THE BIRTH OF “HAMASTAN”, BY: FERN SIDMAN (posted at Right Truth at Ms. Sidman’s request)

June 14 – According to breaking new reports from Gaza, the escalation of infighting between Hamas and Fatah forces has reached a zenith, with Hamas claiming victory after conducting a series of execution style killings of Fatah members. Over 80 Palestinian terrorists have been killed in Hamas-Fatah factional fighting since Sunday. Hamas declared that it had taken control of the town of Rafiah in southern Gaza after blowing up the Fatah headquarters there. All of northern Gaza is already under Hamas control. According to an Arutz Sheva report of 6/14/07, “Fatah was beaten so badly that Egyptian reports said 40 PA officers broke through the Gaza-Egypt border fence and fled to Sinai for safety. The Hamas-affiliated Popular Resistance Committee announced Thursday that it had taken control of the border to prevent weapons smuggling (to Fatah) and mass emigration by local Gazans.”

(more…)

The following is a book review by Debbie cross posted from Right Truth.

Over the life of Right Truth and prior to the inception of Right Truth Book Club, I have read, reviewed and recommended many books. I can say without reservation that The Gathering Storm by W.C. is a MUST READ for every person concerned about Islamic terrorism. I think we should send a copy of this eBook to the White House!

According to W.C., we have not begun to fight this war, we have not even been brave enough to accurately identify the enemy, out of fear we may offend someone. He notes some want to conduct the war as a “criminal investigation” while others see it as a war “against the acts of terror.” He believes both are wrong and what we are involved in now is only a “prelude to the real war.”

To quote former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld:“Churchill saw that there was a storm gathering, but there were people in Europe who didn’t believe it and who didn’t take the periodic storm clouds and the squalls as a real threat. They thought they were transitory and, of course, paid an enormous penalty in treasure and life for their failure to understand the nature of that threat. I worry we are in a gathering storm and we do not, as a society, accept it. Many of the elites of our society, the key opinion leaders, are unwilling or unable to accept what an awful lot of people believe to be the case. The penalty for being wrong can be enormous.”

We are fighting Jihadists who have one goal, “… imposing peacefully or violently the rule of Shariah law upon the world.” We have two choices — surrender or Victory. It’s that simple, and that complicated all at the same time. The Jihadists can impose their laws upon us by force or they can “change our laws.” Remind you of any current events or Islamic groups?

The enemy uses “intimidation, infiltration and disinformation tactics” and the “appeasers and apologists” defend and aid the enemy. Those would be “what Lenin called ‘Useful Idiots’,” according to W.C. The Gathering Storm is packed full of facts, figures, resources, history. You will not want to miss one page in this book.

According to Walid Shoebat in the Forward, “This book “is definitely void of any politically correct language, censorship, spin, double-talk, or complex vocabulary.” … And “explains in detail the chilling prognosis — radical Islam is even more of a threat than Nazi Germany and has so many parallels in it‘s ideology.: … “Reading The Gathering Storm will leave us with only two choices – surrender or Victory.”

I believe that there is only one choice, Victory! However, the intimidation, infiltration and disinformation tactics are sometimes so subtle that we let them slide right by us. It brings to mind the old vaudeville skit used in the Three Stooges movie, “Gents Without Cents” made in 1944 and Abbott and Costello movie entitled “Lost in A Harem”: “Slowly I turned, step by step, inch by inch…I took my revenge.”

That is the premise the Jihadists are working under right here in the United States. They are patient, subtle, effective, and will use any means to reach their goal.

The Gathering Storm is an eBook, easy to purchase, download, and easy to read. Price $6.95, order here. Jacket Notes are by Always on Watch Two

Christopher Hitchens writes a column in Vanity Fair entitled ‘Londonistan Calling’ describing the movement of his childhood playground of Finsbury Park into what it is now.

The conclusion of Hitchens’ piece is as follows:

It’s impossible to exaggerate how far and how fast this situation has deteriorated. Even at the time of the Satanic Verses affair, as long ago as 1989, Muslim demonstrations may have demanded Rushdie’s death, but they did so, if you like, peacefully. And they confined their lurid rhetorical attacks to Muslims who had become apostate. But at least since the time of the Danish-cartoon furor, threats have been made against non-Muslims as well as ex-Muslims (see photograph), the killing of Shiite Muslim heretics has been applauded and justified, and the general resort to indiscriminate violence has been rationalized in the name of god. Traditional Islamic law says that Muslims who live in non-Muslim societies must obey the law of the majority. But this does not restrain those who now believe that they can proselytize Islam by force, and need not obey kuffar law in the meantime. I find myself haunted by a challenge that was offered on the BBC by a Muslim activist named Anjem Choudary: a man who has praised the 9/11 murders as “magnificent” and proclaimed that “Britain belongs to Allah.” When asked if he might prefer to move to a country which practices Shari’a, he replied: “Who says you own Britain anyway?” A question that will have to be answered one way or another.

Read the full column.  Also check out the Q&A with Hitchens on Vanity Fair as well.

Thirteen years later, United States soldiers still on the ground and radical Islamic groups still recruiting in President Bill Clinton’s war of choice in the Balkans. It’s a quagmire, but apparently it’s an acceptable one even as Islamists have stepped up their efforts to carve out their niche within Southern Europe.

The ominous presence of Wahhabi missionaries, financiers, terror recruiters, and other mischief-makers bespeaks a fresh offensive in that tormented land. From the new Wahhabi seminary in the lovely Bosnian city of Zenica, to the cobblestone streets of Sarajevo’s old Ottoman center, to the Muslim-majority villages in southern Serbia, extremist Sunni men in their distinctive, untrimmed beards and short, Arab style breeches (worn in imaginary emulation of Muhammad), accompanied by women in face veils and full body coverings (a bizarre novelty in the contemporary Balkans), are again appearing, funded by reactionary Saudis and Pakistanis. They aim to widen the horizon of global jihad–witness the revived campaign of terrorism in Morocco and Algeria. In the Balkans, their targets are both Sufis and traditional Muslims.

Within Albania itself, Wahhabi activism remains minimal, concentrated on individual outreach (dawa) in mosques and backed up by fundamentalist literature flooding into the country. In Kosovo, although Saudi Arabia maintains a relief office in the capital, Prishtina, Wahhabis keep an even lower profile, since most Kosovar Albanians are outspoken in their support for the United States and hostile to any indication of Islamist designs. But elswhere, trouble is afoot.

In neighboring Montenegro and districts of southern Serbia, the Wah habi presence is open and even violent. Wahhabis have disrupted religious services, yelling abuse at imams for not following their practices, and have precipitated gunfire between ordinary people as well as fatal confrontations with local police. Most recently, on April 20, a Wahhabi was killed in a clash with police in the southern Serbian town of Novi Pazar. In Bosnia, on April 27, a cache of automatic weapons, rocket-propelled grenades, bombs, ammunition, and related material was seized in the remote north western village of Upper Barska. The owner of the house where the weapons were discovered, 47-year-old Ahmet Mustafic, was described as a Wahhabi by people in the village and in the Bosnian media. The location has been a Wahhabi hot spot for some time.

Read Steven Schwartz’s full column.

Yousseff Ibrahim on today’s ‘useful idiots’ whitewashing the Muslim Brotherhood’s attempted ‘move’ toward moderation.

On May 2, the Wall Street Journal glossed over Prime Minister Erdogan’s program of Islamizing Turkey. The editorial page of America’s weightiest conservative newspaper instead criticized Mr. Erdogan’s secular opponents and warned the deeply secular army against considering a coup.

In an April 29 New York Times article, James Traub wrote as though there was no question mark in the “Islamic Democrats?” headline that ran over his embarrassingly obsequious piece, which sang the praises of a reborn democratic Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

The current issue of Foreign Affairs carries a propaganda piece by Robert Leiken and Steven Brooke, “The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood,” that is so lacking in inquisitiveness it is being used as a calling card by the Brotherhood’s Politburo. Even the enormously level-headed Economist has argued that maintaining “democracy is more important” for Turkey than the fundamentalist threat, “even if it means enduring a bad, ineffective, corrupt or mildly Islamist government.”

“Mildly Islamist” is as oxymoronic as “chilly fire.”

It continues to amaze me why people are buying into the Muslim Brotherhood turning away from violence and towards peaceful change.  We’ve heard this all before from the Brotherhood, and they’ve always had a covert military wing to carry out their wishes.

Flashback to the aftermath of the Israel-Hezbollah War: The Muslim Brotherhood was alleged to have sent jihadis to Lebanon to fight against Israel.  The allegations were loose based upon no concrete evidence, but then there comes a Muslim Brotherhood statement which stated they did not send any “militants” to Lebanon.  What “militants” does the group, who once again claims to be peaceful yet has spawned the world’s most dangerous radical Islamic groups since its inception in 1928, have?  If it did not have a military wing, why would it deny it sent any “militants” into Lebanon?

A bit more on Jawaad Faizi, the Canadian journalist who was assaulted at his home by two men who were upset Faizi wrote about Islam.  It turns out Faizi is sure the attackers came from the Pakistan-based Islamist organization Minhaj-ul-Quran. The two assailants were upset Faizi wrote about the leader of the group, Mr. Tahir-ul-Qadri.

Perhaps the strangest item in this entire ordeal is what Faizi wrote to challenge Tahir-ul-Qadri.  According to Faizi, “Tahir-ul-Qadri told his followers he had written the Prophet Mohammed’s name on the surface of the moon,” and Faizi wrote that he doubts he would have the ability to do so.  Therefore challenging whether or not Tahir-ul-Qadri could write anything on the moon is enough to get assaulted.

Harassing phone calls into the office of The Pakistan Post, the Canadian-based newspaper Faizi works for, were upset that Faizi is not a Muslim, rather that he works for Christians.  There’s that, or maybe he just thought it is an incredibly stupid thing for Tahir-ul-Qadri to say he wrote Muhammad’s name on the moon.  It says something about his followers, does it not?

However these acts of intimidation are not unique.

“It wouldn’t surprise me at all,” said Saleem Samad, editor of the Toronto-based Weekly Durdesh. “I’ve also had similar experiences.”

Mr. Samad was forced to leave Bangladesh in 2004 after his writings there provoked a wave of intimidation measures and threats. Since coming to Canada, he said, he received threatening calls after writing about Islamic terrorism, while some of his fellow journalists have received threats after reporting on the Tamil Tigers.

“I know these people, they are very intolerant,” he said. “Even if they are in Canada, their mindset doesn’t change. They’re intolerant about political opinion, religious opinion, you name it.”

Faizi is resilient, which is refreshing in the face of people who would rather believe the leader of their group is an astronaut.

Another semi-positive event in Pakistan.  A group of 2,000 scholars and teachers representing 1,000 madrassas in Pakistan met to oppose jihad against Pakistan and the implementation of Sharia by force.

The meeting of scholars adopted a joint declaration containing six resolutions. In one of the resolutions, the scholars and ulema disapproved acts of subversion carried out recently in many parts of the country by some extremists.

They also opposed issuing letters containing threats to video shops, barbers and administrations of schools for girls.

The declaration said that some invisible forces had committed suicide attacks against administration of an Islamic country causing harm to innocent Muslims.

“Such violent acts are not only against the law of the land, these acts of subversion are also against Sharia. This cannot be supported,” the declaration said.

The group supports Sharia, but wishes to implement it through a democratic process.  Still though, it’s always interesting to note when Islamists oppose other Islamists and challenge the basic structure of jihad.  Such open declarations are almost taboo.

There are many head-scratchers and ultimate paradoxes within Islamism. We’ve documented several in this blog throughout the years, but the one that just keeps coming back up is whether or not it is permitted to kill civilians in Islamism (not Islam).

Take for instance the leader of Al Qaida in Spain, Syrian born Imad Eddin Barakat. Barakat told a Madrid court he was appalled at the 3/11 train bombings and stated, “Islam does not allow such things.” But we know the attack was an Al Qaida plot and its attackers were carrying out what they at least believed was not just allowed under the rules of Allah, but acts in which they are later rewarded for.

But he said they took place in the context of the war in Iraq in which Spanish troops were at that time taking part. “In our countries, our cultures, war generates hatred. Abuse generates hatred,” Barakat, also known as Abu Dahdah, told the court in halting Spanish . . .

If the Madrid attackers were Muslims they must be followers of the fundamentalist Salafist doctrine espoused by Moroccan jihadists, Barakat claimed. “I only know the doctrine, not any of the individuals,” he stated, quoted by El Periodico daily’s website.

Barakat was convicted of conspiracy to murder following 9/11, a plan he seemingly had a hand in. What is the difference between the two attacks?

If we take Barakat at his word and he does indeed condemn the 3/11 attacks, even though that’s what he’s on trial for so it certainly should be taken with a grain of salt, while Spain was involved in a war, an attack on Spain is not permitted. At the time of 9/11, the United States was not in a war, though war was declared up her several times over, yet he had a hand in those attacks so he must conclude the killing of 3,000 is allowable. Barakat just lays out the way to keep Islamists from being justified in attacking other nations; declare an open war and continue to attack.

But if Barakat is or was indeed the leader of Al Qaida in Spain, he would know all too well the rules of Salafism seeing as how Al Qaida is a Salafist group. He would also know individuals within that larger construct in order to be elevated to leader status.

Change of scenery to Indonesia, where Bret Stephens writes of Habib Mohammad Rizieq Shihab who is the leader of the group Front for the Defense of Islam (FDI).

“Non-Muslims from Dar el-Harb [countries at war with Muslims], if they are in Indonesia, then it is the duty of Muslims to oppose them to the last drop of blood,” he says. “George Bush can be killed, too.” As for the legitimacy of attacks on American diplomats and civilians, “this is a dilemma,” though after a moment’s reflection he concludes that they “cannot be disturbed” since they are here with the consent of a Muslim government.

Shihab fancies himself as a moderate, but why would there be a dilema if diplomats or civilians could be killed? Further, using the guidelines set forth as to why diplomats and civilians “cannot be disturbed,” present with the consent of a Muslim government, Shihab must believe Coalition soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan must also not be disturbed because they, too, are present with the consent of a Muslim government.

However the conflict is within the first part of that excerpt. Shihab concludes Muslims have a duty to oppose dar el-harb to the last drop of blood, however the idea that dar el Harb literally means ‘countries at war with Islam’ is incorrect. There are two areas within the old Islamic teachings; dar el Islam (House of Islam), also known as dar el Salam (House of Peace), and dar el Harb (House of War). The dar el Harb translates into any area non-Islamic because it is believed only dar al Islam can be at peace since it is under Islamic rule.

Dr. Walid Phares explains better than I in his book, ‘Future Jihad.’

On the other side of the equation, there was dar el Harb, which translates simply as “house of War,” or technically, War Zone. It did not mean specifically that war was the dominant social-political reality in those areas. It meant that outside the dar el Islam, there is no real peace.

The early followers of Islam following Muhammad’s death coined these phrases and used them to legitimize Islamic conquests into Africa, Asia and Europe. They are nothing more than Islamic propaganda that have lasted centuries, still being spouted off as justification for expansion of Islam and in the case of Shihab, justification for murder with the caveat that if the dar el Harb is invited by a Muslim government they “cannot be disturbed.” Except for the case of, well, any other time in which Islamists seek to bend the rules yet again under the rather flimsy construct of post-Muhammad Islamism.

And yet it is remarkable there are still followers to this ideology where reason has no home, with the outspoken opponents to it quickly branded heretics.

A fairly new site called ‘Their Own Words‘ documents Islamists’ statements much like MEMRI, though it appears the site is a bit more surfer friendly.  There is also a section dedicated to reformers.  Do check it out.

Daniel Pipes writes of a RAND study entitled ‘Building Moderate Muslim Networks‘ (pdf) in the New York Sun.

They start with the argument that “structural reasons play a large part” in the rise of radical and dogmatic interpretations of Islam in recent years. One of those reasons is that over the last three decades, the Saudi government has generously funded the export of the Wahhabi version of Islam. Saudi efforts have promoted “the growth of religious extremism throughout the Muslim world,” permitting the Islamists to develop powerful intellectual, political, and other networks. “This asymmetry in organization and resources explains why radicals, a small minority in almost all Muslim countries, have influence disproportionate to their numbers.”

The study posits a key role for Western countries here: “Moderates will not be able to successfully challenge radicals until the playing field is leveled, which the West can help accomplish by promoting the creation of moderate Muslim networks.”

The authors review American efforts to fight Islamism and find these lacking, especially with regard to strengthening moderates. Washington, they write, “does not have a consistent view on who the moderates are, where the opportunities for building networks among them lie, and how best to build the networks.”

Full column

A large rally was held in Karachi, Pakistan to protest the new madrassa headed up by radical Islamic cleric Maulana Abdul Aziz who has threatened the Pakistani government with suicide bombers if it tries to close the religious school.  Of course Aziz claimed the school was peaceful, yet there are weapons within the walls and suicide bombers aren’t exactly frontrunners for the asinine proposal for a Department of Peace in the United States.

“The people of Islamabad are insecure and under threat due to the activities of these religious terrorists,” said Altaf Hussain, head of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement, addressing the rally by telephone from London.

Hussain, who lives in self-exile in Britain although his party is part of the ruling coalition, said the religious radicals in Islamabad’s Lal Masjid, or Red Mosque, and adjoining Jamia Hafsa madrasa were hurting the image of Islam.

“Islam is a religion of peace and it does not need Kalashnikovs and sticks,” he told the rally, while a helicopter whirled overhead to provide aerial surveillance and hundreds of police surrounded the venue — the city’s main commercial area . . .

Lal Masjid’s compound has taken on the appearance of a rebel camp in recent weeks, with young men armed with sticks guarding the entrances.

Women, also carrying staves, roam the school’s grounds, and two or three men have been seen with guns which the clerics say are properly licensed.

The Islamist opposition movement to Pakistan President Musharraf has seemingly increased in recent weeks.  Aziz’s declaration is seen as proof of that increase, however the rally held yesterday was attended by a reported “tens of thousands” of Pakistanis who reject Islamism.

HT Gateway Pundit