Malik notes, “Quranic military thought is an integral and inseparable part of the total Quranic message.”60 Policy planners and strategists striving to understand the nature of the “Long War” should consider Malik’s writings in that light.

Malik makes clear that the Quran provides the doctrine, guidance, and examples for the conduct of Quranic or Islamic warfare. “It gives a strategy of war that penetrates deep down to destroy the opponents’ faith and render his physical and mental faculties totally ineffective.”61 Malik’s thesis focuses on the fact that the primary reason for studying the Quran is to gain a greater understanding of these concepts and insights. The Prophet Mohammed, as the Quran attests, changed the intent and objective of war—raising the sphere of war to a Godly plane and purpose; the global proclamation and spread of Islam. This obviously rejects the Clausewitizian politics and policy dyad: that war is simply policy of the state.

Quranic warfare is “just war.” It is jus en bellum and jus ad bellum if fought “in the way of Allah” for divine purposes and the ends of Islam. This contradicts the western philosophy of just war theory. Another important connotation is that jihad is a continuum, across peace and war. It is a constant and covers the spectrum from grand strategy to tactical; collective to the individual; from the preparatory to the execution phases of war.

Malik highlights the fact that the preservation of life is not the ultimate end or greatest good in Quranic warfare. Ending “tumult and oppression,” achieving the war aims of Islam through jihad is the desired end. Dying in this cause brings direct reward in heaven for the mujahid, sacrifice is sacred. It naturally follows that death is not feared in Quranic warfare; indeed, “tranquility” invites God’s divine aid and assistance. The “Base” of the Quranic military strategy is spiritual preparation and “guarding ourselves against terror.”62 Readers may surmise that the training camps of al Qaeda (The Base) were designed as much for spiritual preparation as military. One needs only to recall the example of Mohammed Atta’s “last night” preparations.63

The battleground of Quranic war is the human soul—it is religious warfare. The object of war is to dislocate and destroy the [religious] “Faith” of the enemy. These principals are consistent with objectives of al Qaeda and other radical Islamic organizations. “Wars in the theory of Islam are . . . to advance God’s purposes on earth, and invariably they are defensive in character.”64 Peace treaties in theory are

118/19

temporary, pragmatic protocols. This treatise acknowledges Islam’s manifest destiny and the approach to achieving it.

General Malik’s thesis in The Quranic Concept of War can be fundamentally described as “Islam is the answer.” He makes a case for war and the revitalization of Islam. This is a martial exegesis of the Quran. Malik like other modern Islamists are, at root, romantics. They focus on the Quran for jihad a doctrine that harkens back to the time of the Prophet and the classical-jihadist period when Islam enjoyed its most successful military campaigns and rapid growth.

The book’s metaphysical content borders on the supernatural and renders “assured expectations” that cannot be evaluated or tested in the arena of military experience. Incorporating “divine intervention” into military campaigns, while possibly advantageous, cannot be calculated as an overt force multiplier. Critics may also point to the ahistorical aspect of Malik’s thesis; that Islam is in a state of constant struggle with the non-Islamic world. There are examples of Muslim armies serving side by side with Christian armies in combat and campaigns are numerous, with Iraq being but a recent example.65

Malik’s appraisal of the Quran as a source of divine revelation for victory in war can likewise be criticized by historical example. Were it fully true and operationalized then the 1,400 years of Islamic military history might demonstrate something beyond its present state. War and peace in Islam has ebbed and flowed as has the conduct of war across all civilizations, ancient and modern. Islam as an independent military force has been in recession since 1492, although the latest jihadist’s threat of terror against the international system is, at least in part, a possible reaction to this long recession. Malik’s thesis essentially recognizes this historical pattern; indeed, Malik’s book may be an attempt to reverse this trend. The events of 9/11 may be seen as a validation of Malik’s thesis regarding the spiritual preparation and the use of terror. The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were intended to seed “respect” (fear) in the minds of Islam’s enemies. These acts were not only directed at Western non-believers, but also the Muslim leaders who “profess the faith but are treacherous in their hearts” (allies and supporters of the United States). The barbarity of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and others in Iraq reflect a focus on extreme terror designed to wilt the will of Islam’s enemies.

Malik and Brohi both emphasize the defensive nature of jihad in Islam, but this position appears to be more a defense of a manifest destiny inevitably resulting in conflict. In their rendering of jihad both, not surprisingly, owe an intellectual debt to the Pakistani Islamist theorist, Abu al-Ala al-Mawdudi. Al-Mawdudi is an important intellectual precursor to the Muslim Brotherhood, Sayyid Qutb, and other modern Islamic revivalists. As al-Mawdudi notes, “Islamic jihad is both offensive and defensive” oriented on liberating man from humanistic tyranny.66

The author’s most controversial and, perhaps, most noteworthy assertion, is the distinction of “terror” as an ends rather than as a means to an end. The soul can only be touched by terror. Malik’s divine principal of war may be summarized in the dictum “strike terror; never feel terror.” Yet, he does not describe any specific method of delivering terror into the heart of Islam’s enemies. His view of terror seems to conflict with his earlier, limited, discussion of the concept of restraint in warfare and what actually

119/20

constitutes “excesses” on the part of an enemy. It also conflicts with the character and nature of response that the author says is demanded. Malik leaves many of these pertinent issues undefined under a veneer of legitimating theory.

In spite of certain ambiguities and theoretical weaknesses, this work should be studied and valued for its insight and analysis relate to jihadists’ concepts and the asymmetric approach to war that radical Muslims may adapt and execute. With respect to global jihad terrorism, as the events of 9/11 so vividly demonstrated, there are those who believe and will exercise the tenets of The Quranic Concept of War.

NOTES

1. Brigadier S. K. Malik, The Quranic Concept of War (Lahore, Pakistan: Associated Printers, 1979). Quranic War or Quranic Warfare refers to Malik’s treatment in his book.

2. Majid Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam (Baltimore, Md.: John Hopkins Press, 1955), p. 64.

3. R. D. Hooker, “Beyond Vom Kriege: The Character and Conduct of Modern War,” Parameters, 35 (Summer 2005), 4.

4. Paul Sperry, “The Pentagon Breaks the Islam Taboo,” FrontPage Magazine, 14 December 2005, http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=20539.

5. Antulio Echevarria, Towards an American Way of War (Carlisle, Pa.: US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute, March 2004).

6. Patrick Poole, “The Muslim Brotherhood ‘Project,’” FrontPage Magazine, 11 May 2006, http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=22415.

7. Farhand Rajaee, Islamic Values and World View: Khomeyni on Man the State and International Politics,” (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1983), p 71.

8. Irfan Yusuf, “Theories on Islamic Books You Wouldn’t Read About,” Canberra Times, 21 July 2005, http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/det...y=editorial%20 opinion&story_id=410105&y=2005&m=7.

9. Malik, pp. I-ii.

10. Ibid., p. 1.

11. Ibid., pp. I-ii.

12. See for example the discussion by Dr. Mary R. Habeck, “Jihadist Strategies in the War on Terrorism,” The Heritage Foundation, 8 November 2004, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Nat...rity/hl855.cfm.

13. David Cook, Understanding Jihad, (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 2005). There is approximately 1,400 years of jihad scholarship beginning with Mohammed and his military campaigns. Classical approaches to jihad as described by Mohammed’s successors, Abu Bakr for example, and the challenges presented by the struggles of succession to Mohammed.

14. Malik “Forward.”

15. Ibid., “Preface,” p. I.

16. Ibid., p. I. Note the Christian concept of the Trinity contained in the Nicene Creed is considered polytheistic according to Islam. The Trinity is not tawhid.

17. John Esposito, Islam, the Straight Path (3d ed.; New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1998), pp. 12-14, 89.

18. Bernard Lewis, The Political Language of Islam (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1988), p. 72; Khadduri, pp. 65, 70-72; Cook, Understanding Jihad, pp. 35-39.

19. Brohi, “Preface,” p. ii.

20. Ibid., p. iii.

21. Ibid., p. iii.

22. Cook, pp. 95-96. Cook places these concepts of jihad doctrine in the lineage of contemporary and radical theory.

23. The indexed term for jihad is redirected to the term “Holy War” in this classic book of Islamic law or sharia by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, Reliance of the Traveller, ed. and trans. Nuh Ha Mim Keller (Beltsville, Md.: Amana Publication, 1997).

24. Malik, “Preface,” p. v.

25. Ibid., p. vii.

26. Cook, p. 107; Christoper Henzel, “The Origins of al Qaeda’s Ideology: Implications for US Strategy,” Parameters, 35 (Spring 2005), 69-80.

27. Ishtiaq Ahmed, The Concept of an Islamic State: An Analysis of the Ideological Controversy in Pakistan (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1987).

120/21

28. Malik, “Preface,” p. x. While in the Western tradition the state is viewed as a territorial and political body, based on “temporal elements such as shared memory, language, race, or the mere choice of its members.” Khomeini rejected this view, seeing the secular, political state and nationalism as Western constructs of imperialistic design to damage the cohesion of the ummah and impede the “advancement of Islam.” Rajaee, pp. 7, 67-71.

29. Ibid., p. x.

30. Khadduri, p. 63.

31. Malik, p. 6.

32. Ibid., p. 20.

33. Ibid., pp. 20-21. (Baqara: 190).

34. Malik, p. 11.

35. Ibid., p. 22. (Baqara: 217) and (Nissaa: 76).

36. Ibid., p. 23.

37. Ibid., p. 29.

38. Malik, p. 29. (Tauba: 7).

39. Ibid., p. 31.

40. Khadduri, p. 212. Jurists disagree on the allowable duration of treaties, the operative concept is that the dar al-Harb must be reduced to dar al-Islam over time.

41. Malik, p. 27.

42. Ibid., pp. 33-34.

43. Khadduri, p. 141.

44. Malik, p. 40

45. Ibid., pp. 37-38. (Baqara: 216).

46. Ibid., pp. 42-44. (Al-I-Imran: 169-70) and (Nissa: 95).

47. Ibid., pp. 42-44.

48. Cook, pp. 77, 124.

49. Malik, p. 49.

50. Ibid., p. 54.

51. Ibid., p. 57.

52. Malik, p. 57.

53. Ibid., p. 57.

54. Ibid., p. 58.

55. Ibid., p. 58.

56. Ibid., pp. 58-59.

57. Ibid., p. 60.

58. Ibid., p. 144.

59. Rudolph Peters, Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam (Princeton, N.J.: Markus Weiner Publishers, 1996), pp. 44-51, 128.

60. Malik, p. 3.

61. Ibid., p. 146.

62. Ibid., p.58.

63. “In Hijacker’s Bags, a Call to Planning, Prayer and Death,” Washington Post, 28 September 2001.

64. Malik, “Preface,” p. iii.

65. Four notable examples are the Crimean War where French, British and Ottoman Forces allied against the Russians; Fuad Pasha of the Ottoman Army served as a coalition partner with French Army during the 1860 Rebellion in Syria; more recently Muslim Arab and Kabyle soldiers served in the Harkis of the French Army in the French-Algerian War; and, of course, today in Iraq. Malik would address some of these events as alliances of convenience serving Islam’s interests in accord with the Quran and Sharia Law, others as takfir or treason.

66. Cook, pp. 99-103. Peters, p. 130.

The Reviewer: Lieutenant Colonel Joseph C. Myers is the Senior Army Advisor to the Air Command and Staff College, Maxwell AFB, Alabama. A graduate of the US Military Academy he holds a Master of Arts from Tulane University. In 2004 he completed a Senior Army Fellowship at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies. Previous assignments include Army Section Chief, US Military Group, Argentina. He also served as Chief of the South America Division and Senior Military Analyst for Colombia at the Defense Intelligence Agency.

121/22

**American Patriot** · January 23rd, 2007, 15:16

Islamic Prejudice, Islamic Denial
Frontpage Magazine ^ | 1/23/07 | Robert Spencer

For last weekâ€™s â€œDispatchesâ€ program on Britainâ€™s Channel Four, a reporter with a hidden camera entered Birminghamâ€™s Green Lane mosque (which has won praise from Britainâ€™s Muslim peer, Lord Ahmed) and other leading mosques in Britain. He found they preached Islamic supremacism, hatred of Jews and Christians, and the subjugation of women.

The mosques, of course, are in heavy damage-control mode. A press release at the Green Lane mosque website complains that â€œit is extremely disappointing but not at all surprising that â€˜Dispatchesâ€™ has chosen to portray Muslims in the worst possible light. â€˜Dispatchesâ€™ has opted for sensationalism over substance with total disregard for peaceful community relations.â€ And not only that: â€œThis so-called â€˜undercoverâ€™ investigation merely panders to age-old anti-Muslim prejudices by employing the time-honoured tradition of cherry picking statements and presenting them in the most inflammatory manner.â€

The statement doesnâ€™t address the obvious fact that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to cherry-pick statements anywhere near as hateful and inflammatory as those recorded in the Green Lane mosque from proceedings in any Jewish, Christian, Hindu, or Buddhist house of worship.

Among the statements recorded in the Green Lane mosque were these about women:

â€œAllah has created the woman â€“ even if she gets a Ph.D. â€“ deficient. Her intellect is incomplete, deficient. She may be suffering from hormones that will make her emotional. It takes two witnesses of a woman to equal the one witness of the man.â€

â€œBy the age of ten, it becomes an obligation on us to force her to wear hijab, and if she doesnâ€™t wear hijab, we hit her.â€

â€œMen are in charge of women. Wherever he goes she should follow him, and she shouldnâ€™t be allowed leave the house without his permission.â€

How inflammatory! How extremist! And how inveterately Qurâ€™anic!

The Muslim holy book declares that a womanâ€™s testimony is worth half that of a man: â€œGet two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind herâ€ (Qurâ€™an 2:282). It also says that men are in charge of women, and that disobedient women should be beaten: â€œMen are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge themâ€ (4:34).

The same is true of other statements made in the mosque, including these about Britain and the Islamic state:

â€œYou have to live like a state within a state until you take over.â€ â€œWe want the laws of Islam to be practiced, we want to do away with the man-made laws.â€ â€œMuslims shouldnâ€™t be satisfied with living in other than the total Islamic state.â€ â€œI encourage all of you to be from amongst them, to begin to cultivate ourselves for the time that is fast approaching where the tables are going to turn and the Muslims are going to be in the position of being uppermost in strength, and when that happens, people wonâ€™t get killed â€“ unjustly.â€ â€œAllah has decreed this thing, that I am going to be dominant. The dominance of course is a political dominance.â€

Such statements have been vividly expressed in the writings of twentieth century jihad theorists such as the Egyptian Sayyid Qutb and the Pakistani Syed Abul Ala Maududi. Said Qutb:

It is not the function of Islam to compromise with the concepts of Jahiliyya [the society of unbelievers] which are current in the world or to co-exist in the same land together with a jahili systemâ€¦.Islam cannot accept any mixing with Jahiliyyah. Either Islam will remain, or Jahiliyyah; no half-half situation is possible. Command belongs to Allah, or otherwise to Jahiliyyah; Allahâ€™s Shariâ€™a [law] will prevail, or else peopleâ€™s desiresâ€¦The foremost duty of Islam is to depose Jahiliyyah from the leadership of manâ€¦.

Maududi likewise wrote that non-Muslims have â€œabsolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of Godâ€™s earth, nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines.â€ If they do, â€œthe believers would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life.â€

But Qutb and Maududi did not originate these ideas. They are an extrapolation of Qurâ€™anic passages such as 9:29, which assumes that Muslims will wield state power over Jews and Christians, exacting from them a poll tax (jizya) and making sure that they pay it â€œwith willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.â€ There is no concept in the Qurâ€™an, Islamic tradition, or Islamic law of non-Muslims living as equals with Muslims in an Islamic state: Muslims must be in a superior position. The Muslim prophet Muhammad emphasized this when he told his followers:

Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy warâ€¦When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against themâ€¦If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allahâ€™s help and fight them. (Sahih Muslim 4294)

Of course, there are many ways to understand all these passages and others like them. But the fact that the views expressed by the Muslims in the Channel Four documentary can be found in the Islamic scriptures without much effort suggests that the problem is far larger than a few mosques that were thought to be â€œmoderateâ€ but turn out to be â€œextremist.â€ It is a problem that is deeply rooted within traditional Islam, and must be treated as such. Muslims in Britain who sincerely reject the idea that Islam must be dominant and that Islamic law must be instituted in Britain, and that women and non-Muslims must be subjugated, and who accept the idea that non-Muslims and Muslims should live together as equals on an indefinite basis, should not condemn the â€œDispatchesâ€ documentary. Instead, they should welcome it as a opportunity not only to expel â€œextremistsâ€ from their ranks, and to formulate a comprehensive rejection and refutation of their literalist understanding of the Qurâ€™an and Sunnah.

But so far they are not doing that. Instead, the Muslim Council of Britain, the Muslim Public Affairs Committee of the United Kingdom, the Federation of Student Islamic Societies, and the UK Islamic Mission have all denounced the program as â€œIslamophobic.â€ None have taken even a single step to combat the spread of the understanding of Islam depicted in the show, or to mitigate the elements of Islam that incite to violence and inculcate Islamic supremacism.

And that itself is very, very telling.

**American Patriot** · January 26th, 2007, 16:33

**American Patriot** · February 9th, 2007, 15:09

Special Dispatch Series - No. 1454
February 7, 2007	No.1454

Abu Omar Al-Baghdadi: 'We Find No [Blood] Sweeter Than That of the Byzantines [i.e. Christians]' On February 3, 2007, Islamist websites posted a 23-minute audio recording by Emir Al-Muaminin (i.e. Commander of the Believers) Abu Omar Al-Baghdadi, whom Al-Qaeda has appointed "head of the Islamic State of Iraq." The recording, dated February 2, 2007 and titled, "Victory from Allah, Victory is Near," was issued by the Islamic State's media company Al-Furqan. In his address, Al-Baghdadi announces that the jihad arena will be extended beyond the boundaries of Baghdad. He also calls on Sunni youth to join the war against the "Crusader" forces, urges the mujahideen who have not yet done so to pledge allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq, and declares war on the "Persians," whom he characterizes as an enemy worse than the Christians. The following are excerpts from his speech: "We [hereby] inform the Sunnis of a [new] plan called the Plan of Honor, which is more comprehensive and more perfect [than the existing plan] and includes not only Baghdad but all parts of the Islamic State [of Iraq]... [This plan] will end with Bush announcing the failure of his [security] plan and signing an agreement of defeat... The goals of the plan are: to defend our people and our honor; to rout out the invaders and eradicate the remaining pockets and bases of heresy; to butcher the wounded Crusader tyrant and take advantage of the collapse of morale among [the Crusader] soldiers and commanders; to unite the ranks of the mujahideen and to strengthen the foundations of the Islamic State [of Iraq]. "Oh Muslim youths, remember the cut up bodies of the children, the voices of their bereaved [parents] and the anguished cries of the elderly. Let the volcano of your wrath burst forth. Burn the ground beneath the feet of the Jews and their helpers, eradicate their army, destroy their equipment, down their planes, ambush them in their homes, in the wadis and on the roads. Hide in the darkness of night and turn their morning into hell... We are not afraid of your coalitions...We have drunk blood [in the past], and we find no [blood] sweeter than that of the Byzantines [i.e. Christians]... Roast their flesh with car bombs, cut off their supply lines with [explosive] charges and tear out their hearts with sniper fire. Know that offense is the best [form of] defense, and be careful not to lay down your weapons before the war is over... We are not fighting out of nationalism, but with the aim of making Allah's word supreme. "To the mujahideen who have not yet pledged allegiance to the Islamic State [of Iraq], I wish to say that they are our brothers and we defend them with our bodies and tongues and do not [mean to] accuse them of heresy or corruption. But we regard their tardiness in rising to the demand of the hour - which is to unite, to adhere to the [way] of Allah and to join their brothers in the Islamic State [of Iraq] - as defiance, especially now that the infidels have united their ranks... "O Islamic nation, we now stand where the Prophet and his companions stood in the beginning of the Medina period [when the jihad began]. Our war with the Persians has [now] begun just like our war with the Byzantines, only the Persian rule is [even] more depraved and despicable than that of the Byzantines... "Your brother, "Abu Omar Al-Qurashi Al-Husseini Al-Baghdadi "Muharram 14, 1428 [February 2, 2007]"

**American Patriot** · February 9th, 2007, 15:11

Insulting Allah Now a Crime at SFSU
Front Page Magazine ^ | Feb. 9th, 2007 | Little Green Footballs

At San Francisco State University, you can do anything you want to a US flag or a Christian religious symbol: burn it, deface it, submerge it in bodily fluids. It’s all good. But step on paper copies of Hamas and Hizballah flags, and you’re in a world of hurt. (Hat tip: zombie.)

Not because they’re flags, though. Because they contain the world “Allah.”
This story starts with an “anti-terrorism rally” held last October on campus by the College Republicans. To emphasize their point, students stomped on Hezbollah and Hamas flags. According to the college paper, the Golden Gate (X)Press, members of Students Against War and the International Socialist Organization showed up to call the Republicans “racists,” while the president of the General Union of Palestinian Students accused the Repubs of spreading false information about Muslims.

In November, the Associated Students board passed a unanimous resolution, which the (X)Press reported, denounced the California Republicans for “hateful religious intolerance” and criticized those who “pre-meditated the stomping of the flags knowing it would offend some people and possibly incite violence.”

Now you know that there are students who are opposed to desecrating flags on campus — that is, if the flags represent terrorist organizations.

But wait — there’s more. A student filed a complaint with the Office of Student Programs and Leadership Development. OSPLD Director Joey Greenwell wrote to the College Republicans informing them that his office had completed an investigation of the complaint and forwarded the report to the Student Organization Hearing Panel, which will adjudicate the charge. At issue is the charge that College Republicans had walked on “a banner with the world ‘Allah’ written in Arabic script” — it turns out Allah’s name is incorporated into Hamas and Hezbollah flags — and “allegations of attempts to incite violence and create a hostile environment,” as well as “actions of incivility.”

At an unnamed date, the student panel could decide to issue a warning to, suspend or expel the GOP club from campus. ...

The university’s response? Spokesperson Ellen Griffin told me, “The university stands behind this process.”

And: “I don’t believe the complaint is about the desecration of the flag. I believe that the complaint is the desecration of Allah.”

**American Patriot** · February 9th, 2007, 15:19

I'm going to say this.

Allah doesn't exist. He is a figment of the imaginations of a whole lot of idiots. All Muslims are hateful, biggoted -- and even EVIL because they can't be tolerant of others.

NOW they are basically trying to force the population of America to be "tolerant" of them, when they kill Christians, Jews and innocents who don't believe in ANYTHING whatsoever.

I don't see anyone stopping idiots from putting Crucifixes in jars of urine, or from throwing feces on images of the Virgin Mary. I don't see this university stopping anti-American asswipes from buring and desecrating the Flag of the United States of America.

Is THIS, people, what we want to see in America?

Is this freedom of speech? Or is it a perversion of what "Freedom of speech" means?

It's a perversion.

If someone has the right to burn MY FLAG and I can do nothing about it, then by GOD I have the right to desecrate their so-called religious symbols. I've had it with these morons and their "tolerant ways".

Leftists in America... watch out. Your time is at hand. Americans are NOT going to stand around and let you get away with this crap.

Muslims... take your idol Allah and haul ASS back to your third world countries. If you don't, one day you're going to push one button too many and Americans WILL stand united against this crap.

Right now, I swear I will NOT accept Islam. EVER. I will not do it, and I double-dog DARE you to try to MAKE me to do it.

America! Wake up. You've got to stand for SOMETHING or you'll FALL for ANYTHING!

**American Patriot** · February 9th, 2007, 16:06

from Jihad Watch @ http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015184.php

February 08, 2007

Al Qaeda: "We will cleanse the Arabian Gulf of the presence of crusaders"

Also known as the Persian Gulf. "Al Qaeda plans 'major operations' in the Gulf," from AFP:

DUBAI - The Saudi branch of Al Qaeda announced on Thursday that it is planning major operations aimed at driving Western interests out of the Arabian Gulf, according to an online statement.

â€œWe have for some time been in the process of preparing major operations that will weaken the crusadersâ€™ bases in the Arabian Gulf,â€ said the Al Qaeda Organisation in the Gulf.

â€œWe will cleanse the Arabian Gulf of the presence of crusaders and of their bases, which are scattered around the cradle of Islam. We promise our leader, Osama bin Laden, to continue on the same road. Your soldiers are preparing something in which you will rejoice.â€

The statement was carried in the movementâ€™s online magazine, Sawt al-Jihad (the Voice of Jihad).

Al Qaeda has been responsible for a wave of violence that has shaken the oil-rich Saudi kingdom since May 2003.

Posted by Marisol at February 8, 2007 01:19 PM

**American Patriot** · February 9th, 2007, 19:09

Jihad, Hypocrisy and Double-Standards
CaliforniaRepublic.org ^ | 2/9/07 | Bruce S. Thornton

Acceptance of a double standard has always been a sign of inferiority. To let someone behave according to one set of principles or values while demanding that you be subjected to others is to validate a claim of superiority that justifies the inconsistent and unfair behavior. A double standard can also reflect incoherent thinking, a failure to apply consistently a principle that presumably has universal validity. In the Westâ€™s struggle with Islamic jihad, doubts about the superiority of Western values have coupled with a breakdown in ethical reasoning. The result is the appeasement of jihadist aggression and the confirmation of the jihadist estimation of the Westâ€™s corruption.

Thatâ€™s why many Muslims demand from Westerners a hypersensitivity to Islam, all the while that Christians and Jews in Muslim countries are subjected to harassment, assault, and the looniest kinds of slander and insult. In the West, respect for Muslim ways such as the veil for women is supposed to be granted as a self-evident right beyond argument or debate. Yet Western ideals and values, such as the equality of the sexes, are derided, disrespected, and rejected as self-evident evils. The worst inconsistencies, however, involve the violation of core Western ideals, most importantly free speech. Many Muslims demand the right to deny the Holocaust, recycle Nazi-era anti-Semitic drivel, characterize Christianity as polytheistic idolatry, and excoriate a decadent, corrupt Western civilization. But no such criticism of Mohammed or Islam is tolerated, and in fact is met with violence and threats.

The past few years have seen numerous examples, from the riots over the extremely mild political cartoons featuring Mohammed, to the uproar over the Popeâ€™s quotation of a Byzantine emperor. The exercise of free speech in all these cases is met with rage, violence, and hysterical demands of â€œrespectâ€ for Islam, but there is no reciprocal respect for Western values. And for the most part, we in the West go along with this double standard, and thus accept the logic of the jihadist position: we are weak and unsure of our beliefs. Our craven behavior is a sign of our inferior status and our justified subjection to those who passionately believe in the rightness of their faith.

Letâ€™s be clear on the roots of this cowardly responseâ€“â€“the West has lost its faith. We have created John Lennonâ€™s juvenile utopia in which there is â€œnothing to kill or die for, and no religion too.â€ Shorn of transcendent validation, now all our beliefs are contingent and negotiable, easily traded away for security or comfort. At the same time, the therapeutic mentality bestows on the non-Western â€œotherâ€ a finely calibrated sensitivity to his culture, no matter how dysfunctional, all the while it refuses to extend such consideration to its own. Why would it? Havenâ€™t generations of Western intellectuals and artists told the world how corrupt and evil the West is? Having culturally internalized this self-loathing, we are vulnerable to those who are filled with passionate intensity about the rightness of their beliefs and the payback due to us for our various historical sins such as colonialism or imperialism or globalization. And then we wonder why the jihadist considers us ripe for conquest, and destined to be subjected to the superior values of Islam.

Consider the following cautionary tale, from San Francisco State. Last October the College Republicans held an anti-terrorism rally during which posters painted to look like the flags of the terrorist gangs Hamas and Hezbollah were walked on. Since those flags have the name of Allah in Arabic, a complaint was filed in which the College Republicans were accused of â€œincitement,â€ â€œcreation of a hostile environment,â€ and â€œincivility.â€ The complaint is now headed for trial before one of those campus star chambers created to monitor and police student behavior.

You donâ€™t have to be a Constitutional scholar to see that this investigation is a gross violation of the studentsâ€™ First Amendment right to free speech. This sort of institutional intervention creates what the ACLU**â€“â€“which never seems to make a peep about this sort of â€œprogressiveâ€ censorshipâ€“â€“likes to call a â€œchilling effect.â€ The Vice President of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Robert Shilbey, has pointed out the obvious: â€œAt a public university, stepping on a flagâ€”even burning an American flagâ€”is without question a constitutionally protected act of political protest. The right to protest is at the very heart of the First Amendment, and means nothing if only inoffensive expression is permitted.â€

Hereâ€™s where the double standards and incoherence of much politically correct behavior comes in. On any college campus in this country, every day, inside of class and out, you can encounter speech that is â€œinsensitive,â€ â€œuncivil,â€ or â€œhostile.â€ But of course, this speech is directed towards Christians, or â€œconservatives,â€ or Israel, or Republicans, or â€œstraight white males.â€ Nobody attempts to censor this speech or haul people before tribunals to answer vague charges such as â€œincivility,â€ which will be defined according to the subjective standards of the complainants. And if someone does complain, the faculty and administration will immediately go into high dudgeon mode and start preaching the glories of unfettered free speech no matter how offensive. In other words, free speech for me but not for thee.

But the ill effects of this hypocrisy are nothing compared to the damage done when the institution caters to the unreasonable demands of those Muslims who, convinced of their spiritual superiority and righteousness, are active enemies of the West and think they are justified in imposing their standards on everybody else, even if those standards violate a core political value such as free speech. And when the appeasement comes from the university, which supposedly exists in order to foster what Matthew Arnold called â€œthe free play of the mind on all subjects,â€ the message is quite clear: we donâ€™t really believe in all these goods we profess and benefit from, but we will abandon them at the first threat. And if we donâ€™t believe in them, why should the jihadist?

**American Patriot** · February 9th, 2007, 19:16

Iranâ€™s Muslim Leaders: Hate Speech and Intolerance a Regular Diet in Classrooms
Peace and Freedom ^ | February 9, 2007 | John E. carey

Even though I live near and enjoy the friendship of several Muslims, I do not understand the Muslim intolerance for almost all things not their own.

More fairly, I do not understand the extreme intolerance of the radicalized textbooks and teaching aids used in several Muslim nation; Iran chief among them.

The Israel-based Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace just completed a study that reports on the lack of tolerance in Iranâ€™s school textbooks.

The study analyzed 95 textbooks and 20 teacherâ€™s guides used at Iranâ€™s state-run schools.

The study found a systematic effort to denigrate western culture, traditions and religions.

To he surprise of few who are informed on the topic, the study also found that Iranâ€™s school textbooks repeatedly refer to the United States as the â€œGreat Satanâ€ and to Israel as â€œthe regime that occupies Jerusalem.â€ In fact, most Americans would call a lot of what can be found in Iranâ€™s school textbooks as â€œhate speech.â€

(Excerpt) Read more at johnib.wordpress.com ...

**American Patriot** · February 9th, 2007, 19:17

Study says Iran textbooks urge martyrdom
Associated Press ^ | 02/09/07 | THOMAS WAGNER

Textbooks used in Iran's schools are instilling students with hatred toward the West, especially the United States, and urging them to become "martyrs" in a global holy war against countries perceived to be enemies of Islam, a new study says.

An Iranian human rights activist, Ghazal Omid, praised the findings, saying they prove hard-liners in Iran are using the books to turn children into "ticking bombs."

However, a U.S. academic who specializes in Iran and Islam, and a former Iranian teacher said they believe the textbooks are a reflection of Iran's history and its deep suspicions of the West, not an effort to turn students into terrorists.

The books emphasize the teachings of the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and repeatedly refer to the United States as the "Great Satan" and to Israel as "the regime that occupies Jerusalem," said the study by the Israel-based Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace.

Omid, who fled Iran and wrote "Living in Hell," an autobiography about her experiences there, urged changes to textbooks in Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East.

"I am an Iranian, a practicing Muslim woman, who sees it as her responsibility to stand up to hard-line Muslims who use Islam to brainwash children of that faith, in particular Iranian children, who the Iranian government is turning into ticking bombs," she said.

Omid, who lives in Canada, spoke at a news conference in London on Wednesday with study author Aron Groiss, director of research at the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace.

Calls to Iranian officials for comment were not immediately answered.

The study analyzed 95 textbooks and 20 teacher's guides used at Iran's state-run schools. Groiss said the curriculum "reflects Iran's belligerent intentions which should sound the alarm to anyone who is committed to peace and stability in the world."

The study noted, however, that Western culture "is not rejected in principle" in the books and that the attitude to other religions is generally "not hostile." The books include discussion sections on respecting other religions and don't say people should be forced to convert to Islam.

Shireen T. Hunter, a specialist on Islam and Iran at the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University in Washington, said it was a mistake to portray Iranian textbooks as manuals for creating terrorists.

"In some ways, they simply reflect the deep distrust of Third World countries about the policies and motivations of the great powers, which they see as neocolonialist," she said.

"When such textbooks promote martyrdom they are referring to the sacrifices needed to defend Iran against foreign enemies as Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war."

In Tehran, Mostafa Mirzaian, an Iranian freelance political researcher who worked as a high school teacher in Iran in the 1980s, agreed.

"It is natural that a government, formed after an anti-West revolution and an eight-year war with Iraq, inserts such items in school textbooks," he said.

"But it has no remarkable effect. You saw when American wrestlers came to Iran for a competition in January; Iranian teenagers warmly welcomed them. Also, you don't see any attacks on the 25,000-member Jewish community in Iran."

Textbooks used in Iranian elementary schools included stories and poems that hailed martyrs such as those who died in the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war, Groiss said. Another picture book for 10-year-olds provides a basic acquaintance with weaponry, explosives and military tactics, he said.

The study quotes one passage from a book for 10th graders as saying: "During the eight years of Holy Defense (the Iran-Iraq war), more than 500,000 school students were sent to the fronts. 36,000 martyrs, thousands of missing-in-action, invalids and liberated (prisoners of war) of this sacrificing section were offered to the Islamic Revolution."

A passage from a book for eighth graders says God gives "eternal Paradise to anyone who becomes a martyr in the cause of God. He considers martyrdom a great victory."

The United States is referred to as the "Great Satan," the "World Devourer" and the "Arrogant One" in the books, and Israel is shown on maps as "Occupied Palestine."

The study is the latest to call for textbook reform in the Islamic world. Such efforts are under way or planned in Egypt, Jordan and Kuwait to remove slurs against non-Muslims or promotions of extremism and terrorism. Israeli textbooks have undergone revisions since the 1990s to remove anti-Arab bias and present a more balanced account of Palestinian views and aspirations.

**American Patriot** · March 2nd, 2007, 19:02

Man's vacation takes a detour - A Palestinian raises suspicion on an arriving plane

St. Petersburg Times ^ | March 2, 2007 | ABBIE VANSICKLE

TAMPA - Maybe it was his desire to stand and stretch in the airplane.

Maybe it was the gruesome images of torture he watched on his laptop that caught attention.

Something about Iyad Abuhajjaj's behavior on a Southwest Airlines flight from Phoenix to Tampa on Wednesday afternoon concerned airline officials enough to call police.

Police have not accused Abuhajjaj, 36, of any wrongdoing on the plane, but a search of his name revealed an Okaloosa County warrant for his arrest.

On Thursday, the Palestinian health care worker and actor who lives in California was held without bail in the Hillsborough County jail. Deputies say Abuhajjaj met a Florida woman online in 2002, threatened her and used her AOL account without permission.

In a jail interview, he told a reporter he suspected he was singled out on the plane because of his thick accent, dark hair and olive skin.

"I felt like it was because of my ethnic background," he said. "The accent, that's probably it. It could be my look, my accent, I can't say for sure."

A Southwest Airlines spokeswoman said a report on the incident was not finished. She said the airline does not discriminate or single anyone out for their race or ethnic background.

Abuhajjaj flew from his home in San Jose, Calif., to Phoenix, then to Tampa on Wednesday for a vacation.

He said he needed a break from his job with a mental health organization.

In the plane, he flipped open his laptop to watch scenes from a movie he's filming with Stanford University students.

Called The Strange Case of Salman abd al Haqq, the film deals with the arrest and interrogation of terrorism suspects. Abuhajjaj plays an Egyptian secret service officer, said Jeff Orolowski, the film's co-director and a Stanford senior.

Some scenes show violent and bloody torture of prisoners, Orolowski said. Characters speak in English and Arabic.

Abuhajjaj wondered if passengers or crew members saw the footage.

"Maybe somebody saw the scenes and thought it was real," he said.

Then, he got up to use the restroom and started to stretch. A flight attendant asked him to sit down, while another passenger continued to stand up, he said. Frustrated, Abuhajjaj asked the flight attendants for names of their supervisors.

When he got off the plane, he was detained by airport police, who questioned him. A police report says only that he was "a suspicious person," and that "Southwest personnel advised that the passenger's behavior changed during the flight."

When a computer search showed the warrant, Abuhajjaj was taken to jail on charges stemming from accusations made against him in 2002 by a woman in Fort Walton Beach.

Kimberly M. Mathis, a 29-year-old teacher at Rocky Bayou Christian School, accused him of threatening to kill her and misusing her family's Internet account.

Mathis could not be reached for comment, but her father, Ron Mathis, said he distrusted Abuhajjaj because he is a Palestinian.

"I won't go into the arena of judging anybody, but he himself I took as a threat to my daughter, my family and any American, living, breathing person," Mathis said.

News researcher John Martin contributed to this report. Abbie VanSickle can be reached at 813 226-3373 or vansickle@sptimes.com.

**American Patriot** · March 5th, 2007, 18:59

Do you all remember the guy that drove the SUV through a bunch of students in North Carolina?

Remember the media saying "Not a muslim" and "He's not a terrorist just because he is a muslim"?

And remember the FBI and local authorities saying, "There is no connection to terrorism"????

Do you ALL REMEMBER that crap?

Then WATCH THIS:

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/03/0...rt-appearance/

**American Patriot** · March 6th, 2007, 16:50

Jihadists Use Internet as Recruiting, Networking Tool, Intel Official Says
American Forces Press Service ^ | John J. Kruzel

WASHINGTON, March 5, 2007 – The Internet is the most important venue for the radicalization of Islamic youth, the head of intelligence at U.S. Central Command, said in an interview aired yesterday.

Army Brig. Gen. John Custer and other experts described the effects of terrorists’ online recruiting and networking methods during a 60 Minutes interview with correspondent Scott Pelley.

“I see 16-, 17-year-olds who have been indoctrinated on the Internet turn up on the battlefield,” Custer said. “We capture them; we kill them every day in Iraq, in Afghanistan.”

Stephen Ulph, a researcher and writer on militant Islam, is a consultant at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., where cadets are learning to recognize the Web’s power as a new weapon. Ulph told 60 Minutes that Jihadist recruiters online are waging a massive battle for the hearts and minds of Muslims.

“They throw a bomb into (a recruit’s) mental universe … and shatter it,” he said. “And, then (they) say, ‘Here’s how we’re going to reassemble these fragments.’”

Recruiters use the Internet to deconstruct moderate interpretations of Islam and then repaint the scripture in a more radical version, he said

“If your parents aren’t proper Muslims, if the sheik of a mosque isn't a proper Muslim, what are you doing obeying them?" he said. “Once they’ve softened (the recruit) up and he’s now in freefall, they say, ‘This is your identity. We're going to put the “j” back into Islam. It’s jihad.’”

Jihadist Web sites exploded after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and an estimated 5,000 terrorist sites exist online, 60 Minutes reported. One Jihadi site they investigated had 17,869 members.

Custer described how Web sites are set up to entice possible recruits.

"You start off with a site that looks like current news in Iraq; with a single click, you're at an active jihad attack site,” Custer said. “You can see Humvees blown up. You can see American bodies drug through the street. You can see small-arms attacks.

“Next link will take you to a motivational site, where martyr operatives, suicide bombers, are pictured in heaven; you can you see their farewell speeches,” he said. “Another click and you're at a site where you can download scripted talking points that validate … religious justification for mass murder."

Custer said today’s warfare is a different type, which takes place on an asymmetric battlefield.

“There is no front line of troops. Civilians are targets. The press has no credentials here. Kidnap them. Put a gun to their head, and put them on the evening news," he said. “It's a battle of perceptions, and al Qaeda understands it. And America needs to understand it.

"Can you imagine thousands of tanks on a battlefield now?” Custer said. “I can’t.”

The general’s comments echo remarks that another military official, Army Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, made Feb. 26 at the Special Operations and Low-Intensity Symposium, in Arlington, Va.

Al Qaeda and it associates operate within a “full-spectrum network” that extends beyond the physical battlefield into the virtual world, Kimmitt, deputy assistant secretary of defense for Near Eastern and South Asian affairs, said.

“It has the ability to use the virtual and physical network, all tied together in this center of gravity of this radical Islamist ideology,” he said. “The fact that it uses the most advanced methods of communications to get what it needs to be done is truly remarkable.”

In addition to recruiting, terrorists who seek to obtain chemical, biological weapons, and radioactive material for dirty bombs, use the Internet to wire money and to transfer tactics, techniques and procedures, he said.

“It has truly got its stuff together in terms of fighting as a network,” he said. “Those (improvised explosive devices) … going off in Afghanistan weren’t sent over there by books, they were sent over by information directly available on the internet.”

Related Sites:
U.S. Central Command
Related Articles:
Building Global Network, Denying Safe Havens Essential in War on Terror

**American Patriot** · March 27th, 2007, 15:16

Terrorists use Web against 'idiot' Americans
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | March 27, 2007 | Jerome R. Corsi

Islamic terrorists are engaged in a "media jihad" in which they encourage jihadists to pose online as Americans to foster anti-war sentiment in the U.S.

According to the Middle East Media Research Institute, or MEMRI, a posting on the Al-Mohajroon Islamist website with the username Al-Wathig Billah provides instructions on how to infiltrate popular American Internet forums and use them to distribute jihad films and spread anti-war sentiments.
"Our experience shows that such instructions often yield compliance," Eli Alshech, director of the Jihad and Terrorism Project at MEMRI, told WND.

The instructions direct jihadists to "raid non-political forums and trivia forums which American people favor."

Contributors are encouraged to register as Americans and to use a purely American-sounding username: "Choose an icon that indicates that you are an American, and place it next to your nickname."

As reported by MEMRI, the Al-Mohajroon website instructs media jihad as follows:

"There is no doubt, my brothers, that raiding American forums is among the most important means of obtaining victory in the fierce media war â€¦ and of influencing the views of the weak-minded American who pays his taxes so they will go to the infidel American army. This American is an idiot and does not [even] know where Iraq is â€¦ [It is therefore] mandatory for every electronic mujad [to engage in this raiding]." And again:

"Obviously, you should post your contribution â€¦ as an American â€¦ You should correspond with visitors to this forum, [bringing to their attention] the frustrating situation of their troops in Iraq â€¦ You should invent stories about American soldiers you have [allegedly] personally known (as classmates â€¦ or members in a club who played baseball and tennis with you) who were drafted to Iraq and then committed suicide while in service by hanging or shooting themselves." WND asked Alshech how a viewer could identify if particular postings on popular sites such as YouTube, LiveLeak and Google Video were examples of media jihad.

"It is very difficult to identify a specific posting as media jihad," Alshech said. "One should know a forum very well and pay attention to writing and posting patterns.

Alshech referred WND to an Islamic website that posted anti-war images of U.S. troops in Iraq as well as at least one example of a media jihad clip produced for Google Video.

Alshech said one of the most effective ways to counter media jihad is to press the government to urge forum administrators to follow closely suspect postings "to make sure jihadists do not exploit the freedom of speech so valued in democratic countries."

Alshech advised WND that fighting media jihad requires playing an activist role.

"It is also important to urge forum members to follow up some of the more suspicious postings in order to expose lies," Alshech said. "This will make other members skeptical about the postings."

A few months ago, for example, jihadists posted a video message showing a military ID of one soldier they claimed was killed in Iraq, he said.

U.S. bloggers, however, followed up the story and discovered the soldier was alive â€“ he suffered identity theft in Iraq, but he had not lost his life.

**American Patriot** · April 5th, 2007, 18:18

HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Email | 04-04-07 | Raymond S. Kraft

Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat, and had sunk morethan four hundred British ships in their convoys between England and America for food and war materials.

At that time the US was in an isolationist, pacifist mood, and most Americans wanted nothing to do with the European or the Asian war.

Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and in outrage Congress unanimously declared war on Japan, and the following day on Germany, which had not yet attacked us. It was a dicey thing. We had few allies.

France was not an ally, as the Vichy government of France quickly aligned itself with its German occupiers. Germany was certainly not an ally, as Hitler was intent on setting up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe. Japan was not an ally, as it was well on its way to owning and controlling all of Asia. Together, Japan and Germany had long-range plans of invading Canada and Mexico, as launching pads to get into the United States over our northern and southern borders, after they finished gaining control of Asia and Europe. Americaâ€™s only allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia. That was about it. All of Europe, from Norway to Italy, except Russia in the East, was already under the Nazi heel.

America was certainly not prepared for war. America had drastically downgraded most of its military forces after W.W.I and throughout the depression, so that at the outbreak of WW2, army units were training with broomsticks because they didnâ€™t have guns, and cars with â€œtankâ€ painted on the doors because they didnâ€™t have real tanks. And a huge chunk of our navy had just been sunk or damaged at Pearl Harbor.

Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600 million in gold bullion in the Bank of England, that was actually the property of Belgium, given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when Belgium was overrun by Hitler (a little known fact). Actually, Belgium surrendered on one day, becaus e it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussels into rubble the next day just to prove they could. Britain had already been holding out for two years in the face of staggering shipping loses and the near-decimation of its air force in the Battle of Britain, and was saved from being overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brits were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later, and first turning his attention to Russia, at a time when England was on the verge of collapse, in the late summer of 1940.

Ironically, Russia saved Americaâ€™s butt by putting up a desperate fight for two years, until the US got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany.

Russia lost something like 24 million people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow aloneâ€¦ 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than a MILLION soldiers.

Had Russia surrendered, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire war effort against the Brits, then America. And the Nazis could possibly have won the war.

All of this is to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things. And now, we find ourselves at another one of those key moments in history.

There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world.

The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs â€” they believe that Islam, a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world. And that all who do not bow to their will of thinking should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel, and purge the world of Jews. This is their mantra.

There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East â€” for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation, but it is not known yet which will win â€” the Inquisitors, or the Reformationists.

If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, the OPEC oil, and the US, European, and Asian economies. The techno-industrial economies will be at the mercy of OPEC â€” not an OPEC dominated by the educated, rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis.

You want gas in your car? You want heating oil next winter? You want the dollar to be worth anything? You better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins.

If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away, and a moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge.

We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda and the Islamic terrorist movements. We have to do it somewhere. And we canâ€™t do it everywhere at once. We have created a focal point for the battle at a time and place of our choosingâ€¦â€¦..in Iraq.

Not in New York, not in London, or Paris or Berlin, but in Iraq, where weare doing two important things.

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is a terrorist.

Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians.

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad people, and the ones we get there we wonâ€™t have to get here. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.

World War II, the war with the German and Japanese Nazis, really began with a â€œwhimperâ€ in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor. It began with the Japanese invasion of China. It was a war for fourteen years before America joined it. It officially ended in 1945 â€” a 17 year war â€” and was followed by another decade of US occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own again â€¦ a 27 year war.

World War II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full yearâ€™s GDP â€” adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion dollars. W.W.II cost America more than 400,000 killed in action, and nearly 100,000 still missing in action.

The Iraq war has, so far, cost the US about $160 billion, which is roughly what 9/11 cost New York. It has also cost about 2,200 American lives, which is roughly 2/3 of the 3,000 lives that the Jihad snuffed on 9/11. But the cost of not fighting and winning W.W.II would have been unimaginably greater â€” a world dominated by German and Japanese Nazism.

Americans have a short attention span, conditioned by 30 second sound bites, 60 minute TV shows, and 2 hour movies in which everything comes out okay.

The real world is not like that. It is messy, uncertain, and sometimes bloody and ugly. Always has been, and probably always will be.

The bottom line is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away if we ignore it.

If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, then we have an â€œEnglandâ€ in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never-ending war. And now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons. Unless somebody prevents them.

We have four options:

1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.
2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iranâ€™s progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).
3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East, now, in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in, America.
4. Or, we can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and maybe most of the rest of Europe. It will, of course, be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier.

If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today.

The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.

Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

Remember, perspective is every thing, and Americaâ€™s schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.

The Cold war lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. Forty-two years. Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany.

World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation, and the US still has troops in Germany and Japan. World War II resulted in the death of more than 50 million people, maybe more than 100 million people, depending on which estimates you accept.

The US has taken more than 2,000 killed in action in Iraq. The US took more than 4,000 killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944, the first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism. In W.W.II the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week â€” for four years. Most of the individual battles of W.W.II lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far.

But the stakes are at least as high â€¦ A world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms â€¦ or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law).

Itâ€™s difficult to understand why the American left does not grasp this. They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis.

â€œPeace Activistsâ€ always seem to demonstrate here in America, where itâ€™s safe.

Why donâ€™t we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, in the places that really need peace activism the most?

The liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc., but if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~

Raymond S. Kraft is a writer living in Northern California. Please consider passing along copies of this article to students in high school, college and university as it contains information about the American past that is very meaningful today â€” history about America that very likely is completely unknown by them (and their instructors, too). By being denied the facts of our history, they are at a decided disadvantage when it comes to reasoning and thinking through the issues of today. They are prime targets for misinformation campaigns beamed at enlisting them in causes and beliefs that are special interest agenda driven.

Thread: JIHAD! Watch and learn....

Thread Tools

Display

JIHAD! Watch and learn....

Re: JIHAD! Watch and learn....

Re: JIHAD! Watch and learn....

Re: JIHAD! Watch and learn....

Re: JIHAD! Watch and learn....

Re: JIHAD! Watch and learn....

Re: JIHAD! Watch and learn....

Re: JIHAD! Watch and learn....

Re: JIHAD! Watch and learn....

Re: JIHAD! Watch and learn....

Re: JIHAD! Watch and learn....

Re: JIHAD! Watch and learn....

Re: JIHAD! Watch and learn....

Re: JIHAD! Watch and learn....

Re: JIHAD! Watch and learn....

Re: JIHAD! Watch and learn....

Re: JIHAD! Watch and learn....

Re: JIHAD! Watch and learn....

Re: JIHAD! Watch and learn....

Re: JIHAD! Watch and learn....

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions