10 Comments

Virginia Ray:

This is such a wonderful post. I and my friend sent it to all the women who wrote us scandalized that you would participate in a week of teach ins with right wing conservatives. I like the way you answered the question of how you can appear with anti-feminists. I am waiting for part 2. Groups are agitating in the US Congress for an International Violence Against Women bill but it does not seem to have any specific program priorities such as domestic violence shelters. Will write more about this later.

Oct 25, 2007 - 4:40 pm Nas:

Too bad Mr. Horowitz didn’t take other brilliant people from the secular muslims to invite to speak. You guys are fine but don’t you think that people would accept the word of people who have first hand stories of life under Islam a little more relevant, justifiable and poignant? I personally think that though the idea was a good one but this Islamo-Fascist Awareness week should have been though out better and designed in a less controversial way. Ann Coulter and Daniel Pipes are a joke.

Oct 25, 2007 - 6:38 pm Azzam:

During this week different Universities had protests but of different nature. Some were dignified and some fell in the category of “squad protest”. (With this Islamic militancy we need to create a dictionary of new words or phrases that can be understood without long explanations that I have to give here for one phenomena). We can revisit Wellesley. The Muslim population of Wellesley can be looked at as two sub-sets. One is Muslim students, who do not give a hoot for Nancy Khalil or the kind and have come to make maximum use of the Wellesley experience. In this category there will be many students who cover their head with differing scarves but it is not a statement or an attitude. Some would look like Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan, a head scarf that is on the head, often slips, mostly carried on shoulders and at prayer time definitely covering the head. It is cultural. You will see them blending in Wellesley crowd and at times even in ankle length skirts and a long flowing scarf perched on one shoulder. They are part of most student activities and follow the “Hoop” tradition of Wellesley……love and nurturing relationships. But there is a crowd also who exalt their separateness and move around almost like a squad.
They are strict followers of Hijab even at a all girls school and many other strictures (you will have to follow the schedule of their activities for a week to understand the extend of this “squadification”). And Nancy Khalil has developed this following at various schools by forming a Council(Boston Council of Muslim Student Associations and requires “mandatory” participation by various student bodies). To cultivate this separateness there are key students who are financially supported. Absolutely no harm in supporting Muslim students. What is alarming is that there is no open competition for this money(the American way)and sources are not openly revealed.
The protest at Wellesley seemed odd to some people. It was not at a level expected from the students of a prestigious university. The problem arises out of peer acceptance of a “squad” mentality. Instead of being independent individuals it becomes a group decision to “act out”. The unique quality of the American campus was that we could be at each others throats (in arguments) but with dignity and respect. And when the debate was over we were the same loving, nurturing classmates fully dedicated to each school’s motto. But we have brought outside, distant political issues as our “attitudes”.
Wellesley students have every right to wear what they wish but as adults they need to understand that they are part of a community and their odd behavior will get attached to their symbols of separateness. Unless some students have made their thought process subservient to a distant Amer Khalid (refer to Nancy email regarding his achievement of “hijabification” in Europe etc.) I am at a loss to understand that a Wellesley student would behave in a lecture by physical action instead of questions and wit. We have enough schools all over the world where women separateness (and flow through oppression) is exalted. But at Wellesley? Something is not right.

Oct 25, 2007 - 7:43 pm Azzam:

This is from Wellesley website.
http://www.wellesley.edu/Activities/homepage/almuslimat/Pages/prayers.html

What relevance these pictures have to student life at Wellesley?
picture of praying person

Daily Prayers
picture of people praying

Friday Prayers
picture Halaqa

Halaqa

(may be you can go to website and show these pictures).

In the subtle language of the brotherhood this is a symbol of acceptability. How they get these pictures on this site?
Long, long time ago Bobby Daylan was singing: “Something is happening
And you ain’t know what it is!”
(correct it….I am close)

Nonie Darwish found it in her lecture. Is Wellesley asleep?

Oct 25, 2007 - 9:18 pm Azzam:

Brotherhood?
Why I used the word “brotherhood”?
Here is the proof. The following appears next to the pictures (earlier comment). Who owns “islamicfinder”?
Not Qardawi, you want to tell me?
And Nancy Khalil could find not a single link for prayer time on moderate US based websites?
Well, well, Well es ley!
From the site
________________”
Wellesley Hills, Usa
14 Shawwal 1428
October 25, 2007
Help Powered by http://www.IslamicFinder.org
Day Thursday
Fajr 5:53
Sunrise 7:09
Dhuhr 12:30
Asr 3:22
Maghrib 5:49
Isha 7:07
Get Athan Software “

Oct 25, 2007 - 9:30 pm Azzam:

No that was not proof enough.
Go to another page.
http://www.wellesley.edu/Activities/homepage/almuslimat/Pages/usefullinks.html
And the links to other organizations appear. Which of these is not “brotherhood” linked? You mean to tell me that this is the only list of organizations to “expand the intellectual stimulation” of the learned?

From the web site:
Local and National Muslim Organizations

Boston Council of MSAs

MSA-National

Islamic Society of North America

Islamic Council of New England

Oct 25, 2007 - 9:44 pm Gary H. Johnson, Jr.:

Please do me a favor and pass the following along to Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes and Horowitz…I am an ally, but no one is listening…

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

The Al Qaeda Reader: Martyrdom or Mortardom?
by: Gary H. Johnson, Jr.

8/25/07

Book Review, Analysis & Commentary

The Al Qaeda Reader
Raymond Ibrahim, Editor/translator.
$15.95, 282 pp.

Recently, Raymond Ibrahim edited and translated a series of press releases by Al Qaeda’s leadership from 1998 to 2006 into English. Published by Broadway Books, with partial proceeds donated to the Committee to Protect Journalists, Ibrahim’s The Al Qaeda Reader is not only a timely fountainhead for the United States citizenry’s understanding of our Jihadi Enemies, it is also a necessary release for all Muslims of Secular Governments to grapple with in the coming years. The text focuses on the prepared statements of both Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leading authority figures of the Al Qaeda forces, which coordinated and carried out the devastating attacks of 9/11/2001. Since Muhammad’s definition of war is “deceit”, and Al Qaeda has declared War against America, we can only assume that these Al Qaeda releases hold a two-fold purpose: to provide sound, doctrinal justification for terrorism; and to gather popular support for their cause. Raymond Ibrahim tackles these angles admirably well by splitting the releases into the broader sections: Theology and Propaganda.

Part 1, Theology, begins with a thesis entitled, “Moderate Islam is a Prostration to the West”. What is obvious from this essay is that Osama bin Laden feels betrayed by the Muslim Intellectuals (particularly of Saudi Arabia) who would seek to stamp out extremism by helping President Bush in his “Crusade” against Islam. Bush’s actual statement was made on September 16th, 2001: “This Crusade, this war on terror, is going to take a while.” Regardless of President Bush’s intent, the slip was made, and Osama bin Laden berates these “Moderate Muslims” for not including into their dialogue, with the Western Crusaders, three central elements of the Islamic Faith: the doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity; the necessity of jihad; and the bounds of Sharia.

Osama bin Laden chides the Moderates for seeking the UN’s concept of equality, freedom, and justice, which differ from the Islamic Notions, of the same, in the sunna tradition. This train of thought rolls like a juggernaut into its culmination on page 43 when Osama places down the cornerstone of Al Qaeda, the Koranic ayat (sign/verse) 60:4, in which Allah via his Messenger, Muhammad, summarizes the Muslim-Infidel relation as plainly exampled by Abraham, when he states “We disown you and that which you worship besides Allah. We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us–till you believe in Allah alone.” Bin Laden lays the brick with ease, stating, “Battle, animosity, and hatred - directed from the Muslim to the infidel - is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them.” Osama is vexed by the pesky Moderates, since they don’t uphold Islam while dealing with the West. Afterall, he notes that, “Muslims are obligated to raid the lands of the infidels, occupy them, and exchange their systems of governance for an Islamic system, barring any practice that contradicts the sharia…” It is as if bin Laden is saying, if only these Moderates had simply invited the West to Submit to Islam; but, instead, by cooperating with the West, they have become apostates, denying the ultimate truth of Islam its rightful place above the Infidel, who has only three options when confronted with the Islamic faith: conversion to Islam, paying the Jizya tax, or death. [Note: it is a historical fact that apostates have tended to die by the sword of Islam, since the Hegira.]

Part 1 continues with a Treatise by Ayman al-Zawahiri entitled, “Loyalty and Enmity” in which he expounds upon Osama bin Laden’s efforts. The controversial topic of Taqiyya is broached in which it is permissible for Muslims to associate with infidels to dissemble rather than befriend. Taqiyya basically states, if forced to deal with infidels, lie and smile, remain secure in faith, knowing you are not helping the enemy. Afterall, loyalty comes first, for all Muslims must heed ibn Taymiyya when he states, “he is obligated to befriend a believer - even if he is oppressive and violent toward you, while he must be hostile to the infidel - even if he is liberal and kind to you.” Al-Zawahiri confirms that all Muslims are ordered to wage jihad against infidels, apostates, and hypocrites by the consensus of the ulema (jurists of accepted hadith).

It is in this vein that ibn Taymiyyah’s power is demonstrated in the line of Islamic jurists, for repulsing an invading force is second only to faith in Allah as a duty to Islam. Ibn Kathir then shows his value by verifying that unquestioning obedience to the will of the ulema is the right path of submission to Allah, while doubt and refusal to adhere is caused by fear. But by far the most striking feature of this lengthy treatise comes when he notes those leaders that Al Qaeda has targeted, “that clique of rulers who, while domineering over the lands of Islam, oppose sharia.” Al-Zawahiri proceeds to enumerate the Arabian Peninsula, Gulf Emirates, Egypt, and Jordan as the secular clique of governments that aid the Crusader armies against the Mujahidin. He goes on to state that anyone who joins the UN is not a true Muslim, calling them Henchmen of the Crusaders. He takes aim at the cowards who oppose sharia out of fear that the Crusaders will hurt them. And al-Zawahiri then pounds on the Northern Alliance “Muslims” who are aiding the American cause in Afghanistan. Truly, this juristic wrangling is the establishment of a purge to come. One can only wonder what type of purge is in store for these apostates should Al Qaeda win or become desperate. And if you doubt the purge to come, consider that the Tawhid (Oneness) of God, demands Submission to Allah and Fear of Allah, alone; yet, in this treatise’s conclusion, al-Zawahiri states, “We warn our umma against falling to defeatism and ignoring the dangers that oppressively lie atop our chests. Behold! the Crusader-Jewish military machine… It gears its aggression against us through a network of submissive rulers.” What happens to apostates again?

Part 1 culminates with two shorter treatises by Ayman al-Zawahiri, the first of which is entitled “Sharia and Democracy” and is simply an extract from his 1991 release, Bitter Harvest: The Muslim Brotherhood in Sixty Years. The importance of this section is in the simplicity with which Democracy is labeled as the defining difference between Muslims and Infidels, namely, Muslims submit to God, while infidels submit to men. Al-Zawahiri takes the consensus view of seven different jurists of the ulema, the source of Sharia Law, to explain why Democratic government, created by the whims of men and nations is “a motley set of contrived rules”. Not only that, Democracy is a primitive form of religion in comparison to faithful submission to Allah’s Sharia. As proof for this rationale, Zawahiri examines Seven Islamic Jurist opinions, including those of the sheik of Islam, Ibn Taymiyya, and the father of Radical Islam, Sayyid Qutb, all of which consider the rules of men to be a jahiliyya initiative, which is an attempt to bring mankind back to the time of man’s law, before the Divine Koran was delivered, before the time of Muhammad, when true Sovereignty was ordained to Allah, by Allah himself.

Indeed, this section is a revealing legalist perspective on why Democracy is Idolatry, the earmark of infidelity, and punishable by death. But, the most startling outburst in this treatise comes as a response to the “equality” to be had under Democratic institutions, raging that there isn’t anything more blasphemous than a society that does not limit Apostasy (with death), abolishes Jihad against infidelity, abolishes the protection tax and second-class dhimmi status of infidels, and (to top it off) abolishes man’s dominion over women. But in order to understand the impact of these ruminations on the Islamic community, one must trace back to Sayyid Qutb, who provides the just definition of Democracy as a Religion. Without this linchpin, the argument just sounds like raving lunacy and an attack on reason.

The Second of the minor treatises, “Jihad, Martyrdom, and the Killing of Innocents” is actually al-Zawahiri’s master stroke of blending ulema doctrines in order to justify his chief weapon of deception in his war on America: The Suicide Bomber. For thirty odd pages, he examines suicide and “proves” that the intent of the suicide determines whether it is a sin or an act of martyrdom. But by far the most striking element in this treatise is the examination of accidental killing of innocents or fellow muslims, which culminates in Ibn Tamiyya’s statement, “Based on the consensus of the ulema, those Muslims who are accidentally killed are martyrs; and the obligatory jihad should never be abandoned because it creates martyrs.” This is the logic that America needs to understand. America must come to grips with the fact that the Jihad is obligatory to the Islamic Faithful. Thus, with a sweep of historic cites, Ayman al-Zawahiri, utilizes the Sheik of Islam, Ibn Taymiyyah, whom all muslims adhere or respect, to define defensive jihad as second only to faith in Islam, and at the same time justifies suicide bombing in the measure of antiquity…via ijma, or parallels, to Muhammad’s battle of Ta’if.

Part 2, Propaganda, is a hodgepodge of shorter releases, aimed at specific groups, and documented in order to seek popular support for methods and aims as well as provide the Righteous Sword of Reciprocity for all to see. Strangely, in “Why are We Fighting You”, Osama bin Laden begins listing reasons for Al Qaeda’s war with the West, and ironically claims that the clique of secular Islamic governments give true Muslims “…a taste of humiliation, placing us in a large prison of fear and submission.” As bin Laden enumerates the reciprocal reasons that Al Qaeda bombs innocents, were it not for the surrounding manuscript, the list could easily have been the soundbites for a Left Wing Noam Chomsky, Hugo Chavez, or Michael Moore interview.

In “Your Fate is in Your Hands Alone,” Osama bin Laden tells the touching story of tragedy in the 1982 occupation of Lebanon by Israel with American support, which filled his heart with nebulous ideas concerning occupation and repelling the oppressor regimes of Islam, and lo a freedom fighter was born. But it is not until Bin Laden offers a Truce to America that we see plain the intentions of Al Qaeda for the long run, when he states, “You have occupied our lands, transgressed against our manhood and dignity, spilled our blood, plundered our wealth, destroyed our homes, dislocated us, and played with our security — and we will give you the same treatment.” Words like these seem to give weight to President Bush’s notion that if we tuck tail and run in Iraq (a process called redeployment in some circles), the Terrorists will follow us home…especially when you take in a previous promise of bin Laden in regards to his lack of follow up attacks in America stating that, “…this has not been because of a failure to break through your security measures. The operations are under preparation and you will see them in your own homes once they are readied.”

While the remainder of the hodge and podge are all revealing, bin Laden hints at possible future targets in his “To the Muslims of Iraq” when he defines the countries most in need of liberation: Jordan, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. But as far as recent news is concerned, the Five releases under the Theme heading, “The Youth of Islam” basically state that men over 25 are busy building families, and those under 15 are still dependent on parents, while those muslims between 15 and 25 are strongly urged to join ranks with Al Qaeda. This fact demands that “Profiling” be implemented in all transit areas on men between 15 and 25…especially since the 2007 July Pew Report of Islam in America notes that “26 percent of Muslims [in America] age 18 to 29 believe that suicide bombing can be justified” (Newsweek Special Report, July 30, p. 31). To attempt to view the issue in any other way is suicide by denial.

The purpose of revolutionary propaganda is to gather popular support, to justify the righteousness of the cause, to generate outrage and ferver in its proponents, and to demonstrate why victory is inevitable for the righteous few. Part 2, of Ibrahim’s text, Propaganda, demonstrates these purposes well; however, it is the Soviet Paradigm of victory which is the least convincing. The key element in this battle according to both Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri is Patience. The element is woven through every treatise and release…it is the belief, that like Soviet Russia while fighting with Afghanistan, America will, through its “War on Terror” grow politically fractured, will eventually go bankrupt and will split apart, by the grace of Allah. It would be Hubris to say that America can’t go the way of the Dodo; especially considering the fact that Trade almost halted after 9/11. Yet, while the polarity of opinions in this country are divided almost 50-50 on every issue…it is this freedom - to have a polarity of opinion - that differentiates America from both the Communism of Stalin and Khruschev as well as the rigid, puritanical Islam of Al Qaeda. And, in the end, the resilience of Capitalism’s inequalities compared with the desperate equality of Communism promises only the inevitability of exhaustion for Al Qaeda, hence its call for the Muslim youth to dedicate their lives to Jihad.

In full, Raymond Ibrahim’s text The Al Qaeda Reader provides the World of English many lessons that we may choose to learn or dismiss. Chief among these lessons is that in Islam there is no separation between Mosque and State. For years, since the fall of the Trade Towers, moderate Muslims have claimed their religion had been hijacked by fundamentalists, literalists, radicals, and extremists; and, now the West has been aprised of the twisted view of two of these hijackers. Is this message of hate the literalist perspective of Islam laid bare for the world to see? And if it is, what does it teach the World of English about the literal Koran’s content, intent, and merit? The fact is, all Muslims believe the Koran to be the literal, uncorrupted word of Allah, written in the celestial language of Arabic. Moving past the arrogance necessary to declare to the world that any language is that of God, what does this text teach us about the original words of the Islamic God? Has the God of Islam, Allah, demanded His followers to wage jihad on all infidels in a quest to force the entire planet to convert, pay alms, or die? And if the Koran is the literal, uncorrupted, Word and Warning of Allah; then, why would we, infidels, ever consider “Peaceful” a religion which promises our demise as sovereign states in one form or another, following obligatorial genocidal purges, inquisitions, enslavements, indoctrination, trials of apostasy, and the death of the very idea of American Freedom, and the death of every value held as Heroic in the West? For the West’s concepts of equality, justice and freedom do not hold parallel with the Koran’s or Sharia’s view of the same.

And if that is the case, what is a “Moderate” version of that form of forced Totalitarian Slavery?

And, in general, how much can be found that is peaceful in the Islamic Pillars, if their strength lies in their “base”, in their “Qaeda”? Where does the abode of Islam end? Where does the abode of War begin? Is the protection that a jizya tax purchases similar to a Mafia Racket? In a problem of this magnitude, the initial lessons are the correct questions to ask. Which of these questions can be casually dismissed? Judging by the press releases, it must be faced that these two leaders of Al Qaeda believe that the best defense is a good offense, due to their faith in the literal formulations of the Koranic and Ulema’s right guidance of Allah. So, the entire English speaking world must ask all Moderate Muslims … Is the suicide bombing of any one, of any faith, for any reason ever to be viewed as Martyrdom? Or is every act of suicide bombing to be deemed an evil act — of Mortardom?

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

please e-mail me to let me know you received the post even if you don’t think it is any good.

I am trying to help.

When you add the doctrine of abrogation, the doctrine of Loyalty and enmity, the doctrine of taqiyyah, the doctrine of Jahalliyah and the Sunna of the prophet surrounding the Taif catapulting of 630 - the result is radical zealotry and Islamist fanaticism. I am trying to get into contact with Irshad Manji…her concept of ijtihad may yet save us. We must mine at the 6th pillar of Jihad subterranean. We must figure out how to undermine the Ulemic Shariah Law…as it relates to women, as it relates to infidels, as it relates to politics and ethics, as it relates to economics and borders. I can help. I just need to be given a voice.

Oct 26, 2007 - 1:44 am David Thomson:

“Did we (or did we not) reject the concept of global warming?”

There is a more important question: does one believe the issue of global warming is beyond debate? Those who dare dissent from the leftist doctrinal position have seen their personal finances jeopardized and endure never ending ridicule. Nobel Prize winner Al Gore, Jr. refuses to even give them the time of day. Why is he allowed to get away with this nonsense? Something is very wrong.

Oct 26, 2007 - 9:30 am Michele:

I agree with your take. I happened to get there early and was sitting behind some young women of the Revolutionary Communist Party. It seemed to me that they were excitedly preparing to be outraged and to confront the panel. Then the panel presentation began, and the three of you employed your manifestly thorough knowledge of academic, activist and feminist discourse to confront the contradictions of those academics, activists and feminists who don’t confront Islamo-fascism. These “revolutionary” students’ excitation seemed to deflate. They sat quietly and, in the Q&A, instead of responding to what the panel actually said, were reduced to using the questions “that should be put to Phyllis Chesler” that had been printed up and passed out before the start. For instance, a young man associated with them (who had taken his position farther back in the room - there had been enough empty seats when they arrived such that they could have sat together, but they chose to range themselves around the room) used question #2 “Are you speaking out equally against Islamic restrictions on women in Saudi Arabia, or just in those countries the Bush administration wants to or is occcupying?” when, as you replied, you had spoken quite a bit about Saudi Arabia and Christina Hoff-Sommers had spoken about womens’ activities in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Algeria. When someone else used the ready-made question about your daring to associate with the likes of Rick Santorum, your response that you wish the Women’s Studies Department or the Middle Eastern Studies Department would sponsor panels about women’s conditions under Islam should have stung.

Some angry people in the audience thought they would be confronting Global Warming Deniers. I think what they were on about is this one line in the Islamo-fascist Awareness statement:

“The purpose of this protest is as simple as it is crucial: to confront the two Big Lies of the political left: that George Bush created the war on terror and that Global Warming is a greater danger to Americans than the terrorist threat.”

I agree with that, but I would have changed “Global Warming” to “Christian Fundamentalism”, since that’s also true, and to bring up Global Warming distracts from the main issue. Other than that, I’m very glad that David Horowitz and everyone else involved got this thing together. Just the fact that there had to be two bodyguards flanking the stage and three security guards at the door for an open discussion at an Ivy League university spoke volumes. Thanks, Phyllis, for daring to speak out.

Oct 26, 2007 - 6:20 pm Fern Sidman:

I met Mary Lou Greenberg about a month ago at Columbia University when she was there on the day that Iranian President Ahmadinejad spoke. Her group, the Reveolutionary Communist Party was there with a huge banner reading, “Ahmadinejad is Bad but Bush is Worse”. Her group was decrying a possible US invasion of Iran.

As a journalist covering the event, I conducted an interview with her. She told me that in a communist society everyone would have the right to voice dissent. I asked her in gays in Cuba, (the only Communist country left in the western hemisphere, had a right to voice their dissent, to speak out and identify as gays and she equivocated her way through a feckless attempt to answer the question.

When I saw her again at Columiba the other night, she asked if I had included her remarks in my article, although due to space limitations, they were edited out by the powers that be at the publication.

On another note, although this is very trivial in the whole scheme of things, I recall the bookstore called Revolution Books. I remember that it was located in the West Village in a small shop and then I recall that it moved to a location near Union Square Park. I could be wrong, perhaps it was first located near the 14th Street - Union Square area and then moved to te West Village. My memory is a bit fuzzy on that one. At which location did you speak, Phyllis? Inquiring minds want to know.

Oct 28, 2007 - 2:31 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed) remember personal info?
Comments: