Why won't Muslim leaders denounce acts of terrorism? Why won't Muslims take to the streets and protest the hijacking of their faith by the so-called extremists among them the way they protest when infidels supposedly insult their prophet and religion? These are among the more vexing questions non-Muslims want answered in this time of intensifying jihadist activity around the world. Recently, Harvard professor Jessica Stern remarked that Muslim leaders are under no moral obligation to condemn the actions of so-called extremists within their religion, noting further - and erroneously - that religious leaders of other faiths do not condemn the extremist actions of their co-religionists, such as abortion clinic bombers and the Jewish "violent settlers’ movement".

Although these assertions have been throughly dismantled by not only the reporter who covered the story, who was quick to point out that the crimes of the "violent settlers' movement", such as Yigal Amir's assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin in 1995, are "almost universally condemned by Jewish leadership," but also by Catholic League president Bill Donohue, it's worth repeating for good measure. As Donohue put it,

[T]here has not been a single abortionist killed in the U.S. since 1998. When there were killings in the mid-1990s, Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, chairman of the Pro-Life Activities of the bishops’ conference, said that such shootings make ‘a mockery of everything we stand for.’ When there were two killings at Massachusetts abortion clinics, Cardinal Bernard Law not only denounced them, he ordered a moratorium on sidewalk protest vigils outside abortion clinics in Boston. Cardinal John O’Connor’s response in New York was profound: ‘If anyone has an urge to kill an abortionist, kill me instead.’

Not only has there never been a statement so profound by such a prominent Islamic leader, even watered-down, softer condemnations by Islamic leaders deserve scrutiny.

There are two issues that must be understood by non-Muslims when weighing the sincerity and seriousness of Muslim statements of peaceful co-exitance, pluralism and tolerance. First and foremost is the Islamic doctrine of dissimulation, or taqiyya. Taqiyya has its roots in Shi'ism, yet the basic principle is rooted in the overall Islamic jurisprudence.

Islamic tradition attributes the tone of certain Qur'anic verses to the political standing of Muhammad at the time they were revealed. For instance, in Mecca, he was powerless over the pagans, and thus the verses are pleading and tolerant. Muhammad just wants to be accepted and to save the idolators' souls from an eternity of dreadful punishment for worshipping idols and associating partners with the one true god. Lacking the power to neither defend himself nor subdue the Meccans by force, he could only threaten them with the supposed wrath of the one and only god, Allah; he had no means to threaten them otherwise.

After the hijrah, when Muhammad leaves Mecca to establish his power base in Yathrib (pre-Islamic Medina), he begins to influence and accumulate followers based on his military prowess, part of which was achieved by having a successful surprise attack on a Meccan caravan excused by a revelation from Allah (Q2.217). The tone of the verses switch to violence as a means for self defense (Q2.190).

As Muhammad accumulated victories and the spoils that inevitably followed, he soon realized that this was a far more effective method of gaining power than begging the Mushrikûn to accept that he was the final chain in a line of prophets that extended all the way back to Adam. Thus the verses become hateful and vicious and bloodthirsty; almost without exception, the peaceful verses are revealed while Muhammad was in Mecca, while violent verses were revealed in Medina. Even the no compulsion in religion verse (Q2.256) was revealed just after Muhammad arrived in Medina, and was abrogated several times over, most notably by the entire 9th surah.

Though the word Taqiyya is never specifically used in the Qur'an, its basis is found in verse 3.28, and we see the roots of modern dissimulation in these examples, even though they differ greatly with the original Shi'ite usage, which was to guard Shi'ites from Sunni persecution. If Islam is weak, offer peace until Islam becomes superior, then sever the bonds of friendship or diplomacy and bring the sword without leniency to those who refuse to submit. Never offer friendship to disbelievers (Q5.51), unless it be a facade while in your hearts you curse them.

History has borne this out time and time again. Anytime Islamic powers gained superiority over non-Muslims, they've attacked them, or subdued them with threats of attack where only extortion and submission to Islamic law could save them from the sword. Gestures of peace and reconciliation from Muslims are merely tactics to lull the enemies of Islam to sleep, while the ummah regroups and re-gathers its strength. Such gestures on the behalf of infidels are seen as a sign of weakness. Recall events at the height of the intifada: when Israel took the offensive and started to crush Palestinian jihadists, the Palestinians cried for peace; when Israel pulled back, the jihadists went back on the offensive. And on and on. The withdrawal from Gaza by the IDF was followed by an almost immediate rocket attack by HAMAS.

Unfortunately for the so-called moderate Muslim, to subscribe to Islamic belief is to become the proverbial boy who cried wolf to anyone learned in Islamic jurisprudence and history. Blindly accepting peaceful gestures by Muslims would be like letting a violent killer out of jail without so much as a parole hearing.

Continue reading.

A lecturer in public policy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government claims there is a double standard by which Muslim clerics are criticized for not condemning Islamist terrorism when "rabbis are not condemning the violent settlers' movement."

Jessica Stern's lecture and those of other participants sought to promote "new thinking against violent extremism and radicalization," according to papers circulated at the conference by the EastWest Institute, a think tank hosting the event in Manhattan.

Dr. Stern opened her remarks by saying that, while it may be true there is presently more violence being committed in the name of Islam than in the name of other religions, "all three major monotheistic religions have produced violence."

She then drew a parallel between what she characterized as violence in the name of Islam and violence in the name of Judaism and Christianity, as well as in official responses to such violence on the part of leaders of all three faiths.

"I've heard a lot of bashing of Muslim clerics for not stepping up to the plate and condemning extremist violence," she said. "But Catholic priests are not stepping up to condemn those who kill abortion doctors…[and] rabbis are not condemning the violent settlers' movement."

Asked afterward to clarify who comprises the "violent settlers' movement," and what specific acts of violence they are engaged in, she said, "People who want to blow up the Dome of the Rock or who are fighting the Israeli government. I'm not talking about the Israeli government."

When asked to cite specific examples of violence undertaken by this "violent settlers' movement," she mentioned Yigal Amir's 1995 assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin, a crime that was almost universally condemned by Jewish leadership.

And a smack-down rebuttal from Catholic League president Bill Donohue:

"Forced moral equivalency is immoral, and that is exactly what Jessica Stern is promoting. The silence of Muslim clerics in the face of Muslim violence is well-known. But when it comes to killing abortionists, the Catholic clergy have an impeccable record. It should be noted, too, that as the New York Sun pointed out today, rabbis everywhere condemned Yigal Amir's 1995 assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin—the very incident that Stern cited as an example of Jewish silence.

"To begin with, there has not been a single abortionist killed in the U.S. since 1998. When there were killings in the mid-1990s, Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, chairman of the Pro-Life Activities of the bishops' conference, said that such shootings make 'a mockery of everything we stand for.' When there were two killings at Massachusetts abortion clinics, Cardinal Bernard Law not only denounced them, he ordered a moratorium on sidewalk protest vigils outside abortion clinics in Boston. Cardinal John O'Connor's response in New York was profound: 'If anyone has an urge to kill an abortionist, kill me instead.'

"Just this week, a report of Muslim violence against Iraqi Christians was released. The study, Incipient Genocide (pdf), describes in detail 'the deaths of Christian children--including babies--laypeople, priests and nuns who were burned, beaten or blown up in car bombs throughout the past few years.' Moreover, Christian girls are being raped and having nitric acid thrown in their faces for not wearing veils. And the Muslim silence is deafening."

Touchdown.

"In the interest of impartiality, the authors of the Constitution did not define what constitutes a religion." A discussion that needs to start taking place sooner rather than later. From American Thinker:

The Constitution of the United States is one of the most glorious documents promoting individual liberty ever written.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is also the first section of the Bill of Rights. It is arguably the most important part of the U.S. Constitution. It reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The framers of the Constitution were acutely aware of the danger of religious infringement in the affairs of the State or the State's sponsorship of a particular faith. Recalling the tragic clashes of the two in Europe, the founding fathers aimed to guard against either religion or the State transgressing in the purview of the other.

In the interest of impartiality, the authors of the Constitution did not define what constitutes a religion. Presently, a plethora of sects, cults, orders-all claiming to be religion-cover the length and the breadth of the land. So long as these "religions" minister to the legitimate spiritual needs of their congregation without threatening the rights of others, there is no reason for concern. However, when one or more of these claimants strive to undermine the very Constitution that protects them in order to impose their belief and way of life, serious problems arise.

One such religion is Islam in all its forms. Islam is more than a religion. It is an ideological superstructure encompassing all institutions, social, economic, political, military, civil, legal, educational, and even private affairs. It is of relatively recent arrival in the continent of and is rapidly burgeoning in number and influence. Therefore, it is imprudent to ignore the threat it poses to the larger religious and secular communities.

Can a religion or a cult become so powerful and so uncivilized that it can hide behind the Constitution to preach an ideology of hatred and advocate a plan to destroy our society and subvert our government? We need to consider whether our Constitution enables and protects "religions" that are being used to put our very society and our freedoms in jeopardy.

Islam seeks nothing less than a total global domination. The word Islam literally means "submission" or "surrender", the kind that comes by force or fraud. Its scripture must be taken literally; its provisions are intended to dominate every waking moment in the life of a believer. There is no room for being a half-hearted Muslim and no toleration of watering down its invocations.

The true nature and the threat of Islam is evident in the Quran-a document of exclusion, hatred and violence that shapes the Muslims' thinking and behavior.

The Quran was perhaps appropriate for a different people of a bygone era-a people of stunted development, a people who preferred to blindly follow someone than to think for themselves, to hate than love, and to seek and inflict death than to nurture and celebrate life.

Freedom is very fragile. Anything that protects freedom can also become an Achilles heel for those blessed with freedom. This is because freedom always entails the unfortunate ability to use one's rights to destroy the freedoms and rights of others. People can use the protections afforded them by the Constitution to inflict great harm to those who live within the law. We know this is the main argument against the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment institution protects private firearms ownership, yet we are endlessly reminded by some politicians that gun ownership can be dangerous, and like any freedom the right to own and use firearms can be misused. This is why an unfettered right to own a gun has been subject to a multitude of regulations and restrictions.

Given that the formerly vast and largely segregated planet has shrunk into a "global village," the disparate peoples isolated from one another for millennia are now a village community. These thrown-together diverse people are in urgent need of a set of common rules that would allow individuals as well as groups maximum latitude of faith, coupled with responsibility, and free of any practices that infringe on the rights of others or demonizes them.

Islam with its rule of Sharia presents an imminent threat to subvert and replace the Constitution that governs our lives. Unlike Muslims who practice Taqiyya -lying or dissimulation-I proudly speak the truth. Truth should never be sacrificed at the altar of any goal. I firmly believe that truthfulness is indeed the foundation of all virtues.

Faithful Muslims believe that sovereignty belongs to Allah. They believe the only important "constitution" is the Quran, and before allegiance to a nation comes fidelity to Allah. Islam of all sects demands obedience to Islamic law, not the laws of men or political institutions. A Muslim will never abide by an oath of office when Islamic principles are at stake. When they swear an oath on the Quran, it is to show Islamic supremacy, not to prove they are telling the truth.

Read it all. Also note that the Ulema have ruled that "Belief that it is not necessary to follow the Prophet, and that it is permitted to step outside the Law of Allah" represents a negation of Islamic faith - ie. apostasy, punishable by death.

It should be noted that, fundamentally, Islam and politics are inseperable; trying to identify such a distinction is like trying to identify a body of water without...water. From American Thinker:

A new study by the US Institute for Peace (USIP) of polling data from fourteen different Muslim countries finds that support for a role for Islam in politics strongly correlates with more likely support for terrorism. This statistical analysis is certain to draw protests from the usual propagandists of radical Islam in the US, even though the USIP can hardly be considered a neo-conservative institution.

Ever since recent release last month of the Pew poll on American Muslim attitudes, the Islamist propagandists and their media establishment allies have been working feverishly to avoid the implications of those findings by citing another study purportedly showing Americans more in favor of attacks on civilians than Muslims in the US and around the world, claims rebutted in my American Thinker article last week, "Lies, Damned Lies, and CAIR's Statistics".

The current report in question, "Correlates of Public Support for Terrorism in the Muslim World" by Ethan Bueno de Mesquita of Washington University in St. Louis, also examines data gathered by the Pew Research Center and finds a broad range of opinions and attitudes in the Muslim world. For instance, support for terrorism was extremely high in Lebanon (home of Hezbollah) and extremely low in Uzbekistan (an allied partner with the US in the War on Terror).

The support for terrorism is also dispersed in the Muslim world: of the top five countries in the fourteen surveyed, two were in the Middle East (Lebanon and Jordan), two were in Africa (Nigeria, Ivory Coast) and one was in Asia (Bangladesh). It should be noted that Egypt refused to let the question be asked as part of the survey, and other presumably high terrorism support areas, including Syria, Iran, Iraq, the Palestinian Authority and Saudi Arabia, were not included in the poll.

The standout finding of the USIP study is that support for an increased role for Islam in politics is correlated with greater support for the use of terrorism, even in countries that already adhere to political Islam:

People who support a strong role for Islam in politics are more likely to also support terrorism. Perhaps more surprisingly, people who perceive Islam to play a large role in the politics of their home country are also more likely to support terrorism. (p. 7)

The USIP study also busts the bubble of radical Islamic apologists who claim that support for terrorism is driven by people living under Islamic dictatorships. What the data shows is that dissatisfaction with Islam's role in internal politics has very little correlation to attitudes on terror. The study finds that

...dissatisfaction with the role of Islam in one's own country's politics is much more weakly correlated with support for terrorism then raw attitudes toward to role of Islam. (p. 7)

Perhaps even more important, the data shows that in these countries the perceived threat to Islam posed by the government plays virtually no role at all in support for terrorism. (p. 7)

To get at what might possibly drive support for terrorism, the study's author looked at respondents opinions on possible threats to Islam. What he discovered is that the perceived threat to Islam by their home government had very little impact in their support for terrorism, but instead, "those who believe the United States and the West pose such a threat are particularly likely to support terrorism." (p. 8) In fact, the perceived threat by the US to Islam correlates higher than any other factor in justifying the use of terrorism. (p. 9)

There are several other surprising findings in the USIP report:

• Respondents in these Muslim countries that believed they had some degree of freedom of speech were found to be more likely to support terrorism. (p. 28) As a possible interpretation for this effect, one explanation offered by the study's author is that "when people perceive themselves to have freedom of expression, they are more inclined to admit their support for terror." (p. 29)
• In line with the findings of other surveys, support for terrorism is constant across education groups (p. 35) It's not just that education plays little role in justifying terror, but that the relationship is non-existent: "Not only is the relationship statistically insignificant, but by and large the point estimates are zero." (p. 36)
• Perception of the state of the country's economy was basically uncorrelated with support for terrorism. (p. 30) This finding undercuts the argument that Islamic terrorism is driven by poverty in the Muslim world.
• Women are more likely to be weak or strong supporters of terrorism than men. (p. 37)
• Age is negatively correlated to support for terrorism, meaning that the older one gets, the less likely he will justify the use of terrorism. (p. 38-39) The study's author suggests this might be due to a real age effect (views moderate for all ages as they get older), or a generational effect (people born in the 1940s vs. the 1980s). Marriage was also a negative factor in supporting terrorism, though the relationship was found to be statistically insignificant. (p. 40)

As stated earlier, the strongest correlated factor in the support for terrorism is anti-Americanism and the perceived threat to Islam from America in the West. The study's author explains the critical role this plays in the support for terrorism in the Muslim world:

It may well be that people support terrorism because they perceive there to be a threat to Islam from the United States. But the relationship could also work the other way. Terrorism is, among other things, a tool of propaganda. One of the key messages of Islamic terrorists is anti-Americanism. Thus, if terrorism is an effective tool of propaganda, it may be that people who support terrorism (for whatever reason) end up having strongly anti-American sentiments because they are persuaded by the terrorists' message. Another, related, explanation argues that people who support terrorism have a psychological need to justify this support. As a result, they adopt views that "rationalize" their support for terrorism. Thus, while they may perceive their support for terrorism to be caused by their anti-American views, the opposite might be the case-they may have adopted anti-Americanism to justify support for terror. Under either of these alternative interpretations, anti-Americanism does not cause support for terror, support for terror causes anti-Americanism. (p. 41-42)

Terrorists have a vested interest in ratcheting up anti-America rhetoric as part of their hate propaganda campaign. Terror and hatred of America and its values go hand-in-hand in the Muslim world unlike any other factor yet studied. Because these two are so strongly correlated, this tells us something about those quick to indict American society and our government's policies.

This new study also shatters the myth of the supposedly peaceful Muslim world advanced recently by CAIR, ISNA and the Orwellian-named Terror Free America. If these organizations are really concerned about combating terror and improving American-Islamic relations, this study clearly demonstrates that they had better start working on the Islamic side of the equation.

A sobering analysis of America's complete lack of political will and power, as well as the utter ineptness of our foreign policy, from Tom Tancredo and Bob Filner, found in the Washington Times:

Since the theocratic regime of Ayatollah Khomeini seized power in 1979, and under Khomeini's successors, Iran has consistently out-maneuvered the United States and our allies through a crafty combination of diplomatic manipulation; exploitation of commercial considerations; support for terrorists and kidnappers; the use of proxy agents in Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere; and, in recent years, playing the nuclear card.

Earlier this year, we were relieved to see the 15 British sailors and marines return home from their captivity in Iran unharmed. But it is shocking and galling that Iran managed to win a propaganda victory over the West through a brazen act of piracy on the high seas and clear violations of the Geneva Conventions' rules on the treatment of prisoners.

Also this month, U.S. military commanders have reported that Iran is supplying weapons to both Sunni and Shi'ite militias in Iraq — directly putting our troops at risk of death or serious injury, while causing a terrible toll for thousands of Iraqis on both sides of the Sunni-Shi'ite divide.

And just in the past few days, in utter defiance of the world community, Iranian officials have confirmed that 3,000 centrifuges used to enrich uranium are in place at the illicit nuclear facility at Natanz and that the goal is to eventually install 50,000 centrifuges.

These recent developments, on top of Iran's ongoing efforts to spread its extremist jihadist ideology, have brought us to a crisis point in dealing with the Iranian threat. We need to develop a better strategy to protect our national interests and the security of our friends and allies in the region.

As members of Congress from opposite sides of the aisle, we have been working for years to inject new policy ideas into the U.S. framework for dealing with Iran. It is clear that the United States and the international community must make better use of all the tools at our disposal for dealing with the multiple threats emanating from Iran.

These tools include a range of financial and economic sanctions. Bipartisan legislation is currently pending in Congress to strengthen existing sanctions regimes by preventing new investment in Iran's oil and gas sector and requiring the divestiture of existing investments. We strongly support our colleagues' initiatives in these areas. But, to be truly effective, sanctions must be multilateral. Tehran has been able to count on China and Russia to push for the weakening of measures proposed by the United States.

The official U.S. line regarding our policy toward Iran is that "all options are on the table." Yet there is one vitally important option that is not "on the table," but should be: empowering the Iranian democratic opposition, in general, and, specifically, recognizing one of the most effective and best organized Iranian opposition movement, the Mujahedin e-Khalq (MEK).

The Iranian government has gone to tremendous lengths, both directly and indirectly, to discredit and weaken the MEK, largely through disinformation programs. Why is the regime so obsessively focused on a relatively small opposition group based largely in the Iranian diaspora? The MEK is a moderate, democratic, secular organization that has consistently opposed the regime's extremist policies with a message of democratic reform and individual freedom — a message that Iran's ruling mullahs don't want their people to hear.

Furthermore, the MEK has been a remarkably reliable source of intelligence on Iran's clandestine nuclear program and on Iranian meddling in Iraq.

But, in a bizarre twist of U.S. policy, the MEK has been labeled by the State Department as a foreign terrorist organization, originally placed on the blacklist in 1997 as a concession to "moderates" in Tehran who were then believed to be ascendant — one of the regime's key strategic victories over America and the West during the past three decades of fruitless negotiations.

Listing the MEK as "terrorists" is both an injustice and manifestly contrary to U.S. interests. To remedy this situation, there is growing bipartisan support in Congress to urge Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to remove the MEK from the terrorist list, using procedures enacted into law in 2004 to de-designate listed organizations that no longer qualify for such treatment.

The MEK has voluntarily disarmed and renounced violence. Despite inaccurate information to the contrary, the MEK has never targeted U.S. citizens or interests.

The MEK, and the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), a coalition of which MEK is a member, have tremendous reach inside of Iran and a capacity to help build a successful grassroots movement to bring about democratic reform.

From its base in Iraq, where 3,800 MEK members live under the protection of coalition forces, the organization has provided intelligence on Iran's support for terrorism in Iraq. Lt. Gen. David Odierno, commander of the Multinational Corps-Iraq, has described the MEK as "extremely cooperative" in ensuring security.

An Iran committed to a belligerent, revolutionary agenda will continue to threaten its neighbors and global security. Long-term stability in the Middle East depends upon a stable, secular, democratic Iran that does not export terror, violent upheaval and a radical ideology. Our efforts should be directed at fostering democratic change within Iran by empowering the very opposition organizations that share our goals and values.