New Postings

September 30 The Guantánamo Arrests – What Do They Mean?
Interview, from Fox News: The O'Reilly Factor.

September 29 Pentagon Jihadis
New article, first published in New York Post.

September 23 [Moderate] Voices of Islam
New article, first published in New York Post.

September 21 U.S. Policy in the Middle East
Interview, from CNN Late Edition.

Weblog

Dark Days for North American Islamist Organizations? The Islamist establishment in the United States and Canada must be wishing that September 2003 never happened.

Evan McCormick shows in "A Bad Day for CAIR" how on a single day, Sept. 10, the Council on American-Islamic Relations took three blows: "It ran away from testifying before an influential Senate panel that heard a barrage of incriminating evidence about the group and its connections. It saw one of its former officials plead guilty to terrorist-related crimes in Federal Court. And, it was stood up by two Department of Justice officials at an immigration symposium in Florida."

September also witnessed the likely collapse of long-standing efforts to infiltrate Islamist chaplains into the military, thanks to the arrest of James ("Yousef") Yee. The American Muslim Council and its affiliates may have suffered a mortal blow with the arrest of Abdurahman Alamoudi; that Soliman Biheiri of AMC's advisory board was accused of being "the Muslim Brotherhood's financial toehold" in the United States did not help either.

And September was a time for anti-Islamists to answer back. In Canada, Irshad Manji did so from a Muslim perspective in her iconoclastic book, The Trouble with Islam: A Wake-up Call for Honesty and Change. In the United States, Robert Spencer exposed their ideology in Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West.

For those of us worried about militant Islam, these could be signs that a corner has been turned for the better. (September 30, 2003) Permalink

United States of America v. Abdurahman Muhammad Alamoudi. A U.S. district court made public today the "affidavit in support of criminal complaint" concerning Abdurahman Alamoudi, the Islamist political leader most closely associated with the American Muslim Council. The nearly eight-thousand word document contains many fascinating details that the media will likely not get around to reporting. A few items:

• James Bond-style drama: "It was arranged for him to receive a sizeable cash donation during his stay at the London Metropole Hotel, Edgware Road, London between August 11, 2003, and August 16, 2003. Alamoudi told Special Branch [for National Terrorist Financial Investigations Unit, United Kingdom] officers that on the morning of Wednesday, August 13, 2003, he received a telephone call to his room from someone who spoke Arabic with a Libyan accent, informing him he had ‘something' for him. The individual arrived at Alamoudi's room and handed him a small ‘Samsonite' style briefcase. Alamoudi said there was no conversation and the visitor abruptly left Alamoudi's room. Upon opening the case he discovered $340,000 of United States currency."
• Mickey Mouse-style drama: Just yesterday, when Alamoudi returned to Dulles airport outside of Washington, D.C., from a seven-country, month-long trip, he tried to hide his travel to five of those seven countries in the most primitive way. He used a U.S. passport for England and Saudi Arabia; and a Yemeni passport for travel to Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Egypt, and Libya. When he arrived at Dulles, Alamoudi was questioned by Senior Customs and Border Protection Officer Wesley Hartman. During that questioning, Alamoudi was twice asked what countries he had visited on this trip. Both times he responded that he only visited England and Saudi Arabia. After the CBP Officer began to review his three passports, they again asked what countries he had visited on this trip. Alamoudi stated that he had also visited Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen during this trip. He concealed the fact that, after visiting those countries, he had also visited Libya and Egypt."
• Speculation on Alamoudi's continued connection to the AMC: "Although Alamoudi is not named on the corporate records for AMC beyond 2000, I [the Immigration and Customs Enforcement who wrote the complaint] have probable cause … to believe that Alamoudi remained in a leadership capacity with AMC."
• Insight into the foreign funding of Islamist organizations in the United States: The complaint paraphrases what Alamoudi wrote to Mohamed Ahmed Al-Sharif, head of Libya's World Islamic Call Society in a March 2003 letter. Alamoudi announces in it that he was "able to buy a building in May 2002 to be a permanent quarters for the AMC, the AMF [American Muslim Foundation] and the Hajj Foundation. The purchase price was $2.5 million dollars and the value of the real estate in March 2003 was described as $3.5 million. According to the letter, the building was acquired by three loans two of which, from Islamic Development Bank and SEDCO (Saudi Economic Development Co.) were interest-free. The third loan was interest free for six months. The letter solicited Al-Sharif to assist in paying the loan which would bear interest or taking an equity stake in the realty."
• The "constant struggle" of funding an Islamist organization: Having sugar-daddies like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Libya would seem to be proof against financial worries, but Alamoudi suggested otherwise when asked by British law enforcement on August 11, 2003: "Alamoudi was interviewed by officers of the Special Branch. He stated that he is the President of the AMF and that financing the organization's work is a constant struggle."

Having now glimpsed the inner workings of Alamoudi's small empire of institutions makes this observer wonder the more intensely what might be going on at the other Islamist organizations. It may not be too long before we have a chance to find out. (September 29, 2003) Permalink

CAIR and the IAP. For anyone who doubts the tight connection between the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Islamic Association for Palestine, go to http://iap.org and note what turns up: a blank page with the title "CAIR List Server." But go there quickly, as IAP will no doubt eliminate this page shortly. Then, to find out what the IAP is, go to http://www.iap.org (September 26, 2003) Permalink

Assessing the Islamic Society of North America. Two news items concerning the Islamic Society of North America point to the deep inconsistency of the U.S. government vis-à-vis militant Islamic groups.

• ISNA enjoys the privilege of being one of two Islamic organizations that endorses Muslims (such as James J. "Yousef" Yee, recently arrested on suspicions of espionage) for employment as chaplains in the armed services.
• Yet the mere presence of an ISNA business card in the possession of a visiting imam from Canada, Ahamad Kutty, was enough to get him detained for a day by the immigration authorities, held overnight in jail, and then refused entry to the United States.

Actually, this inconsistency represents progress, as organizations like ISNA were until a few months ago viewed uncritically; now, at least, some branches of the government realize the danger they present. (September 23, 2003) Permalink

Kingdom's Trade With US Has Surged Since Sept. 11. So reads a surprising headline in today's Saudi newspaper Arab News. The article goes on to explain that U.S. government figures show a 61 percent surge in bilateral trade with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Commenting on these figures, the U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Robert Jordan, noted that right after Sept. 11 and through 2002, imports of US products into Saudi Arabia remained flat. "But now, in the first four months of 2003, trade between our two nations grew 61 percent compared to the same period last year, reaching almost SR30 billion."

Comment: Perhaps all those stories about Muslims swearing off their Big Mac fixes don't provide the whole economic picture. (September 11, 2003) Permalink

CAIR's Unscientific Poll. The Council on American-Islamic Relations has a tradition of conducting straw polls (questions "were faxed and e-mailed to Muslim individuals and organizations nationwide" it helpfully informs) and then pawning these off as scientific surveys, which then get picked up by guillible reporters. Straw poll results released today of 644 individuals, however specious, do have an interesting implication. In "Poll: U.S. Muslims Increase Political Activity Since 9/11," CAIR announces that American Muslims would vote for, among Democratic candidates for president, Howard Dean (26 percent), Dennis Kucinich (11 percent), John Kerry (7 percent), and Carol Moseley Braun (6 percent). "Only 2 percent said they would vote for President Bush."

Comment: This result would seem to box CAIR and its fellow-traveler organizations into supporting a Democrat for president, denying them the flexibility in the 2000 campaign to hold out their vote for the candidate who offered them the most. That said, don't expect consistency from this group.

For that matter, one could find precisely the opposite reading in today's Detroit News, which quoted Ismael Ahmed, executive director of the Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services, saying that "the Arab-American vote is up for grabs and strategically important." It will be interesting to watch how Muslim and Arab groups shift from one position (Bush has disappointed us) to the other (our vote is up for grabs) over the next year. (September 10, 2003) Permalink

Hussein Ibish's Favorite Political Candiate? Kamal Nawash, an immigration lawyer and legal director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) since 1997, has thrown his hat in the ring as a Republican candidate for state senator in the 31st district of Virginia. His campaign website offers stances only on the sort of issues a state senator might deal with (baseball stadium construction, traffic, property taxes, etc.) but, as a long-standing staffer of the extremist ADC and a colleague of the notorious Hussein Ibish (who endorses Nawash as "an extremely patriotic and dedicated American"), one cannot wonder what Nawash thinks on national issues such as the need to take steps to protect the country from Islamist terrorists who wish to enter it. (September 10, 2003)

Sept. 11, 2003 update: A reader points out that Mr. Nawash's views on at least one national issue are known. He was quoted extensively in June 2000 responding to the just-issued, anondyne recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorism. Nawash took the opportunity to make it known that he does not support an effective self-protection against terrorism, holding that this would violate "basic Constitutional rights." He added that "if implemented, the recommendations by the Commission would more likely than not severely damage civil liberties and facilitate abusive behavior by the government." Of particular interest (given that several 9/11 hijackers used a student cover), is Nawash's objection to the U.S. government tracking foreign students, protesting (nonsensically) that this step would indicate "a willingness to restrict scientific knowledge and scholarship to certain classes of people and to flout, basically, principles of academic freedom." Sounds like this man opposes the war on terrorism; in any case, he sure makes for a strange Republican candidate.

Sept. 14, 2003 update: Nawash is getting support for his candidacy from some suspicious quarters. Abdurahman Alamoudi, former head of the American Muslim Council whose contribution was returned by Hilary Clinton, sent out a fundraising letter urging support for Nawash: "I am urging you today to ask that you join me in supporting … Kamal Nawash …Toward that end I have personally contributed money to Kamal's election campaign." And Grover Norquist, the Republican activist who paved the way for militant Islamic groups to enter the Bush White House, is hosting a fundraiser for Nawash in his own house.

Sept. 15, 2003 update: Another reader points out that Nawash wrote an interesting note that begins, "Recently, ADC has received many questions about why we dont sue pro-Israeli organizations," and goes on to explain how expensive this course of action is, but then adds that "this is not to say that we are not interested in suing" and expresses his hope that ADC will be in a financial position to do so in the future. Nawash might argue that in writing this he was "just doing his job" at ADC, but of course bashing Israel is inherent to what the legal director at ADC does.

Sept. 23, 2003 update: According to a web-posting, Nawash spoke at a "Muslim Solidarity Day for Justice and Peace" rally near the White House on May 24, 2003, promoted by International ANSWER, an organization that David Horowitz has identified as a "front for a Marxist-Leninist party with ties to the Communist regime in North Korea." Pretty curious company for a Republican, no?

Sept. 25, 2003 update: U.S. Senator John Warner (Republican from Virginia) is quoted on the Nawash website stating that "Kamal is an impressive candidate" and asking for votes for him: "Please join me in supporting Kamal." It's a significant endorsement and Virginians might wish to inform their senior senator that he is, to put it mildly, going out on a limb on this one.

Sept. 26, 2003 update: Something called the "Islamic Political Party of America," an organization whose mission, among other goals, is "to establish the first Islamic political party in America" and which invites only Muslims to join, lists Nawash as one of the three candidates it endorses in this year's elections. (And in case an Islamic Political Party of America does not sound serious, take a look at the Islamic Party of Britain, [www.islamicparty.com] founded in 1989, which is quoted by the major media and is a factor in UK Muslim politics.)

Sept. 27, 2003 update: Nawash penned a long analysis, "Are Arab Americans Being Unjustly and Illegally Deprived of Their Constitutional Rights?" for "Al-Hewar Center for Arab Culture and Dialogue" sometime between February and August 1998, in which he made some interesting statements.

• He indicates that what the U.S. government deems Palestinian terrorist organizations are for him merely "Palestinian groups who have differing views than the U.S. government concerning the Arab/Israeli peace process."
• He criticizes the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, a Clinton-era law that allows the Secretary of State to designate foreign terrorist organizations, for what he calls the "criminalization of international fundraising and humanitarian aid."
• He dismisses the whole notion of terrorism by arguing that "any liberation movement that takes up arms against a repressive regime that is friendly with the president serving at the time could receive a terrorist label," and gives as one example "those colonial soldiers who took up arms against the British during the U.S. War of Independence."

With such a record of apologetics for terrorism, do the good folk of the 31st district of Virginia want Kamal Nawash serving as their state senator?

Sept. 28, 2003 update: Nawash seems not to be bothered by so-called honor-killings (when family members kill a female relative for alleged sexual trespasses). Here he discusses the subject on National Public Radio's "All Things Considered," talking about the persons who carry out such murders:

While they think what they're doing is bad, they don't see that what they're doing is similar to a killer who kills, for example, for financial gain or anything, because these people who do honor killings could be the most moral of people, but they--you know, because this is something that means so much to him, it will get all the rage out of him that he's never seen before and might make him react irrationally, such as killing a female member in the family.

The way Nawash puts it, these killings sound constructively therapeutic. Permalink

SoundVision.com Visitors Applaud Jerusalem Suicide Bombing. The murder of 18 bus-riding Israelis by a militant Islamic terrorist on August 19 met with the expected joy in the Palestinian and Lebanese street ("Several hundred young men poured into the streets of a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon on Tuesday and handed out sweets to celebrate a suicide bomb attack on a Jerusalem bus," reads one account). More noteworthy is the public, English-language celebration of this atrocity at a Chicago-based website with the innocuous name SoundVision.com. At a teenager's forum, "Teen Table," a thread titled "Martyrdom Operation Kills up to 20 and Injures more than 80," contains comments such as these:

Allahu Akbar wa lillah el hamd! [God is the greatest and to Him blessings]

Inahu Jihaad..Nasr aw Istishhaad. [It is Jihad . . Victory or Martyrdom]

Looking at such pictures makes me feel good. It feels good seeing them go through the pain were going through.

If they dont want to get busted up, why are these "civilians" staying there when they know they're occupying the land illegally.

For the palestinians every single Israeli child poses a threat, because for them each one will grow up to live to kill. Upto 50 years of oppression has taught them there is no difference between a civilian and a soldier.

Everyone who was killed in that attack shouldn't have been there in the first place. Children. Women. Adults. Whatever. They are all occupiers. Its better for the children to die now, because they will go straight to Jannah (insha'Allah), and the adults, straight to HELL (insha'Allah)..and that also means less Zionists living. Its all good. Please brother, they are not innocent civilians. THEY ARE OCCUPIERS. They deserve to be burnt up in hell.

They [the Zionists] are clearly violating everything. They are the worst. And they don't hesitate to kill muslims. They are totally fair game to me. Their children? Allahu Alam [God Knows]

I can't even describe how good i feel when i see a successful martyrdom operation whether it is in Palestine or Iraq.

Hitler was right about you, he said you were thives, he said you were two faced, he said you were liards, NOW 50 YEARS ON ITS COME TRUE. You are NAZI'S YOU ARE DOING TO THE PALESTININ PEOPLE WHAT THE NAZI'S DIDTO YHE JEWS.

For good measure, the site contains a dash of anti-Americanism:

WE are IMMIGRANTS, we came to American for DAWA we honour the native American spirit by being here, you are the LEGACY of COLONIALOISM your forefathers were MASS MURDERORS the native Americans will NEVER have justice until you remanin in America

Some Muslims protest this dominant strain, but not many.

These attitudes are particularly worrying the now-young generation will determine the future course of Islam in the United States. As Khalid Durán and I wrote a year ago:

Because the [American] immigrant Muslim community is so new, it is still very much in formation. Which way will the first generation of immigrant children turn? Will their dual identities as Americans and Muslims be complementary or contradictory? Will they accept or reject the Islamist program of changing the United States? Will they control the urge toward violence? More broadly, will they insist on adapting the United States to Islam, or will they agree to adapt Islam to the United States? Much depends on the answers. (August 20, 2003) Permalink

Christopher Hitchens Rants Again. On August 1, Christopher Hitchens devoted his column to insult the just-deceased Bob Hope ("a fool, and nearly a clown, but … never even remotely a comedian"). Hitchens is the poseur and eccentric who earlier attacked Mother Theresa (book title: The Missionary Position) and Winston Churchill (article subtitle: "Incompetent, Boorish, Drunk, and Mostly Wrong"). For good measure, he wrote a book calling for Henry Kissinger's incarceration as a war criminal.

And on August 11, Hitchens mustered his bluster and rudeness against me. Others have come to my defense, including such liberals as Steven I. Weiss and "The_Bell," so I will to take up just one issue, the one that appears most to have riled Hitchens' delicate sensibilities: my having once referred to "the so-called Palestinian refugees." Hitchens deems this term of mine a "crude trick of language" that insinuates there was no Palestinian dispossession.

Actually, I was not commenting on dispossession at all - typical sloppy Hitchens style to make a faulty assumption and then go on the rampage against it - but on the peculiar and specific United Nations definition of a "Palestinian refugee" that differs from the definition of any other refugee.

That happens to be the topic of my column today, "The Refugee Curse," which I hope Hitchens will keep quiet long enough to read and learn from. (August 19, 2003) Permalink

The Quran and the Challenge to Newsweek. In a rare excursion into Qur'anic exegesis for a political organization, the Los Angeles-based Muslim Public Affairs Council published a response to Newsweek International's July 28, 2003 article, "Challenging the Quran." The Newsweek article reports on a 2000 book in German, Die syro-aramaeische Lesart des Koran; Ein Beitrag zur Entschlüsselung der Qur'ansprache, by a scholar using the pseudonym Christoph Luxenberg. The details of Luxenberg's intricate and ambitious philological study are too complex to enter into here; for a detailed English-language synopsis, see the review by Robert R. Phenix Jr. and Cornelia B. Horn in Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies.) Suffice to say that Luxenberg's most famous conclusion is that the houris awaiting Muslim martyrs in paradise are not the anticipated wide-eyed virgins but white grapes. Newsweek concludes with the apt prediction that "Luxenberg may be ushering in a whole new era of Qur'anic study."

MPAC's staff, hitherto better known for justifying militant Islamic terrorism and promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories, goes mano-a-mano in Qur'anic exegesis with Luxenberg, fearlessly spouting such silliness as:

He challenges what he claims as the Arabic meaning of "beings with swollen breasts," while had he known Arabic, he would have understood the term as "beings of distinction."

MPAC's department of historical research must have also swung into gear for this particular edition of MPACnews, for it includes the dubious assertion that "there were about 100,000 copies of the Quran circulating in different parts of the world during the time of the second Caliph, Omar ibn al-Khattab (634-644)."

But most notable about the MPAC press release is its assumption that Luxenberg is attempting "to undermine the foundation of faith" among Muslims by challenging the authenticity of the Qur'an. MPAC says it can "only surmise" that a work like this, "attacking the authenticity of the Quran," seeks to destroy the Qur'an.

(In a similar spirit, Pakistan's information minister deemed the Newsweek article "insulting to the Quran." Raising the prospect that it could incite religious violence, he banned the entire July 28 issue. But at least he lacked the temerity to argue with Luxenberg over ancient Semitic philology, contenting himself with the comment that "Very strange things have been written about the Quran.")

Comment: I pointed to this defensiveness in the face of scholarship three years ago in "Who was the Prophet Muhammad?" noting that "pious Muslims prefer to avoid" issues raised by critical studies such as Luxenberg's. "Their main strategy until now has been one of neglect - hoping that revisionism, like a toothache, will just go away. But toothaches don't spontaneously disappear, and neither will revisionism."

It is sad to see the self-appointed leadership of American Islam going down this route of willful ignorance, denial, and censorship. (August 5, 2003) Permalink

Israeli Arab Demographics and the Law of Unintended Consequences. In "Fertility Transition in the Middle East: The Case of the Israeli-Arabs," Israel Affairs, Autumn/Winter 2003, pp. 39-67, Onn Winckler of Haifa University looks at the Israeli government's pro-natalist policy and its implications.

The government subsidizes large families, he explains, to maintain a Jewish preponderance in the Jewish state and to increase the number of Jews in the world.

Over time, however, the impact of these subsidies have been increasingly felt among Israel's Muslim citizens, whose very high population growth Winckler in part attributes to the ever-growing subsidy they have received from the Israeli government for having many children.

This sum has increased for two reasons: (1) Before 1997, those who did not serve in the army received lesser amounts than those who did (a way to single out Jewish parents for higher benefits) but for six years now, the amounts have been equalized. (2) The amount of the state subsidy has gone through the roof; for example, the sum received for six children in 1960 was 8 percent of the average income of salaried workers; by 2001, it had reached 43 percent of that average income. For prolific parents, child-rearing can replace gainful employment; in 2001, Winckler reports, "the monthly children's allowance for seven children was $930, much above the minimum wage in Israel, which was approximately $770."

These large sums, Winckler explains, had "a major role in maintaining the high fertility levels among large segments of the Israeli-Muslim population, particularly during the past decade." Put more concretely: "the overall economic condition of a poor family with six children and above in much better than that of a poor family with only two or three children."

As one might expect, the natal subsidy has most impact among the poorest elements of Israeli society; indeed, Winckler finds, "high fertility rates among the lowest classes, both Jews and Arabs, function as a major tool for economic survival." And who are those economic "lowest classes"? They happen to number three: ultra-Orthodox Jews, Muslims in eastern Jerusalem, and Bedouin in the Negev desert. They also happen - and here the law of unintended consequences rears its head - to be the three least Zionist communities in the country. (August 3, 2003) Permalink

Somalis Fear Children Will Falsely Claim Abuse. The Columbus Dispatch reports on a court case today in Ohio that has larger implications for parent-daughter relations in Muslim families living in the West. The facts of the case are thus: When Mohamed Shide, 38, a Somali immigrant who arrived to the United States in 1998, went to pick up his sixth-grade daughter, Rahma Rage, outside Eastmoor Middle School, he saw her standing with a boy. On getting home, Shide slapped Rage and put a pocketknife to her throat, then threatened to kill her with a butcher knife from the kitchen - or so Rage told an assistant principal the next day, leading to the arrest of her father and her being removed from her home, then placed with a non-Muslim American foster mother.

What makes this incident of such interest is the response of Rage's family and the Somali community, which insisted that Rage made up the above story as a way to leave her parents' house and jump feet-first into U.S. culture. Shide testified at the trial that Rage was watching some "bad sex movies" and listening to "bad rap music" on the sly, as well as adopting such reprehensible American habits as talking back to her parents and not cleaning up after herself. The defense also insisted that Rage took advantage of living with a non-Muslim family to act like a U.S. teen-ager. "She was wearing a dress that I have never seen, and it was very short," Rahma's mother testified. "Her stomach was naked."

Jurors reached a split decision after six hours of deliberation on August 1. They found Shide not guilty of aggravated menacing, could not decide on an assault charge and a domestic violence charge, and found him guilty of threatening his daughter so she thought she was in danger. Shide was fined $100, given a 30-day suspended jail sentence, and put on probation for 13 months. Further, he is prohibited form meeting with Rahma except with her consent.

The Somali community in Columbus responded with alarm to the verdict and rallied around Shide. It worried, first, how the verdict would undermine parental authority: "Many families are hesitant to discipline their children because they could call 911," noted Hassan Omar, president of the Somali Community Association of Ohio.

Second, it feared other children would follow Rage's method of fleeing the restrictions of her parents' home. "There is a strong belief that this will start to happen-and start to happen fast," fretted a family friend.

Third, the community is upset over the shift in power underway. Maryan Warsame, director of the Somali Women's Association, noted that because they speak English and understand American culture, children "think they are better than their parents."

A family friend summed up the extent of the distress: "It's going to destroy the Somali community."

Comments: Somali parents are hardly the first immigrants to find their child-rearing mores in conflict with American customs but it could be that no parents will experience so profound a disconnect as do they.

Rahma Rage was only threatened with murder; other daughters in the West have been killed for "honor"-related issues (note the infamous cases of Palestina Isa in St. Louis and Fadime Sahindal in Sweden.

Finally, this incident points to just how unpredictable the future mores of the American Muslim community are, for they depend on the Rahma Rages, now so much in flux. (August 3, 2003) Permalink

Secretary Powell Lets His Hair Down. In an interview with Hemi Shalev of Israel's Ma`ariv newspaper on July 30, 2003, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell permitted himself the sort of humor that high officials don't usually allow themselves on the record. A few examples:

In the middle of an arch-serious discussion of Syria, Powell asks Richard Boucher, the department spokesman: "Since my second visit [to Damascus]-second or third, Richard? Second, I guess. Or third." Boucher replies: "I don't-I forget." To which Powell retorts, "When you're having fun in Damascus" and the transcript then notes "(laughter)."

A few minutes later, Powell asks, in an aside: "What was it?" and Boucher replies, apropos nothing: "Three times in Damascus." Powell murmurs: "Three times. See, I've got to keep checking him." To which Boucher demurs: "I don't have a brain, but I've got a Palm."

At one point in the transcript, it states, "(Phone rings)" and Powell tells Shalev, the interviewer, "Hang on. I can't tell if it's a crisis or not."

Powell quotes Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon saying to him that people are out in the street in Israel, "They're going to restaurants. They're more comfortable. They're a little more confident. There hasn't been that. So, Powell, why don't you get rid of the travel advisory?" "Good question," retorts Shalev. "Well, it's a great question," Powell admits. "And but we have an answer for it, but I won't give you the answer because you'll get mad at me. (Laughter.)"

When Shalev asks Powell when he is going back to the Middle East, the secretary replies thus: "Don't know. I'm going to be back for sure. I just don't know when yet. But we-between my ambassadors-you guys are taking all my ambassadors again. I've got Kertzer, I've got Wolf, I got Jack Feltman, Bill Burns going there regularly. I'll be going. Condi will be going. We're going to flood the place." To which the interviewer jovially replies, "It's to try to bring back tourism" and Powell agrees: "Well, this is it. I mean, the Prime Minister made reference to that. We're filling your hotels."

And best of all: at the end of an emphatic point on how the Palestinians must stop the terrorism before the roadmap can go anywhere, Powell mentions Mohamed Dahlan, the Palestinian Authority's security "minister".

I don't know how many conversations we've had with Mohamed, and, you know, I've sat there, I sat there at Aqaba when the three of them were outside having a nice chat, like a picnic. Mofaz, myself and Dahlan were in there arguing. They were arguing in Yiddish or Jewish or Hebrew-I couldn't understand what was going on. … They go back a long way. They've known each other. They know each other like-they should be brothers. They've known each other and they've been in each other's homes. And as he said, "I've been in your office." And Dahlan was like, "Well, then why did you blow it up?" So, I mean, there's a history there.

The interview comes to a rousing conclusion with this "who's on first" routine:

SHALEV: If I may, just one more question. At Aqaba, if I'm not mistaken, the President sort of gave out tasks to each side, and he said it was the American task to persuade Arab states to improve relations. But, I mean, what seems to have happened with that? Jordanian ambassador is still in Jordan, the Egyptian ambassador is still in Egypt. Egyptians are not-have not invited Sharon yet, or at least he hasn't gone yet.

SECRETARY POWELL: (Inaudible.)

SHALEV: Which?

SECRETARY POWELL: All the above.

SHALEV: When?

SECRETARY POWELL: That I can't answer.

SHALEV: You have an answer and you can't answer, or you don't know?

SECRETARY POWELL: Well, I-I shouldn't speak for other governments. I've been on the phone with both of them this morning. Conditions are coming- conditions are changing in a way that, if we keep moving in a positive direction, both the issues you talk about and don t talk about.

SHALEV: Soon?

SECRETARY POWELL: All three.

SHALEV: No, I mean, soon.

SECRETARY POWELL: Who?

SHALEV: Soon.

SECRETARY POWELL: Yeah. I said (inaudible).

SHALEV: Okay.

SECRETARY POWELL: Okay?

SHALEV: Thank you very much.

(August 1, 2003) Permalink

Look Who's Now the Profiler - Ibrahim Hooper Is. Jamal Hasan provides an interesting account of the atmospherics at a certain hearing of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions on July 23, 2003. A choice excerpt from his account, as he arrives as the Dirksen Senate Office Building and found a line "already snaked to the main entrance of the chamber":

It did not however escape my attention that a Caucasian gentleman with a bevy of hijab-clad women was chitchatting with them. He was wearing a full sleeve shirt with a tie on.

At the time, I did not have any clue who the half inch bearded robust gentleman was. Not sure about the destination of the flock of people in the line, I drew his attention by asking, "Excuse me sir, is it the line for Daniel Pipes nomination?" The gentleman looked at me with a big grin on his face. He spread his arm to shake my hand saying, "Assalamo alaikum. I am Ibrahim Hooper."

After I heard the name, I could not believe myself I was face to face with the great Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which was popularly known as CAIR. … After the first encounter with the lobbyist, something led me to feel a bit of uneasy.

This was not because I was standing in proximity to the most high profile man in the business. I was a little bit perturbed realizing he took the easy route of profiling me even though he publicly critiqued all kinds of profiling in American society. I was wondering how could he be so sure I was a Muslim. I could be a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Jain, or even an Ahmadiya - or I could be anyone from South Asian region. After the jolt of puzzlement, I introduced myself.

How interesting, then, that one of the country's leading bellyachers about profiling spontaneously does it himself. (August 1, 2003)

September 11, 2003 update: During the question period following my talk this evening at Arizona State University commemorating 9/11, Deedra Abboud of the Council on American-Islamic Relations' Arizona office asked why I identified her organization with militant Islam. So, I responded by summarizing some of the information I've written about. When I finished, she replied by asking, with a pronounced drawl, "How can a Southern girl like me be a supporter of militant Islam?" What's so interesting about this question is Abboud's implicit profiling. She is suggesting one has to be from Saudi Arabia or Bangladesh to be an Islamist. I replied to her that anyone can adopt the ideas of militant Islam and become an Islamist, even Southern girls. Permalink

The United States at War with Hamas and Hezbollah. Almost without public notice, the two sides have declared war on each other. President George W. Bush stated in June 2003 that "the free world, those who love freedom and peace, must deal harshly with Hamas" and that "Hamas must be dismantled." Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage announced in September 2002 that "Hezbollah may be the A-team of terrorists and maybe Al-Qaeda is actually the B-team. … They have a blood debt to us, which you spoke to; and we're not going to forget it and it's all in good time. … We're going to take them down one at a time."

These ambitious sentiments have been accompanied by a shift in resources. The Washington Post reported in May that the FBI, "Confident that its efforts to track the Al-Qaeda terrorist network in this country are beginning to pay off, … is devoting more resources to the two Middle Eastern groups, which command more widespread support in Arab and Muslim communities" in the United States. The Post article tells about a November 2002 ruling from a secretive three-judge appeals panel that authorized federal agents pursuing criminal prosecutions of terrorist suspects to exploit the previously inaccessible vast backlog of classified wiretaps and intelligence reports from foreign security agencies. This has led to "stepped-up investigations in at least two dozen U.S. cities." The first public result came in February 2003 with the indictment of Sami Al-Arian and seven others. Current investigations are focused on the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development and several individuals, including Abdelhaleem Ashqar, Mohamad Hammoud, and Ali Nasrallah.

Today, Hezbollah gave its fullest retort to date, in an interview by its leader Hassan Nasrallah to the Times of London. Nasrallah overtly threatened American interests around the world if the U.S. government does attempt to eradicate Hezbollah. "In such a case Hezbollah has a right to defend its existence, its people and its country through any means and at any time and in any place." To back this up, he noted that "There are many people throughout the world who love Hezbollah, who like Hezbollah and who support Hezbollah," he said. "Some may not sit idly by when seeing a brutal aggression against Lebanon."

Comment: It appears that Hamas and Hezbollah are no longer just Israel's problem but increasingly America's as well. (July 28, 2003)

August 6, 2003 update: Nasrallah went a step further on August 4, Ha'aretz reports today, exhorting a large audience to "adopt the Iraqis to our hearts so that they will be able to unify their choice: opposition in the form of a war of jihad." According to Zvi Bar'el who reported Nasrallah's statement, "This was the first time since the start of the war in Iraq that a Shi'ite religious leader of large and recognized religious organization called for a jihad against the American forces."

August 23, 2003 update: The rhetoric has further heated up between Washington and Hamas. President Bush yesterday issued a statement noting that "By claiming responsibility for the despicable act of terror on August 19, HAMAS has reaffirmed that it is a terrorist organization" and taking further steps to restrict Hamas funding. Abdel Aziz Rantisi of Hamas today responded by declaring that "President Bush has become Islam's biggest enemy."

September 24, 2003 update: In a further rhetorical escalation, the leader of Hamas, Ahmed Yassin, characterized President Bush's speech on Sept. 23 to the United Nations as a declaration of "war on Islam." Indeed, he states, "Bush views Islam as terrorism." Yassin then goes on to bluster: "Bush must understand that religious people do not fear threats. Islam is stronger than Bush's regime, stronger than Bush and stronger than his state and Islam will win." Yassin predicts Bush "will be defeated, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Palestine and in all the Muslim lands." Permalink

The Oslo War. Bret Stephens, editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post, opened his paper's pages on Sept. 20, 2002 to a discussion of how to name the Palestinian-Israeli war underway since September 2000. His panel offered a host of suggestions:

The War for a Palestinian Land (Naomi Chazan, Daoud Kuttab)
The War of the Borders (A.B. Yehoshua)
The Sixth War (Ehud Ya'ari)
The Camp David War (Michael Oren)
The Idealists' War (Richard Perle)
Operation Justice Recovered (Dore Gold)
The War Against Peace (Natan Sharansky)
Meoraot Tashsa (Amnon Lord)

These names have their virtues but none of them point to the key factor in bringing the violence on – the disaster of the Oslo round of diplomacy, 1993-2001. Two panelists do refer to that event. Norman Podhoretz offers "The War Oslo Wrought," but that is a bit heavy on the tongue. Yuval Steinitz offers the perfect moniker: "The Oslo War." It's short, to the point, translatable into every language, and it points like an arrow to the cause of the conflict.

While Oslo War is not in wide circulation, it is recorded 2,000 times at google.com. The first use in print in a major publication appears to by Ari Shavit in (of all places) Ha'aretz on Feb. 22, 2001. Two commentators at www.DanielPipes.org were among the early users: Elisa Silverman on May 6, 2002, and Mike Zeldis on July 28, 2002. (July 27, 2003) Permalink

For Mideast Envoy, Rookie Status May Be an Advantage. The Washington Post reports that the "lack of experience in the Middle East" of the new U.S. presidential Middle East envoy, John S. Wolf, "is actually an advantage because it is difficult for either side to believe he approaches the conflict with a preconceived bias." The article quotes a senior administration official saying that "It's a good thing that he has exceptional negotiating skills and very little direct experience in the area."

As though in confirmation of this sentiment, a senior Israeli official recalled that shortly after his appointment, Wolf "was very humble; he said he knew nothing about the region and the conflict." By the time Wolf had returned from his first trip, however, "he was very well-versed, understanding the nuances and knowing all the personalities."

For those familiar with U.S. policy in the Middle East, this attitude brings to mind the International Commission of Inquiry (commonly known as the King-Crane Commission) dispatched to Palestine and Syria in 1919 by President Woodrow Wilson to ascertain the wishes of the residents of those areas concerning their political future. Henry C. King's qualification for this job was to be president of Oberlin College; Charles R. Crane's was the fortune that his family's plumbing fixture company afforded him. It was not secret that the pair were monumentally ill informed about the region they were to investigate, yet that was seen as an advantage. An presidential aide explained that Wilson "felt these two men were particularly qualified to go to Syria because they knew nothing about it" (Paris Peace Conference, 1919, Vol. 11, p. 133).

Who would have imagined that 84 years later, we are again back to this "innocents abroad" outlook?

Postscript: The King-Crane Commission's report was, in the assessment of Elie Kedourie, "as ill-informed as its influence on policy was negligible" (Elie Kedourie, England and the Middle East: The Destruction of the Ottoman Empire, 1914-1921. London: Bowes & Bowes, 1956, p. 147). (July 22, 2003) Permalink

US: Terrorism Not an Excuse to Crack Down on Islam in Central Asia. Some Muslims claim that the United States is really waging a war on Islam; it would seem that they are wrong, judging by what the official U.S. delegation told told an Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe conference on freedom of religion.

In the words of a State Department spokeswoman, the U.S. government has concerns involve "the ability of individuals to freely profess and practice religion or belief, without fear of government harassment or imprisonment. We've observed how the overly aggressive response of some governments to security concerns threatens religious freedom for individuals and groups wishing to peacefully practice their faith."

The Voice of America explained the particulars: "people who pray at mosques five times a day could face imprisonment and even torture by the Uzbek authorities. The United States says other Central Asian governments are copying this kind of religious repression. … The U.S. delegates say they made some progress on the issue in meetings with their Uzbek counterparts during the two-day conference."

So there you have it: Washington protecting Muslim believers from the actions of a Muslim-majority government. (July 18, 2003) Permalink

Let's Dialogue. Akbar S. Ahmed, the Ibn Khaldun chair of Islamic studies & a professor of international relations at the American University in Washington, D.C., wrote an article about me earlier this month ("Scholarship about Islam in America") that concludes thus:

One of the challenges facing America after Sept. 11 is how to deal with Islam. There is a need to understand the Muslim community, its history and its traditions. Who is better placed to act as a bridge than the scholar of Islam? What better challenge for Daniel Pipes than to assist in creating genuine dialogue with the Muslim community?

I endorse this appeal for discussion and debate.

Indeed, I participated in a most interesting evening along these lines back on Feb. 3, 1999, when the United Association for Studies and Research hosted me for a long evening's seminar titled "Islamism: a Critique," that included some of the most prominent Islamists in the United States. This followed on mutual interviews by UASR's head, Ahmad Yusuf and myself: he appeared in the Middle East Quarterly ("Hamas Is a Charitable Organization") and I appeared in the Middle East Affairs Journal ("Zionism, Islamism, and Jewish Politics in America") Not only do these make for quite interesting reading (Yusuf asked me many questions that I don't often get asked), but I found it a constructive effort.

It's worth noting that this sort of debate has a long history in classical Islamic culture, though in olden days the subject was religious disputation, not political outlook. From the time of St. John of Damascus in the eighth century on, Middle Eastern capitals hosted vigorous debates.

Prof. Ahmed has in effect proposed that these be re-starated and I concur: let's start talking. (July 17, 2003) Permalink

Dual Loyalty? Two of the most radical voices in Middle East studies, John Esposito and Joel Beinin, have just published articles attacking Martin Kramer and myself. They are noteworthy for their commonalities.

John Esposito of Georgetown University tells an interviewer for Egypt's Al-Ahram newspaper that "if you look at the track record of the likes of Kramer and Pipes, do they ever criticise the Sharon government? I would say that they are not arguing for what is in the best interests of America. They are, rather, arguing for what is in the best interests of Israel." Joel Beinin of Stanford University wrote an article for Le Monde Diplomatique's website under the rubric "Tel Aviv's Influence on American Institutions" that accuses the two of us (plus Steven Emerson) of seeking "to impose an anti-Arab and anti-Muslim orthodoxy on Americans."

These accusations prompt several thoughts.

1. This sort of slander is typical of the left; bereft of arguments, it engages in ad hominem attacks. In contrast, see how Campus Watch wrote about Esposito and how Kramer wrote about Beinin - not an insult or aspersion to be found.
2. One has to criticize the Sharon government to prove one's patriotic bona fides? The logic here is odd. Extending it, need one also criticize the Islamic Republic of Iran or the Palestinian Authority to establish oneself as a loyal American?
3. The "dual loyalty" charge fits into the prevailing ethos of antisemitism on the campuses, one so deep that even a Jew like Beinin buys into it.
4. These attacks contain the callow apologetics (Esposito whines that "when they quote my writings, they quote me out of context") and factual errors (Campus Watch, Beinin writes, "has now been removed from the web") that connoisseurs of Middle East studies have come to expect from its practioners. (For more on Esposito's problems with the facts, see the late-breaking story of his misquoting Bernard Lewis, as investigated by the History News Network.)
5. That these intra-mural comments appeared only in non-American publications suggests that there is not much of a U.S. market for the folderol Esposito and Beinin are peddling.
6. The insidious phrase "Tel Aviv's influence" comes straight out of Arab propaganda. Note: it's not "Israel's Influence" (that would recognize Israel), nor "Jerusalem's influence" (that would recognize Jerusalem as the capital). Rather, it's "Tel Aviv's influence." Well, at least it's not the "Zionist entity's influence."
(July 17, 2003)

August 11, 2003 update: Poor Beinin. He eventually clued in to Campus Watch still being alive (see point 4 above), so he surreptitiously changed the text on Le Monde Diplomatique's website to reflect this fact. Happily, Campus Watch preserved his original text and has it posted at on its site. Permalink

U.S. government spokesman criticizes CAIR. EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it! When Department of Justice spokesman Jorge Martinez dismissed the Council on American-Islamic Relations' report, Guilt by Association, as "unfair criticism based on a lot of misinformation and propaganda," he did something unprecedented: on behalf of the U.S. government, he criticized CAIR. On prior occasions, no matter how tendentious and intemperate were CAIR's attacks on the federal government ("unjust" and "disturbing," for example, was how it responded to President Bush's closing down conduit for funding Hamas), the feds sat mutely by. No longer, it would appear. (July 16, 2003) Permalink

Bouygues Telecom's Foreign Policy. One of France's main telephone companies, Bouygues Telecom, has posted rates for calling a country it calls "Palestine," seemingly unaware that there is no such place. The rate page helpfully provides a map of this supposed country, showing quite precise boundaries of its West Bank and Gaza components and even including the Jewish town of Mizpe Shalem. This corporation, it would seem, is paving the way for the French government. (July 13, 2003)

August 1, 2003 update: A reader points out that Bouyges is hardly unique in thinking there is a country called "Palestine." Similarly, Bell Canada lists it, though without quite the map. Permalink

CAIR's Saudi masters. A couple of items from the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia in Washington concerning its support for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) are worth noting and pondering. The first dates from August 15, 1999, and is listed under "IDB Approves New Projects Worldwide":

President of the Islamic Development Bank (IDB) Dr. Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ali announced today that the bank has approved a number of new grants for Muslim minorities in non-Muslim countries worldwide. These include U.S. $395,000 to build a school in Tanzania, $250,000 as a contribution to the purchase of land in Washington DC to be the headquarters for an education and research center under the aegis of the Council for American Islamic Relations, and $30 million for Islamic associations in India.

For those not familiar with the Islamic Development Bank, it appears to be an international institution but is in fact an arm of Saudi foreign policy.

The second item, "MWL Delegation In Washington DC," is dated July 8, 2002, and concerns a visit to the American capital by Abdullah bin Abdulmohsin Al-Turki, Secretary-General of the Muslim World League (MWL) - an organization which, despite its name, is openly a tool of the kingdom. The report indicates what Al-Turki did on July 5, 2002:

During a visit on Friday evening to the headquarters of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) he advocated coordination among Muslim organizations in the United States. Expressing MWL's readiness to offer assistance in the promotion and coordination of Islamic works, he announced plans to set up a commission for this purpose.

One can only guess what this discreet and implication-laden note is hiding, but between funds officially donated and occasional visits from Saudi officials, it's probably correctly to figure that CAIR is yet another instrument of the Wahhabis' foreign aspirations. (July 5, 2003) Permalink

Clerics issue fatwah on anyone proposing secular laws. Like any extremist movement, militant Islam contains elements that are going over the edge in a frenzy of delusion and hubris. The Associated Press reports from Sudan about a fatwa (edict) issued by fourteen prominent Islamic scholars and published in the Akhbar al-Yawm newspaper calling for the execution of anyone in Sudan who calls for non-Islamic laws. "Whoever approves or calls for application of a ruling other than the Islamic Shari'a - like those who call for socialism or communism or other subversive beliefs that contradict Islamic thought - is, frankly, an apostate." For example, "Those who question the qiwama [guardianship] of men over women is in fact objecting to God's ruling and is questioning the holy book, and is [therefore] considered unanimously by the Islamic scholars to be an apostate." Further, they also consider an apostate anyone who supports "those schools of thought or those parties." Apostates are to be given a chance to recant; if they refuse, they should be executed. (July 5, 2003) Permalink

Hip French rappers criticized for lyrics backing suicide bombings. It hardly comes as a shock to learn that a French rap song, "Jeteur de Pierres" (stone thrower) by a group called Sniper (an excerpt can be listened to here) contains lyrics endorsing suicide bombings against Israel ("Bare hands face an army ready to kill; to blow yourself up is just resistance") or expressing antisemitism ("I come out of an urban place. I don't live like no Yehud"). Nor is it surprising that the album reached #3 on the hit parade, nor that it prompted a letter from the Jewish leadership to President Chirac.

But it does come as a surprise to learn that the album in question, Gravé dans la roche (carved in the rock) is a product of the Desh Musique/East West label, a subsidiary of an American-based corporation, AOL Time Warner. JTA quotes a French AOL Time Warner spokesperson saying that the producer of Gravé dans la roche, one Johnny Trognee, "would maintain his position of not answering journalists' questions regarding the content of the album." (July 4, 2003) Permalink

Special Features

• Miniatures, and
• Militant Islam Reaches America

• Article, bibliography, and discussion about CAIR
• Reply to CAIR's Attack on Daniel Pipes

Select Forthcoming Appearances

October 21, California State University at Fresno

October 31, University of Messina (Italy)

November 5, University of Albany

April 8, DePaul University

Golden Oldies
Highlights from the Pipes Archive

UNRWA's Financial Travails. Count me as distinctly unenthusiastic about the perpetual funding of the so-called Palestinian refugees. As I wrote in "The Refugee Curse,"

It's high time to help these generations of non-refugees escape the refugee status so they can become citizens, assume self-responsibility and build for the future. … In a misguided spirit of "deep commitment to the welfare of Palestinian refugees," Washington currently provides 40 percent of UNRWA's $306 million annual budget; it should be zeroed out.

Well, today's news suggests I am not exactly getting my way. To the contrary, the U.S. government seems to be shouldering an ever-larger portion of the UNRWA budget. According to The Jerusalem Post, UNRWA's latest emergency appeal for funds netted $38 million in pledges, of which no less than $31 million came from the American taxpayer. Also noteworthy is that UNRWA sought $103 million but only raised a fraction of that amount, which makes one wonder are where all those governments seemingly so ardent in their support for the Palestinians? (September 26, 2003) Permalink

Collapse of a Wall at the Temple Mount, Jerusalem. I wrote a year ago in "Nightmare on Temple Mount" about the likelihood of a Temple Mount's wall collapsing due to a combination of rogue activities by the Palestinian Authority on this holiest of sites and a baffling insouciance on the part of the Israeli government. The particular problem I worried about was addressed in time by a crew of Jordanians, but that was hardly the walls' only vulnerability. Yesterday, a section of an interior wall has indeed collapsed, uncovering an area of some 40 square meters of dirt and fill. So far, the repercussions have been far fewer than I expected last year, but comments from the PA blaming the problem on "Israeli interference" seem designed to rabble rouse. And things could get worse: Eilat Mazar, an archaeologist at Hebrew University, suggests that "a terrific series of collapses" could follow. (September 24, 2003) Permalink

Profiling for Militant Islam. Perhaps the most difficult passage for me to write, and one of those that has caused the sharpest reaction, was this, back in January 2003 and repeated two months later:

There is no escaping the unfortunate fact that Muslim government employees in law enforcement, the military and the diplomatic corps need to be watched for connections to terrorism, as do Muslim chaplains in prisons and the armed forces. Muslim visitors and immigrants must undergo additional background checks. Mosques require a scrutiny beyond that applied to churches and temples.

These words – and especially the ones about Muslim chaplains in the armed forces – came to mind yesterday when the Washington Times broke the story about the arrest of Capt. James J. ("Yousef") Yee, one of the 17 Muslim chaplains in the U.S. armed forces.

The Army has charged Capt. Yee with five offenses: sedition, aiding the enemy, spying, espionage and failure to obey a general order. The Army may also charge him later with the more serious charge of treason, which under the Uniform Code of Military Justice could be punished by a maximum sentence of life. It could not be immediately learned what country or organization is suspected of receiving information from Capt. Yee. He had counseled suspected al Qaeda terrorists at Guantánamo for a lengthy period. … Capt. Yee had almost unlimited private access to detainees as part of the Defense Department's program to provide the prisoners with religious counseling, as well as clothing and Islamic-approved meals. The law-enforcement source declined to say how much damage Capt. Yee may have inflicted on the U.S. war against Osama bin Laden's global terror network. The source said the "highest levels" of government made the decision to arrest Capt. Yee.

The New York Times adds today that when Yee

was searched upon arriving at the naval air station in Jacksonville, Fla., investigators found what appeared to be sketches or diagrams of the prisoner facilities at Guant?namo. Investigators are looking into the possibility that he was sympathetic to prisoners there and was preparing to aid them in some undetermined way. "That's the fear and the suspicion that the Army is pursuing," the second law enforcement official said.

Fact is, there is an infinitesimal possibility that Christian and Jewish chaplains would engage in "sedition, aiding the enemy, spying, espionage and failure to obey a general order," whereas the chances of chaplains selected by a Saudi-funded institution, the Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences, are rather larger.

Noting this discrepancy is admittedly painful but closing one's eyes to it can be fatal. (September 21, 2003)

Oct. 2, 2003 update: When asked by a reporter today about Muslims and Arabs in the military being subject to greater scrutiny, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld disapproved even of the question: "Raising the question you did about profiling is not a useful thing to do. The fact of the matter is that there are a variety of vetting procedures, and people who happen to be of one religion - I don't think one has to assume that they have a monopoly on this type of activity." Permalink

FBI Director Mueller Makes the Same Old Mistake. I criticized Robert Mueller in May 2002 for meeting with the American Muslim Council and having his spokesman announce that the FBI regards the AMC as "the most mainstream Muslim group in the United States." Now Debbie Schlussel reveals in today's New York Post that Imad Hamad, director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee in Michigan, is slated to receive the FBI's Exceptional Public Service Award, making him only one of two non-FBI civilians to be so honored this year. The irony of this choice is bitter indeed, for as Schlussel richly documents, "Hamad supports terrorism and was himself a suspected terrorist" (suspected that is, before arriving in the United States, of having been a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine). When-oh-when will the FBI understand that its role is only to protect us from terrorists, not to fête their apologists? (September 18, 2003) Permalink

Another American Muslim Council Link to Terrorism. The once-significant but now declining American Muslim Council appears to have a link to terrorism in the person of Soliman Biheiri. A detailed article in The Wall Street Journal today reports that Biheiri – whom the U.S. prosecutor on his case calls "the Muslim Brotherhood's financial toehold" in the United States – was on the AMC's advisory board.

I had previously documented the AMC's apologetics and fundraising for terrorism; now we learn it has an alleged direct link via a board member. Of course, this does not quite keep up with the Council on American-Islamic Relations' suspected links to terrorism, which (as I have documented) now number four. (September 15, 2003) Permalink

Not Pushing a Failing Roadmap Even Harder. Although I was no fan of the "Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict" when it was unveiled nearly a year ago, and always expected it not to work, I modified my opposition after a trip to Washington in early July 2003 convinced me that Bush administration officials had a "modesty of … aspirations" that suggested they would not respond to its failure by redoubling their efforts (as had done certain Israeli governments) but would soberly reassess the situation. That meant the damage of the effort would be limited and there could be certain benefits from trying, yet one more time, to see whether the Palestinians were willing to co-exist with Israel. (Indeed, the recent Hamas atrocities seem to have convinced the Europeans to ban the organization.) But the question still remained, would the Bush administration be true to its word? I worried about the all-too-human temptation to push a failing plan even harder.

The good news is, the administration is indeed true to its word. Note the report in today's Washington Post:

President Bush yesterday called for an aggressive crackdown on Palestinian militant groups, saying the dismantlement of those groups is "probably the most important condition for peace to prevail."

Bush's remarks, his first since the newest cycle of violence began, suggested the administration will not publicly try to dissuade Israel from targeting groups or individuals responsible for a recent wave of suicide bombings. The Israeli military in recent days has targeted leaders of the Islamic Resistance Movement, or Hamas—narrowly missing one leader but killing his son yesterday — in operations that have flattened Palestinian buildings.

In the past the administration has warned Israel of the "consequences" of such attacks and has officially disapproved of assassinations. But Bush yesterday did not repeat those words of caution, and instead placed the onus on the newly appointed Palestinian prime minister….

The "parties need to be responsible for creating the conditions necessary for peace to prevail," Bush said. "Probably the most important condition for peace to prevail is for all parties to fight off terror, to dismantle organizations whose intent is to destroy the vision of peace."

Some administration officials interpreted that statement as giving a green light to Israel to undertake a tough military response to Hamas. "It's hard not to draw that conclusion," one official said. "The White House is reluctant to criticize the Israelis when they are victims of terrorist activities." (September 10, 2003) Permalink

U.S. agents limit scrutiny of illegal-immigrant arrests; Local cases are ignored if the person is not from a "high risk" country or a known criminal. The Philadelphia Inquirer today quotes police Chief Raymond Fluck of Green Lane, Pennsylvania saying this of federal law enforcement officers: "Before 9/11, if you had a person who was illegal, it was hard to get them picked up. Now, if it's an Arab or Muslim, they come in a heartbeat. But not for the others." This and other evidence in the same article point again to the de facto profiling that law enforcement is engaged in, based on nationality, quite contrary to official policy. This brings to mind what I wrote earlier this year:

Muslims are already subjected to added scrutiny; the time has come for politicians to catch up to reality and formally acknowledge what are now quasi-clandestine practices. Doing so places these issues in the public arena, where they can openly be debated.

Such debate will also make it possible to focus on the nature of the enemy, who in my view is not defined by nationality, religion, or appearance but by ideology. (September 9, 2003) Permalink

The Night Journey. In "The Muslim Claim to Jerusalem," I argued that over the course of fourteen centuries, Muslim interest in Jerusalem has tended to be more political than religious in nature. One of my points concerned the complicated sleight-of-hand carried off by the Umayyads in the seventh century A.D., when, to aggrandize the importance of a town under their control, the caliph built a mosque in Jerusalem and called it Al-Aqsa. By doing this, he fulfilled a verse in the Qur'an which tells of the prophet going by night to Al-Aqsa mosque. The trick worked, generating the now-ancient belief that Muhammad's night journey took him to Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.

Logically, of course, a mosque built 65 years after the Qur'an was delivered cannot tell us where Muhammad went on the night journey described in the Qur'an.

This history comes to mind because, in an article published in the weekly Al-Qahira (and translated by MEMRI), Columnist Ahmad Muhammad 'Arafa argues against the dogma that Muhammad traveled to Jerusalem. Recalling earlier interpretations, such as that of fellow Egyptian Muhammad Abu Zayd in the 1930s, 'Arafa instead argues that the miraculous journey took him to Medina. One wonders what sort of traction this argument will have; or what sort of price 'Arafa will pay for his dissent. (September 3, 2002) Permalink

Dennis Kucinich ♥ CAIR. I wrote an article in March 2003 titled "Why the Left ♥ Osama [and Saddam]" that noted "an indifference in the precincts of the far Left to the fatalities of 9/11 and the horrors of Saddam Hussein," then tried to explain this phenomenon, drawing on the work of Lee Harris.

There have since that time been a number of confirmations of the growing solidarity between the Left and the Islamists (such as Ted Kennedy rehashing militant Islamic press releases) but here, from the Council on American-Islamic Relations's Los Angeles branch, is something of a different order of magnitude entirely:

CAIR-Southern CA : 7th ANNUAL BANQUET
The Council on American-Islamic Relations cordially invites you to attend its Seventh Annual Fundraising Banquet
with Confirmed Guest Speakers:

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)
2004 Presidential Candidate
IMAM SIRAJ WAHHAJ
Keynote Speaker
Ambassador Edward Peck
Former US Ambassador to Iraq
The Reverend Edwin Bacon, Jr.
All Saints' Episcopal Church

and Invited Speakers:

Los Angeles County Sheriff Leroy Baca
Orange County Sheriff Michael Carona

If Kucinich does actually show up, this event, to take place on October 4, 2003, it will mark the American nuptials between the far Left and militant Islam. (August 19, 2003)

Sept. 19, 2003 update: The Muslim Public Affairs Council announced today the honorees at its 12th Annual Media Awards, to be held on October 16, 2003. The lead name is that of Michael Moore, the far-leftist who so annoys conservatives that he achieved a second-place finish in Little Green Footballs' Idiotarian of the Year contest for 2002, just losing out to Jimmy Carter for the coveted Robert Fisk Award (known as the Fiskie).

Sept. 20, 2003 update: CAIR's Ohio chapter announced today that it has been selected to receive the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio's (ACLU-Ohio) annual Liberty's Flame Award for "contributions to the advancement and protection of civil liberties." The president of CAIR-Ohio, Ahmad Al-Akhras, commented that "This award is a tribute to the hard work and dedication of CAIR-Ohio's staff and volunteers."

Oct. 3, 2003 update: The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that Rep. Dennis Kucinich yesterday announced that he will not be attending the above CAIR fundraiser. Said his spokesman, claiming that the congressman had accidentally been booked in two places - a San Francisco event honoring and the CAIR banquet - "He has a scheduling conflict and is not going to be able to speak at the [CAIR] rally after all." On a related subject, Kucinich yesterday finally got around to returning the $500 he received from the now-jailed Abdurahman Alamoudi, money given for his long-ago election campaign of 1997. Interestingly, Kucinich did so only after being informed by Cleveland Plain Dealer Permalink reporter Stephen Koff of Alamoudi's arrest several days ago.

John Allen Muhammad's Motives. When the Washington-area snipers were caught in October 2002, I criticized the media in "The Snipers: Crazy or Jihadis?" for tip-toeing around the possible Islamist motives of the two suspected perps, John Allen Muhammad and Lee Malvo, and instead insisting on alternate explanations for their actions (making a quick buck, family problems, "stark realization" of loss and regret, a desire to "exert control" over others, Muhammad's relationship with Malvo, and so on). The operational sentence in my article was:

when Muslims engage in terrorism against Americans, the guiding presumption must be that they see themselves as warriors in a jihad against the "Great Satan."

Today comes news from the Washington Post confirming my hypothesis:

Prince William County prosecutors allege that sniper suspect John Allen Muhammad said "America got what it deserved" in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and that he has expressed other anti-American and racist views.

As I keep saying until I'm sometimes blue in the face: The United States can win this war only if Americans forthrightly recognize who their enemy is. (August 19, 2003) Permalink

Washington Moves against the Mujahedeen-e Khalq. It finally happened. The Treasury Department on August 15 (1) listed the National Council of Resistance in Iran as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist and (2) "clarified" that the National Council of Resistance and People's Mujahedin of Iran are aliases of the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK). This step has the effect of "freezing all assets and properties and prohibiting transactions between U.S. persons and these organizations." Meanwhile the State Department closed the MEK's two U.S. offices.

This is not quite what Patrick Clawson and I called for three months ago in our article on the MEK. Rather, we recommended that the U.S. government "should come to the sensible conclusion that [the MEK] poses no threat to the security of the United States or its citizens, and remove it from the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations."

Others feel the same way: "This group loves the United States. They're assisting us in the war on terrorism; they're pro-U.S. This group has not been fighting against the U.S. It's simply not true," Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), chairwoman of the House International Relations Committee's Central Asia and Middle East Subcommittee, has said.

In contrast, the Islamic Republic of Iran bestowed some rare unadulterated praise on Washington, calling this action "a positive step that conforms to its international responsibilities." The regime's reaction certainly did nothing to contradict the MEK's furious reaction (in an unposted statement by Alireza Jafarzadeh) to the recent steps: "The rush to take this action can only be interpreted in the context of a back-channel and dirty deal offered by the religious fascism ruling Iran and in response to its public demands to close down this office."

Despite the seeming finality of the U.S. government's decision, it still appears to be less than whole-hearted. Today's Washington Post reports Jafarzadeh saying that "those who support the group are being left alone by the U.S. government, and non-U.S. citizens are not being deported." So maybe there is still hope against hope for a less than total appeasement of Tehran. (August 17, 2003) Permalink

Back-to-School Special. Martin Kramer had the ingenious idea in "Waiter! There's a Kramer in my syllabus!" to offer up some of his web-based writings to university instructors in need of materials for courses. In the same spirit, I suggest some of my articles suitable for the classroom:

The Muslim Claim to Jerusalem. Middle East Quarterly, Fall 2001. A sweep of 1,400 years' history on one aspect of the Jerusalem issue - the issue that most analysts believe to be the most intractable aspect of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Islam and Islamism - Faith and Ideology. The National Interest, Spring 2000. Defines the difference between the religion and the modern political movement, a question on many people's minds.

The Western Mind of Radical Islam. First Things, December 1995. Argues that Islamists are not medieval or country bumpkins but (with exceptions) modern urbanites - and are the more dangerous for that. This happens to be my one article that meets with the approval of Islamists themselves.

How Elijah Muhammad Won. Commentary, June 2000. An historical survey of the Nation of Islam and more broadly, the career of African-Americans converts.

Faces of American Islam: The Challenge of Muslim Immigration (with Khalid Duran)." Policy Review, August-September, 2002. A sociological survey of the other half of American Islam - the immigrants: why they came to the United States, what they do, how they have fared, generational tensions, institutions, and so on. (August 7, 2003) Permalink

A Conspiracy Theory too Far. I'm not one to be surprised by conspiracy theories, having written two books on the subject - one on the Middle Eastern phenomenon, one on the Western. I even wrote a couple of paragraphs in the former tome on the alleged alliance between Israel and Saddam Hussein.

Israel's enemies are really its agents, starting with Saddam Husayn and Ayatollah Khomeini. … It was widely thought in mid-1982 that the Israelis were ready to attack the PLO in Lebanon but needed an excuse to do so; when the Iraqis obligingly had an agent shoot the Israeli ambassador in London (hoping this would divert Syrian attention and maybe even win a cease-fire with Iran), and Jerusalem followed two days later with Operation Peace for Galilee, a large military operation in Lebanon, Middle Easterns saw the Iraqi-Israeli ties confirmed.

Iraq's enemies made much of this alleged connection during the Kuwait crisis. Husni Mubarak accused Saddam Husayn of secretly plotting with Israeli leaders how their two states might avoid withdrawing from the territories they had occupied. While Saddam portrayed his conflict with the West as an effort to forward the Palestinian cause, the Saudi ambassador to Indonesia portrayed Saddam as an "Israeli agent planted in the Ba'th Party to stab the Arab world in the back." Even as the Allied ground war against Iraq was in full pitch, the official Kuwaiti newspaper reported the defection of an Iraqi diplomat carrying "a file on secret contacts" with Israeli officials.

But even I was taken aback on reading "The Zionist Game" in a Pakistani weekly:

It is obvious that Saddam had always served the interest of the Zionists. He invaded Iran and gave ample opportunity to Israel to sell the US-stolen high-tech weapons to both Iraq and Iran which it did rather amicably at the price of gold and in doing so killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of human beings on both sides. …

The Zionists had hired and installed Saddam, Qaddafi, Asad, Yasser Arafat, Abbas and others to play the role of enemy while Abdullah of Jordan and Hosny Mubarak of Egypt as "friends."

Both types are in Zionists' own words: "chained, fat dogs" are happy over their roles as long as they are getting good chunks of thrown-away meat. …

All the Muslim countries are under the direct control of Zionist "chained fat dogs."

Reading such a rant, even in a letter to the editor, in what purports to be a serious publication cannot but induce a mild sense of despair. (August 1, 2003) Permalink

The Flight of Thomas Nagy. In "Profs Who Hate America," I pointed to the topsy-turvy world in which American professors "consider the United States (not Iraq) the problem" and gave six examples of this way of thinking. One of them was a quote from Thomas Nagy, associate professor of business at George Washington University, who

proudly informed his university newspaper about providing aid to the Saddam regime against the United States during a recent (illegal) trip to Iraq. Specifically, he offered "estimates of the number of civilians needed to act as a human shield to protect infrastructure and buildings for Iraqi citizens."

In a belated response, Nagy wrote a long piece, "Why I Am Leaving This Country: Daniel Pipes and the Failure of Democracy in America," that appeared at Muslim WakeUp! on July 25, 2003, and has subsequently been widely reprinted on Islamist and far-left websites. In it, he announced to the wide world that my little quote caused him such pain that he has given up on the United States, a country where he became a citizen in 1954:

So I am moving to Canada in a few days where I will apply for citizenship and try to rebuild my 20-year university career in a functioning democracy.

I think Canada's secret is simple: a small, peace keeping-oriented military; a small weapons industry; no empire to rule and no countries to conquer. (Sending trigger pullers to Afghanistan was an aberration. Canadian troops die if they must but as peace keepers, not as killers of essentially defenseless people.)

I hope to die in Canada and atone for my stupidity and culpability in paying taxes to the most well-oiled killing machine in history, the United States of America, by teaching peace studies and promoting pacifism, which I think is the only force powerful enough to overcome America's super weapons.

Well, I found it a little bit of a stretch that my quote should have prompted such a massive shift in the good professor's life, so I did some research on him and then wrote him the following letter on July 26:

Dear Mr. Nagy:

I read your affecting story published on July 25, where you recount how my quoting you in a column last fall has prompted you to flee the United States for Canada, where you in fact "hope to die."

I also note that at "GW -- A Real University? What do you think?' dated July 4, 2003, you wrote the following (and I preserve here exactly your punctuation):

You all might be interested to learn? that after 20 years of teaching at GW and 4 in the "Faculty" Senate, I have been kicked off the Sch of Biz Listserv as well as the Mgt Sci Dept. Listserv.? ... What's next, will I get kicked this listserv too? I'm leaving for Canada in 3 weeks to be a visiting prof. of peace studies at MacMaster U. I probably will not return to GW unless it becomes a real university or to the U.S. till it returns the Bill of Rights

This prompts two questions.

The July 4 explanation for leaving the US (a job offer) seems to contradict the one you gave on July 25 (my column); could you reconcile them for me?

Your saying that you "probably will not return to GW" seems to contradict your wish "to die" in Canada; could you again reconcile these statements?

Yours, Daniel Pipes

It comes perhaps as no shock that I still await a reply from Professor Nagy. (July 31, 2003) Permalink

"Piece of trash." That's how Secretary of State Colin Powell called former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, or more fully "a piece of trash waiting to be collected." It may be coincidence, or it may not, that Adam Garfinkle, who just joined the secretary's staff as a speechwriter, coined the term "taking out the trash" to mean figuring out "where the dictator goes once he decides to give up power" in a book he co-wrote with me and others, The Devil and Uncle Sam: A User's Handbook to the Friendly Tyrants Dilemma (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction, 1992), p. 83. (July 30, 2003) Permalink

The Saudi Scandal Continues. In "The Scandal of U.S.-Saudi Relations," I wrote about a "culture of corruption in the Executive Branch renders it quite incapable of dealing with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the farsighted and disinterested manner that U.S. foreign policy requires."

This point comes to mind with the news that the 28-page chapter on the role of Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments in the Congressional report released yesterday criticizing the work of the FBI and CIA leading up to 9/11 was virtually edited out at the insistence of the Executive Branch. "I just don't understand the administration here," responded Senator Charles E. Schumer (Democrat of New York). "There seems to be a systematic strategy of coddling and cover-up when it comes to the Saudis. (July 25, 2003) Permalink

Intelligence mistakes pre-9/11. Here's my tough assessment of the intelligence failure that appeared on September 12, 2001, "Mistakes Made the Catastrophe Possible":

The tactical blame falls on the U.S. government, which has grievously failed in its topmost duty to protect American citizens from harm. Specialists on terrorism have been aware for years of this dereliction of duty; now the whole world knows it. Despite a steady beat of major, organized terrorist incidents over 18 years (since the car bombing of the U.S. embassy in Beirut in 1983), Washington has not taken the issue seriously. … American officials have consistently held the view that terrorism is a form of criminal activity. Consequently, they have made their goal the arrest and trying of perpetrators who carry out violent acts. That's all fine and good as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. This legalistic mindset allows the funders, planners, organizers, and commanders of terrorism to continue their work untouched, ready to carry out more attacks. The better approach is to see terrorism as a form of warfare and to target not just those foot soldiers who actually carry out the violence but the organizations and governments who stand behind them. … Many indications point to the development of a large Islamist terror network within the United States, one visible to anyone who cared to see it. … The information was out there but law enforcement and politicians did not want to see it.

The Congressional report released today (the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001) agrees with me, though with softer phrasing:

for a variety of reasons, the Intelligence Community failed to capitalize on both the individual and collective significance of available information that appears relevant to the events of September 11. As a result, the Community missed opportunities to disrupt the September 11th plot by denying entry to or detaining would-be hijackers; to at least try to unravel the plot through surveillance and other investigative work within the United States; and, finally, to generate a heightened state of alert and thus harden the homeland against attack. No one will ever know what might have happened had more connections been drawn between these disparate pieces of information. We will never definitively know to what extent the Community would have been able and willing to exploit fully all the opportunities that may have emerged. The important point is that the Intelligence Community, for a variety of reasons, did not bring together and fully appreciate a range of information that could have greatly enhanced its chances of uncovering and preventing Usama Bin Ladin's plan to attack these United States on September 11, 2001. (July 24, 2003) Permalink

The killing of Saddam's sons. On July 1, 2003, I noted in "U.S. to Israel: Do As We Say ..." a repeated pattern of the U.S. government condemning Israel engaging in the very same actions it does itself. I had lots of good examples of this hypocrisy, but today's news of U.S. forces taking out `Udayy and Qusayy provides an even more compelling case. Can one not envision the sour American faces were Israel to kill its #2- and #3-ranking political leadership and in like fashion celebrate this achievement? (July 22, 2003) Permalink

The Dangers of Occupying Iraq. In April 1991, when a debate was raging about the desirability of a U.S. intervention against the Saddam Hussein regime, I wrote this about the prospect of U.S. forces occupying Iraq, "with Schwartzkopf Pasha ruling from Baghdad":

It sounds romantic, but watch out. Like the Israelis in southern Lebanon nine years ago, American troops would find themselves quickly hated, with Shi'is taking up suicide bombing, Kurds resuming their rebellion, and the Syrian and Iranian governments plotting new ways to sabotage American rule. Staying in place would become too painful, leaving too humiliating.

Unfortunately, that last sentence – "Staying in place would become too painful, leaving too humiliating" – only too well describes the situation American forces are finding themselves in today in Iraq. (July 21, 2003) Permalink

The FBI's Alleged Glass Ceiling. I wrote in March 2003 ("The FBI Fumbles") about the FBI's handling of Gamal Abdel-Hafiz, a Muslim immigrant from Egypt and special agent who showed a reluctance to go after Islamists but was promoted anyway.

Now we learn of troubles with another Egyptian-born FBI agent, Bassem Youssef. Youssef is suing the bureau, the Department of Justice, Attorney General John Ashcroft, and FBI Director Robert Mueller on grounds of racial discrimination. His complaint asserts that there is a "glass ceiling" in place preventing the promotion of U.S. citizens born in Arab countries.

Further, it goes on: "No other non-Arab FBI employee with similar background and experience in counterterrorism was willfully blocked from working 9-11 related matters. In fact, numerous non-Arab FBI employees with far less experience and expertise in counterterrorism were assigned to 9-11 related work." Youssef's attorney claimed his client was sidelined for no good reason. "What you want is the most qualified person and the most qualified person was not permitted to work on the most important criminal prosecution in American history."

In addition to compensatory damages, CNN reports, "Youssef wants the FBI to set affirmative action goals for the recruitment and promotion of people of Middle Eastern descent, and an annual report on how the bureau is meeting those goals." He also wants the FBI to reinstate him immediately at his former counterterrorism position or at a higher one.

Comment: I know no details about this case other than Youssef's grievances, but the information he provides makes one wonder what he might have done to be taken off the beat (and at one point dispatched to tag and process evidence at an off-site facility). At minimum, it appears that the FBI is acting more far cautiously with Youssef than with Abdel-Hafiz. (July 20, 2003) Permalink

Muslim support for bin Laden. "Every Muslim household not just in this country but around the world condemned the events of 9/11." So spoke Faiz Rehman of the American Muslim Council on Sept. 27, 2002, at the World Media Association Conference in Arlington, Virginia. Rehman and I were co-panelists at an event discussing the "Media's Role in Peace and Conflict: Covering the Consequences of 9/11" and I nearly fell off my seat in disbelief at his audacity. I responded by reading out some evidence I had collected in "A Middle East Party," and "Muslims ♥ Bin Laden," both of which documented bin Laden's general popularity among Muslim populations. Rehman's silence provided an eloquent reply.

Even I sensed a drop-off in support for bin Laden following the collapse of the Taliban in November 2001, which I documented in "Victory Shifts the Muslim World".

So, both Rehmen and I need to take into account an important Agence France-Presse report today about bin Laden's enduring popularity in Kano, Nigeria: "Osama bin Laden's now familiar smile beams out from posters and T-shirts dotted around the bus stops and markets of this sprawling, mainly-Muslim city, as of he were a football star or a singer. Many Muslims in Kano held parties to celebrate the September 11 attacks and now, almost two years later, the man who ordered the kamikaze hijackers into action is still a hero to many of the people here. … on the eve of Bush's historic visit [to Nigeria,] Bin Laden T-shirts and posters are far outselling Stars and Stripes flags on the streets of Kano." (July 11, 2003) Permalink

Fluoridation. In my 1997 book, Conspiracy, I devoted an entire chapter to "Right-Wing Nuts, Leftist Sophisticates," the point being that although the Left engages in conspiracism as much as the Right, it does so with more convincing arguments and more sophisticated spokesmen present them. In a section titled "The Right's substance is risible," I gave as one example that "In the 1950s, the National Federation of Christian Laymen portrayed fluorine as 'the devil's poison' and considered its addition to drinking water (to prevent tooth decay) 'one of the most dastardly plots ever attempted against the human race.'

Now along comes Jay Nordlinger in National Review, telling us that the Left has picked up the anti-fluoridation cause. It makes the case in articles like "Flouride: Commie Plot or Capitalist Ploy," but with so much more panache than the Right ever could, drawing on the Friends of the Earth, Ralph Nader, the Greens, and the odd medical doctor or public health specialist. (July 1, 2003) Permalink

"Well Worth It." In November 1999, two Saudi doctoral students at Arizona State University endured the following experience on an America West flight from Columbus, Ohio, to Phoenix, according to The Baltimore Sun of Nov. 24, 1999: the plane "was evacuated on a runway while [the two] students were handcuffed and questioned for about three hours. The men were accused of jiggling the cockpit door and asking questions the flight attendant found suspicious. The students denied the allegations and were not charged, and the airline later apologized." Actually, America West not only apologized but, in the words of the Columbus Dispatch of Nov. 20, 1999, they flew the last leg of their trip "as VIPs."

The two students subsequently huffed and puffed with indignation ("I believe what has happened is absolutely outrageous" one told the Washington Post of Nov. 21, 1999), then filed a federal lawsuit claiming they were victims of hysteria and discrimination. (That lawsuit was dismissed earlier this month.)

That same Baltimore Sun article went on to quote me in reference to this event:

"It seems well worth it in order to keep would-be terrorists off guard," said Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, a think tank. He defended the close monitoring of Arab passengers, arguing that "the record shows over the last generation that the great acts of violence are coming from the Middle East."

This comment got me in hot water with some of my Islamist friends. For example, the Khomeinist publication Muslimedia had this to say:

Such gangsterism [as the America West action] gains respectability when self-styled Middle East experts like Daniel Pipes, a staunch zionist, pitch in with their prejudiced comments. Pipes said that the airline was right in acting the way it did because it "keeps terrorists on the run!" What terrorists? How many planes have been hijacked or blown up in the US, by Muslims or anyone else?

We all, of course, can answer these questions now.

On the Sunni side of the fence, the Council on American-Islamic Relations issued an alert titled "Daniel Pipes Says Profiling of Arab Travellers 'Well Worth It.'" Indeed, CAIR was pleased enough with this particular quote of mine to send it out at least another eight times. (For the most recent example, click here.)

I raise this minor incident because a Saudi English-language paper, the Arab News, reports this week that both those Saudi students, Muhammad Al-Qudhaieen and Hamdan Al-Shalawi, happened to be acquaintances of the very same Zakaria Mustapha Soubra whom I discussed in the previous "Golden Oldie" entry. (In brief: he was a Lebanese member of Al Muhajiroun, an Al-Qaeda affiliate in the United Kingdom, an aeronautical safety student in Arizona, and he was just deported from the United States.)

The Arab News also reports that the FBI arrested Al-Qudhaieen on June 13, apparently in connection with the 9/11 attack. Maybe America West knew what it was doing, after all. Maybe my reaction wasn't so wrong after all. (June 27, 2003)

Sept. 4, 2003 update: The Associated Press reports today that Al-Qudhaieen has returned to Saudi Arabia. Presumably, on this trip he did not fly as a VIP. Permalink

A double standard? The release of two innocent Indian Muslims after a long detention in U.S. jails on suspicion of being part of Al-Qaeda prompted me to note that their "tribulation brings to attention the single-most delicate and agonizing issue in prosecuting the War on Terror. Does singling out Muslims for additional scrutiny serve a purpose? And if so, is it legally and morally acceptable?" I went on to reply in the affirmative.

This issue is not going away. Zakaria Mustapha Soubra, a Lebanese member of Al Muhajiroun (an Al-Qaeda affiliate in the United Kingdom) and aeronautical safety student in Arizona, spent more than a year in federal detention, without every being charged with a crime. On release (and deportation), he complained that the police "suspect everybody. Believe me, they are trained to suspect Muslims and Arabs. That's the issue. My whole life was destroyed. My future. They just destroyed everything." There is no question that a double standard is at work. Again, I say that we would all be better off to admit it.

As a humorous aside, here is his 19-year-old convert wife's take on the man she knows as Zak, as paraphrased by the Arizona Republic: he "is no terrorist, just a soft-spoken sentimentalist who feeds hummingbird chicks by hand, laughs himself silly watching Jim Carey movies and devoutly adheres to his Islamic faith." In her own words, she says that "He couldn't be dangerous if he tried. He's such a pushover." (June 22, 2003) Permalink

Self-hating Americans. In early 2000, I wrote about the pattern of American Muslim converts coming to hate their own country. I noted, for example, that white Islamist converts "typically condemn America for its immorality, consumerism, tolerant social policies, and warm relations with Israel. They talk about 'our society's unrelenting greed' and its neglect for the downtrodden. In some cases, they associate with hostile governments." I then returned to this theme several times later, such as a column in late 2002 on the motives of John Muhammad, the Beltway sniper.

According to testimony in the preliminary military hearing of Hasan Akbar, the alleged fragger (for more on him, see my "Murder in the 101st Airborne"), there is a further problem, one I had not thought of back in 2000: that in the process of conversion, Americans might shift their allegiance to specific other countries, in his case Iraq. For example, Maj. Shawn Phillips testified at the Akbar hearing that he said he "deliberately targeted the leadership of the brigade because we were going to rape the women and kill the children of the Muslim faith. And he was going after the leadership to stop this." From this and other statements by Akbar's colleagues, it appears that he felt himself to be the protector of Iraqis rather than an American warrior. That no such protector was not needed is hardly the point; that Akbar has transferred his loyalties is very much the point. (June 18, 2003) (June 18, 2003) Permalink