In a recent commentary, radio talk show host Dennis Prager posed five questions “that law-abiding Muslims need to answer for Islam’s sake, as well as for the sake of worried non-Muslims”. Prager said his questions were prompted in part by recent rioting in France “by primarily Muslim youths”, despite the fact that neutral experts say the violence had little to do with Islam and it was Muslim leaders who ultimately helped quell the violence.
Hussam Ayloush of CAIR replies to Prager’s questions.
“One only has to replace the terms Islam with Judah (or Judaism) and Muslim with Jew in Pipes’s writings to see the close resemblance with Nazi propaganda.”
Habib Siddiqui replies to Daniel Pipes’ coverage of the unrest in France.
“… for a white Frenchman who’s technically a Catholic but probably an agnostic, it must be depressing to open the newspaper each morning and read yet another headline about an alien creed that seems intent on imposing itself on his country. If it’s a really ‘class’ newspaper like Le Monde, the editorial will probably inform him that the fault for this state of affairs is largely his own and that he will soon be expected to pay the price economically while redoubling his efforts to be exquisitely sensitive about all things Muslim. How long he’ll put up with this, that is the question.”
Brendan Bernhard in LA Weekly, 18 November 2005
“Declaring takfir on the jihadist leaders is the rhetorical equivalent of fighting terror with terror. The practice of takfir is the hallmark of the most radical, totalitarian fringe of Islamism: the assumption of the right to unilaterally declare a Muslim a non-Muslim and thereby condemn him or her to death (literally or figuratively). Any vision of a liberal or moderate Islamism should reject takfir on principle.”
Marc Lynch goes on to criticise MEMRI’s “exposure” of Yusuf al-Qaradawi for his refusal to call for the excommunication of Bin Laden: “His rejection of the act of takfir, even when it might be politically expedient to do otherwise, should be applauded for what it is: an important stand for moderation and against extremism.”
“Remember the political-correctness-gone-mad story about the Halifax and Nat West banning piggy banks so as not to offend Muslims? The Daily Express led with it, as did several internet news sources and a few of the more intemperate blogs. Well, Australian Mediawatch reveals that it wasn’t true.
“The Halifax press office said in an email to Mediawatch: ‘Halifax has not withdrawn any piggy banks from branches. As a matter of fact we have not used piggy banks in our branches for a number of years.’ And the media relations office of the Nat West wrote: ‘There is absolutely no fact in the story. We simply had a UK wide savings marketing campaign, which included pictures of piggy banks, running until the end of September. Piggy banks have been and will continue to be used as a promotional item by NatWest’.”
MediaWatchWatch, 16 November 2005
Credit where it’s due, though. Two weeks ago even that most intemperate of anti-Muslim bloggers, Robert Spencer, admitted that he got it wrong.
The question is why anyone ever swallowed this patently bogus story in the first place.
British terror suspect to be extradited to US
By Louise Nousratpour
Morning Star, 17 November 2005
Peace campaigners attacked Home Secretary Charles Clarke’s “disgraceful” decision yesterday to extradite British terror suspect Barbar Ahmad to the US where he could be executed.
Mr Clarke ordered the extradition of Mr Ahmad, currently being held in Woodhill Prison, Milton Keynes, because of US allegations that he raised money to support terrorism in Chechnya and Afghanistan through websites.
The US government also accused Mr Ahmad of trying to set up a terrorist training camp in Arizona, but is yet to back its accusations with evidence.
Mr Ahmad’s family said that they would be appealing against his extradition in the High Court.
In a posting on his website, Mr Ahmad – a computer expert from Tooting in south west London – said: “This decision should only come as a surprise to those who thought that there was still justice for Muslims in Britain.”
“The Islamic Caliphate is encroaching and England appears to be going down without a fight. Prince Charles certainly seems to be on board for the changeover.” Cinnamon Stillwell explains how “the British descent into dhimmitude” continues apace, with the assistance of the royal family.
Jewish Press, 16 November 2005
Update: The article seems to have been deleted but can be found here.
Victoria Brittain reports on the case of Guantánamo hunger striker Fawzi al-Odah.
A convention of a group of Republicans was due to take place in Texas on Tuesday that critics and concerned Muslims have denounced as anti-Islam. The group, which calls itself Cherry Tree Republicans, charges that Muslims are bombing Israel, Jordan, England, Spain, France, and that Al Qaeda has training camps “as close as Mexico and South America”. “Our borders,” the convention literature states, “are crossed by thousands illegally every week, including illegal aliens from Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iran and Syria.”
Muslims, the group claims, either want to “convert us or kill us”. It goes on to say that “Islam teaches that Muslims must wage war to impose Islamic law on non-Muslim states”. American Muslim groups are said to be engaged in a “huge cover-up of Islamic doctrine and history”, and “today’s jihadi terrorists have the same motives and goals as the Muslims who fought the Crusaders”. The group says that Muslim persecution of Christians has continued for 13 centuries and still goes on.
“Always able to put the blame elsewhere for all of Islam’s crimes and problems, Muslims eagerly accept any and all excuses for the sins of Islam, no matter how illogical those excuses may be. If their warped minds can’t accept the fact that their ‘religion of peace’ is to blame, the blame is pushed off on the Jews, or justified by claiming it was Islam that was attacked first. Denial is their first line of defense.”
Barbara J. Stock assesses the Amman bombings. ChronWatch, 16 November 2005