Iowahawk publishes presumably the last Zarkman report. This one is from the Islamic Paradise.

Charles Johnson notes a report from Ynet News, an Israeli news source:

Following warnings by extremist Islamic group al-Muhajiroun, in which the group said that the red cross in the England flag symbolizes the ‘blood thirsty crusaders’ and the occupation of Muslims, some of the largest companies in England have ordered their workers not to wave the flags.

The flag has recently appeared in England on everything from bikinis to cars, and sold in endless versions in stores.

But the Islamic protest forced some corporations, such as cable companies NTL, Heathrow airport in London, and even the Drivers and Vehicles Licensing Agency to ban the flag in every form due to fears from reactions of Muslims.

Slowtrain reprints a must-read article which I had not previously seen.

The apparent inability of the West to understand the motivation of Islamic extremism and terrorism, the lack of will, and the absence of any coherent and effective idea for dealing with the intrinsic problem of the diametrical nature of Islam to the Western ideals, is baffling. What is even more troubling is the doctrine of appeasement (excuses on behalf of Islam by western leaders) that is emerging in response to Islamic terrorist attacks, threats, and apparent intimidation of the West, whereby European leaders have elected to appease Muslims rather than engage them in honest and constructive dialog to transform the fundamental ideology that breeds hatred and inspires unspeakable acts of cruelty. This response is eerily reminiscent of the tepid response to the rise of Nazism, not too long ago.

To most Islamic leaders, perhaps, many Muslims, Islam is still at war with the Christian Europe, “crusaders”, as the Islamic extremists and terrorists like to portray the West. Hence, efforts by the West to establish democracy in the Middle East are viewed as Christians invading Islam. To the West, this is a paradox, but to many Muslims, this is clearly an attack on Islam. After all, democracy being another ideology is invariably in competition with Islam. Moreover, democracy originated in the West, the land of the “crusaders”, all the more reason for jihad, hence, the mind bugling and most gruesome killing of innocent Iraqis by Islamic extremists and terrorists to stop democracy from taking root.

——————

Hat tip to PJM.

The London Times reports:

A SENIOR member of an Islamic organisation linked to Al-Qaeda is funding his activities through the kidnapping of Christian children who are sold into slavery in Pakistan.

The Sunday Times has established that Gul Khan, a wealthy militant who uses the base of Jamaat-ud Daawa (JUD) near Lahore, is behind a cruel trade in boys aged six to 12.

They are abducted from remote Christian villages in the Punjab and fetch nearly £1,000 each from buyers who consign them to a life of misery in domestic servitude or in the sex trade…

Hafez Muhamed Sayeed… (leader of Jamaat-ud Daawa) was accused of inciting riots in Pakistan this year with speeches denouncing western “depravity” after a Danish newspaper published cartoons of the prophet Muhammad.

But the Washington Post took a look at some of the supposedly more tolerant texts in the light of these recent Saudi claims:

Saudi Arabia’s public schools have long been cited for demonizing the West as well as Christians, Jews and other “unbelievers.” But after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — in which 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis — that was all supposed to change.

A 2004 Saudi royal study group recognized the need for reform after finding that the kingdom’s religious studies curriculum “encourages violence toward others, and misguides the pupils into believing that in order to safeguard their own religion, they must violently repress and even physically eliminate the ‘other.’ ” Since then, the Saudi government has claimed repeatedly that it has revised its educational texts.

Prince Turki al-Faisal, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, has worked aggressively to spread this message. “The kingdom has reviewed all of its education practices and materials, and has removed any element that is inconsistent with the needs of a modern education,” he said on a recent speaking tour to several U.S. cities. “Not only have we eliminated what might be perceived as intolerance from old textbooks that were in our system, we have implemented a comprehensive internal revision and modernization plan.” The Saudi government even took out a full-page ad in the New Republic last December to tout its success at “having modernized our school curricula to better prepare our children for the challenges of tomorrow.”

The Post found among other examples of expressions of tolerance:

“Some of the people of the Sabbath were punished by being turned into apes and swine. Some of them were made to worship the devil, and not God, through consecration, sacrifice, prayer, appeals for help, and other types of worship. Some of the Jews worship the devil. Likewise, some members of this nation worship the devil, and not God.”
“The clash between this [Muslim] community (umma) and the Jews and Christians has endured, and it will continue as long as God wills.”

“It is part of God’s wisdom that the struggle between the Muslim and the Jews should continue until the hour [of judgment].”

“The greeting ‘Peace be upon you’ is specifically for believers. It cannot be said to others.”

“Do not yield to them [Christians and Jews] on a narrow road out of honor and respect.”

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

And the Post notes the significance of the content of Saudi texts:

The Saudi public school system totals 25,000 schools, educating about 5 million students. In addition, Saudi Arabia runs academies in 19 world capitals, including one outside Washington in Fairfax County, that use some of these same religious texts. Saudi Arabia also distributes its religion texts worldwide to numerous Islamic schools and madrassas that it does not directly operate. Undeterred by Wahhabism’s historically fringe status, Saudi Arabia is trying to assert itself as the world’s authoritative voice on Islam — a sort of “Vatican” for Islam, as several Saudi officials have stated– and these textbooks are integral to this effort. As the report of the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks observed, “Even in affluent countries, Saudi-funded Wahhabi schools are often the only Islamic schools” available.

asks Raymond Ibrahim.

Today, one wonders, What would Mohammed do? Would he smile upon “moderate” Muslims such as America’s “friends,” the many secular regimes who do not enforce Islamic law (which itself is based on his own commands) and who cooperate fully with the infidel West, or would he find favor in a man like Osama bin Laden, who defies the West? The answer to this question is easily found in the Koran and historical record of the Prophet.

Allah proclaims: “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity [i.e. embrace Islam], then open the way for them: for Allah is oft forgiving, most merciful” (Koran 9:5). This message is repeated continuously in the Koran and Hadith, and most Muslim jurists are agreed that these “Sword Verses” abrogate all earlier verses of tolerance and peaceable co-existence between Muslims and non-Muslims. Furthermore, the commandments of the Koran transcend time and are thus as applicable today as they were in the 7th century.

The historical record of Islam — its rise and spread — is even more illustrative than the words of the Koran. Islam was established by the sword. This is an historical fact, not an accusation. It’s not for nothing that Saudi Arabia, home of the Prophet and Islam, depicts a scimitar with the words “There is no god but Allah and Mohammad is His Prophet” on its national flag. Both Muslim and non-Muslim histories of Islam agree that the Warrior-Prophet personally waged war after war with the express purpose of spreading Islam.

These were wars forcing other peoples, first Arabs then non-Arabs, to embrace Islam and submit to the life-guiding Words of Allah (the Sharia), or else to pay tribute and live in humility as subjects of Islam, or else, to die by the sword.

These jihads prevailed for centuries. Indeed, just a mere century after the Prophet died, jihad had established Islam supreme in much of Asia, all of North Africa, and much of Mediterranean Europe (Spain, Sicily). This was more territory than the Roman Empire ever ruled in its heyday. It took Christianity five times as long to achieve such ubiquity (possibly because methods of diffusion differed). Holy War only ceased when Islam was defeated on the battleground — not because a new Revelation from Allah declared that expansion should cease, or that the three choices — conversion, submission, or death — have been abrogated. (The orthodox view in Sunni Islam is that peace will only exist once Islam reigns supreme over the whole world).

Islam is a rigorous faith with many laudable principles and prescriptions. Many people, not only Muslims, agree that other cultures can learn from the ideas of mercy, charity, and justice that also underlie Islam. But the fact remains that establishing Islam’s supremacy itself is the first principle, according to its holiest books and history. Moreover, based on the actions of the Prophet, his Companions and first caliphs, establishing Islamic hegemony through the sword was and thus is the norm.

So, based on his history, words, and deeds, what would Mohammad do? What would he do at a time when, far from assertively spreading Islam, the entire Muslim world believes that they are being ruthlessly persecuted by a Christian and godless West? What would his views and subsequent actions be regarding Israel’s occupation of Palestine, one of Islam’s holiest regions? What would he do about infidels stationed all around the Arabian Peninsula — where no non-Muslim is permitted to stay, per his own command? Iraq? Afghanistan? Would he go, briefcase in hand, to parley at the United Nations? Rebuke bin Laden for his violent ways? No, what he would do is all too clear:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book [Christians and Jews], until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Koran 9:29)

It is mportant to bear in mind that this injunction and similar verses depict the standard relationship between Muslims and infidels — even when the latter mind their own business. How much more is expected of Muslims when it is they who are under attack from the infidels?

Before he died, Mohammad sent a message to the Christian Roman emperor in Constantinople inviting him to embrace Islam or suffer the consequences. Up to that time, the Christian Empire had little to do with Arabia and nothing to do with Islam. The demand was dismissed. Mohammad then initiated jihads against Christian lands, permanently annexing a good chunk, till Constantinople itself, the seat of Christianity, fell to Islam after 800 years of jihad campaigns. That’s what the Prophet wanted, and that’s what his faithful followers accomplished.

So, what would Mohammad do now that Islam is perceived to be under direct attack?

Al-Qaeda answers that question daily.

Iranian mullahs in the city of Qum have invited Cuban dictator Fidel Castro to convert to Islam.

Why not? His Communism was only ever an opportunistic justification for him to operate as a brigand. And he’s already got the beard.

Joe Katzman at Wind of Change reflects on “the self-administered lobotomy” of European culture and links a number of other postings on the same theme. Katzman places his hope for a renewal of Western self-esteem in a revival of a sense of the reality of Good and Evil, which he hopes to see effectuated by the Church of Rome and the current pope:

Can Benedict XVI be the “Miracle Max” of our age? G-d only knows. Yet the lessons of the late 20th century should teach us not to underestimate a determined Pope. Europe has many antibodies to Catholicism, but it also has many societal and cultural channels through which a Pope can exert significant influence. Not least of which may be his ability to grant to Europe the two things it cannot discuss and yet must have: a way to forgive itself, even as he and his church insist on and promulgate the reality and centrality of both morality and evil.

A happy ending? Not for everyone.

An Indecent Left that has sought to silence, or denigrate, or even to cheer on 9/11 may yet have good cause to fear such a man. An Indecent Left which has moved on to World War 2 Holocaust denial in Europe via relativism, and is embarked on the fetishization of Judas by the folks Gerard Van Der Leun refers to as “The Church of the Self” may yet have good cause to fear such a man. An Indecent Left that relies on unresolved shame as its primary source of energy and power, cannot imagine a hostile tyrant it will not shill for, or service, and increasingly finds itself cooperating and borrowing from Islamist and neo-fascists, may yet have good cause to fear such a man.

But he also believes in “the common thread of Western civilization, Enlightenment values, and the sense of human dignity” which he hopes may prove a basis for a wider consensus.

The G2 Bulletin, a subscription Intelligence newsletter, is quoted in World Net Daily as reporting that:

A dozen young terrorists have departed Afghanistan, bound first for Iran and then Europe, where their mission will be to hunt down the Danish cartoonists responsible for drawing anti-Muhammad sketches…

The report was passed on by Hamid Mir, the Pakistani journalist who has interviewed al-Qaida leaders Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri and who just visited the no-man’s land along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

While there, he was told by Taliban sources in south Waziristan that 12 young men — nine Afghans and three Pakistanis — are on their way to Europe to kill the Danish cartoonists. While some carry Afghan passports and others carry Iranian passports, all will travel through Iran on their way to Europe, he reports.

All 12 have recorded the video messages that will be aired publicly if they hit their targets.

What will Europe do? I suppose they could refuse entry to, or simply intern, all persons bearing Afghani or Iranian passports. It looks like the the twelve Danish artists who drew the generally rather bland Mohammed cartoons will wind up living anonymously, under police security, like Salman Rushdie for years.

George Weigel in Commentary has a must-read essay, discussing Europe’s current unhappy position: faced with growing Islamic aggression and intolerance based in unassimilable immigrant communities, while simultaneously experiencing a continuing assault on her own identity and traditions by authoritarian secularism.

The aggressors in Culture War A are radical secularists, motivated by what the legal scholar Joseph Weiler has dubbed “Christophobia.” They aim to eliminate the vestiges of Europe’s Judeo-Christian culture from a post-Christian European Union by demanding same-sex marriage in the name of equality, by restricting free speech in the name of civility, and by abrogating core aspects of religious freedom in the name of tolerance. The aggressors in Culture War B are radical and jihadist Muslims who detest the West, who are determined to impose Islamic taboos on Western societies by violent protest and other forms of coercion if necessary, and who see such operations as the first stage toward the Islamification of Europe—or, in the case of what they often refer to as al-Andalus, the restoration of the right order of things, temporarily reversed in 1492 by Ferdinand and Isabella.

The question Europe must face, but which much of Europe seems reluctant to face, is whether the aggressors in Culture War A have not made it exceptionally difficult for the forces of true tolerance and authentic civil society to prevail in Culture War B.

Iranian exile Reza Aslan shares a personal memory in the Sunday Times Book Review:

I first visited Persepolis two years ago. Born in Iran but raised in the United States, I knew the place only from dusty academic books about the glories of pre-Islamic Iran. I was totally unprepared for the crowds I saw there. Busloads of schoolchildren from nearby Shiraz filed through the complex of temples and palaces. A tour guide walked an older group up a stone stairway etched with row upon row of subject nations humbly presenting themselves before the king, or shah, of Iran. Families laid out sheets and napped in the shade cast by the intricately carved walls.

Breaking away from the crowd, I noticed a boy scrawling graffiti on the side of a massive stone block. Horrified, I shooed him away. When I moved closer to see what he had written, I immediately recognized a verse, familiar to many Iranians, taken from the pages of Iran’s national epic, the “Shahnameh.”

Damn this world, damn this time, damn this fate,
That uncivilized Arabs have come to make me Muslim.