Pride of Lions, Part 2

In Part 1 we had a brief excerpt from Are Muslim enclaves no-go areas, forcing other people out, asks historian John Cornwell, dated March 16, 2008. Skipping down some in that article, we have the following passage:

A mild-eyed young man called Osman comes to squat next to me where I sit with my back to the wall. "What does total submission entail?" I ask. "We don't leave our religion in the mosque," he says reverentially. "We take it out into the streets, the workplace, into our homes." Osman is joined by three other curious worshippers. One of them embraces me and starts to talk about the Prophet: "Peace be upon him." I ask him why, if their religion is truly peace-loving, it perpetrates crimes like honour killings and supports terrorism. "Islam is a religion of peace," he says. "There is no such thing as Muslim terrorism, just as there is no such thing as Muslim alcoholism, no such thing as Muslim pig-eating."

"There is no such thing as Muslim terrorism" -- the very statement makes takfir out of all the Muslims who commit terrorist acts. This goes beyond denial. By internalizing the concept of takfir, he is adopting terrorist ideology, and setting the stage for further terrorism.

The majority of Muslims do not kill women for running away from brutal husbands and forced marriages, nor are they terrorists, yet moderate Muslims nevertheless appear to be creating divisive enclaves within this country as a result of routine Muslim religiosity and lifestyle. Consider the following. In Dewsbury, imams petition Mid Yorkshire Hospital NHS Trust to request nurses to turn beds of sick Muslims to face Mecca five times a day. A Muslim shop assistant at Reading's Marks & Spencer refuses to touch a book of children's Bible stories because it is "unclean". In hospitals around Britain, female Muslim surgeons refuse to follow hygiene guidelines stipulating scrubbing up bare arms (a measure to combat MRSA and Clostridium difficile). In Oxford the imam of the new central mosque is requesting amplified calls to prayer, prompting Christian clergy to predict "white flight" from a city of burgeoning minarets.

It's called "Islamification".

While billed as a racial issue, Islam is in fact not a "race" but an ideology -- a religion, a way of life -- and anyone can become a Muslim.

However, since many of the non-Muslim inhabitants of the British Isles are "white" and, many of the relatively newly-arrived Muslims are of darker complexion, the matter is billed as "racism" -- hence, the use of the term "white flight" when non-Muslims leave an area that is becoming Islamified.

We consider now excerpts from 'White flight' increasing, race chief says by Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor, dated January 16, 2008:

Trevor Phillips said so-called "white flight" -- an American phenomenon now increasingly seen here -- was deepening racial segregation.

Mr Phillips has warned in the past of the growing polarisation of the country along ethnic lines.

But his use of the emotive term "white flight" will fuel the controversy triggered by the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester.

[snip]

The term "white flight" was coined in 1960s America to describe the emergence of inner city ghettos.

However, Government ministers have preferred to refer to it as "churn" and to attribute the movement of people to house price fluctuations.

House price fluctuations...

A survey conducted by the old Commission for Racial Equality in 2006 found that a quarter of Britons wanted to live in an all-white area.

The movement has been especially notable in London, which has always seen a big turnover of population, and is now witnessing unprecedented movement.

Last year, nearly 245,000 people left inner boroughs for the suburbs, rural areas, or new lives abroad.

The movement has a bigger impact in northern cities where communities already live "parallel lives".

As a consequence they become "shut off" and vulnerable to political and religious extremism.

[snip]

"This is another courageous contribution from Trevor Phillips, who is clearly prepared to face the facts about the current strains in our society," he said.

"We would add -- although he does not -- that massive levels of immigration are a significant factor in this."

The extremism is being cultivated by ongoing government policies. The government is allowing in too many immigrants, and making it too easy for them to not assimilate. That last sentence in the article nails it, although it is not just a matter of immigration. It is a question of the ideology held by the people they are letting in.

Toward the end of Part 1, we began reviewing The Gina Khan Interview - Part One January 9, 2008. That excerpt ended with Gina saying the following:

I am not liked by the Islamists. I've had bricks thrown through the window and I've had family members beaten up. I've been told to move on. But I'm not budging. This is my home and I belong here. The Islamists where I live -- in Birmingham's Ward End -- are an awful scourge.

We now continue with that interview:

Q: Why are you not like them yourself?

I was 10 when I first started to reason and listen to what my inner voice was telling me, compared to the voices that were drowning out my own authentic voice. I remained silent back then though, and I have since paid a very high personal price for that silence, as I could not get on with the confined ways as laid out for me. Looking back -- I suppose I was only young -- I participated in my own oppression and thought I was being a good Muslim woman. As hard as people tried though, they couldn't take the Britishness out of me! I fought suppression and oppression until I have become who I've become.

I think in English, I talk in English. I wasn't even fluent speaking Urdu and Punjabi until I was 18yrs of age. The women in my family were not backwards, my Mum was the head of the family, and she was a strong independent woman who made sure Dad could never engage in polygamy in this country (as he had done before in Pakistan before they migrated to Birmingham). But don't get me wrong -- I'm a Muslim alright.

This is a key point.

According to the extremists, Gina Khan is not a Muslim -- she is takfir.

Wikipedia explains takfir thus:

In Islamic law, takfir or takfeer is the practice of declaring unbeliever or kafir (pl. kuffār), an individual or a group previously considered Muslim. The act which precipitates takfir is termed the mukaffir.

Conditions

This declaration may be made if the alleged Muslim in question declares himself a kafir, but more typically applies to a judgement that an action or statement by the alleged Muslim indicates his knowing abandonment of Islam.

[snip]

What constitutes sufficient justification for takfir is disputed between different schools of religious thought. The orthodox Sunni position is that sins do not in general prove that someone is not a Muslim, but that denials of fundamental religious principles do; thus a murderer, for instance, may still be a Muslim, but someone who denies that murder is a sin must be a kafir, as long as he is aware that murder is a sin in Islam. An extreme case is exemplified by the early Kharijites, some of whom concluded that any Muslim who sinned ceased to be a Muslim, while others concluded that any major sin could cause that.

Funny how the Kharijites -- the Khawarij -- should come up in this topic!

The following excerpt is from Jihad Without Rules: The Evolution of al-Takfir wa al-Hijra by Hayder Mili, June 29, 2006. Notice how the term takfir here is used to refer to those who believe in the concept of takfir and incorporate it into extremist ideology.

The September 11 attacks precipitated the uncovering of extensive al-Takfir wa al-Hijra (Excommunication and Exile) networks across Europe specialized in logistical support to terrorist groups. While the obscure group had been previously encountered by law enforcement, many were surprised at the extent and reach of its networks. Once thought of as nothing more than a fringe group in Egypt, in the last 15 years the ideology has undergone a surprising internationalization and evolution with Takfir groups involved in terrorist attacks, criminal activities and cooperating with the al-Qaeda network in its jihad against the West.

The Doctrine

Most contemporary Takfir doctrine was forged inside Egyptian jails following the great wave of arrests targeting the Muslim Brotherhood in the mid-1960s where many of its members were tortured and/or executed. One of those arrested, the sheikh of Egypt's al-Azhar mosque, Ali Ismael, postulated that not only were Egyptian President Nasser and his entourage apostates, but so was Egyptian society as a whole because it was not fighting the Egyptian government and had thus accepted rule by non-Muslims. This was another radical turn in the concept of takfir (to excommunicate), first enunciated by Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah and further developed by Sayyid Qutb, both intellectual pillars of the contemporary jihadist ideology. While the sheikh later rejected this doctrine, his remaining followers quickly gravitated around a young charismatic agronomist by the name of Shukri Mustafa, who became the spiritual leader of Jama'at al-Muslimin (as they called themselves) but whom Egyptian police came to call al-Takfir wa al-Hijra (ATWAH).

Takfir members exiled themselves (al-Hijra) in the desert practicing complete isolation (al-Uzla) from excommunicated (al-Takfir) Muslim societies. While jihad certainly remained an imperative, Shukri Mustafa initially believed that an imminent world war between the superpowers would leave free reign to the jihadists—then too weak—to take power. Arguing that Egyptian man-made laws were illegitimate, ATWAH was able to justify theft, kidnapping, forced marriages and even the assassination of anyone who was not part of the group (such as apostates). Most of these core precepts are still loosely followed by contemporary Takfir groups.

These extremist groups were "able to justify theft, kidnapping, forced marriages and even the assassination of anyone who was not part of the group" -- in other words, they became murders, criminals, terrorists -- Khawarij!

Here is an excerpt from Maulana Maudoodi’s article: Mischief of Takfir:

In the period of the decline of the Muslims, among the many troubles that have arisen, one serious and dangerous mischief is that of declaring one another as kafir and wrong-doer, and cursing one another. People introduced cracks within the plain and simple creed of Islam, and by means of inference and interpretation they created from them such branches and details as were mutually contradictory, and which were not explained in the Quran and Sunna, and even if these were, then God and His Prophet had not given them any importance. Then these servants of God (may God forgive them) gave so much importance to their own invented side-issues that they made them the criteria for faith, and on the basis of these they tore Islam to pieces, and made numerous sects, each sect calling every other as kafir, wrong-doer, misguided, doomed to hell, and God knows what. Whereas God in His clear Book had drawn a plain line of distinction between kufr and Islam, and had not given anyone the right to have discretion to declare anything he wants as kufr and anything he wants as Islam. Whether the cause of this mischief is narrow-mindedness with good intentions, or selfishness, envy and self-seeking with malevolent intentions, the fact remains that probably nothing else has done the Muslims as much harm as this has done.

"Whether the cause of this mischief is narrow-mindedness with good intentions, or selfishness, envy and self-seeking with malevolent intentions, the fact remains that probably nothing else has done the Muslims as much harm as this has done."

And that came out in May, 1935!

The more things change....

Stay tuned to Stop Islamic Conquest as Pride of Lions continues.

Pakistan's Undercurrents and Eddies, Part 1

At my post on Benazir Bhutto's Assassination, a commentator, Keshav, left a link to an article entitled Monster she created came back to take her life, 29 Dec 2007. I reproduce that article here in its entirety, with comments:

NEW DELHI: It was the year 1996. Benazir Bhutto as prime minister of Pakistan had asked Pervez Musharraf, then her Director General of Military Operations, to rehabilitate Al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden in Jalalabad from Sudan.

Bin Laden, who had shifted base to the African country after the Afghan war, had been thrown out by Khartoum after intense American pressure. Musharraf brought the Al-Qaida mastermind to Jalalabad, a city in eastern Afghanistan, and rehabilitated him.

That, a decade later, Al-Qaida should claim responsibility for Bhutto's assassination marks not just a cruel irony, it also underlines once again the risk of Frankenstein's monster turning upon the master.

This is a recurring theme with Al Qaeda.

These terrorists, collectively known by different names, including the term "Arab-Afghan Mujahideen", were originally backed by the United States in the 1980's. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan at the end of 1979, and a little over a year later Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as the fortieth President of the United States, with a former Director of Central Intelligence as his V. P.; this set the stage for a proxy war in Afghanistan, where the United States could finally do to a communist superpower a little of what had been done to us in Vietnam.

Afghanistan is land-locked, and was at the time bordered on the north by republics of the USSR, and on the west by Iran, now hostile after the Islamic revolution that had recently unseated the Shah. It was hard to reach for the US, but to the south was Pakistan, which had for some time been considered a US ally in checking Soviet ambitions in the region; together with Turkey and the Shah's Iran, Pakistan and the United States had been members of the Central Treaty Organization, or CENTO. Modeled on the successful North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and originally including Iraq (but initially not the US), CENTO, defunct by the early 1980's, had been an attempt to establish a barrier of strong nations to the Soviet Union's south -- protecting critical oil resources and shipping lanes, and linked to NATO.

As such, Pakistan, with its long and lawless border with Afghanistan, was the perfect place for the US intelligence services to establish a base for holy war against the Kremlin. Working with the Pakistanis, the US helped arm and organize the Mujahideen, which included Arabs from the Middle East, who came complete with the financial backing of petrodollars.

Since Pakistan was a sovereign nation with strong allies, the Soviets could not violate Pakistan's borders without risk. Pakistan offered a safe haven for the Afghan Mujahideen, their Arab brothers, and their sponsors. Ten years after its invasion, the Soviet Union pulled out of Afghanistan. Ultimately, the USSR collapsed, in part because of problems in Soviet society that were caused or exacerbated by the Afghan war.

After the liberation of Afghanistan from Soviet occupation, many of the Afghani warriors retired from jihad; however, many of the Arab holy warriors stayed. With their financial backing from the Middle East, especially from Saudi Arabia, with their extensive intercourse with Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and their ties to Washington, and with their love of jihad, these Arab-Afghan Mujahideen evolved into what would later be a world class problem: their members helped brutalize fighting in the Balkans from the early 1990's until the present day, and their members formed the cadre for what would later be called Al Qaeda.

Bhutto's return to Pakistan this year may have been marked with her claim to wipe out terrorism, but the fact remains that it was her interior minister, Major General (retd) Naseerullah Babar, who played a key role in raising the Taliban and consolidating Al-Qaida in Afghanistan. The reason: a desire to secure strategic depth by controlling Pakistan's western border, and to have a say in future Afghanistan affairs.

Pakistan's western border lies in the province of Balochistan, bordering not just Iran, but including much of Pakistan's border with Afghanistan, as well. Its ethnic balance was disrupted by an influx of refugees from Afghanistan, now making Pashtuns roughly equal in the province's population with the Baloch.

(By the way: with a population of over 162 million, a little more than half that of the United States, Pakistan ranks sixth in population among the world's nations, behind China, India, the United States, Indonesia and Brazil.)

Balochistan is the location of Gwadar, where a major Sino-Pakistani project is underway to develop port facilities (see The Islamic Bomb, Part 2, where I touched on this).

The present day terrorism in India, and now turning on Pakistan, can, to an important extent, be traced to that fateful decision taken by the Bhutto government.

Taliban soon became host to a menacing jihadi conglomerate — the Qaida-led International Islamic Front (IIF) — the components of which included anti-India gangs like Lashkar-e-Toiba, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, which later became Jaish-e-Mohhamed, HuJI and others.

The objective of the group was to establish Sharia rule in this important region of Asia, and it was determined to go to any length, even acquire weapons of mass destruction, to realise it.

Two things are important to keep in mind here.

First is that these Arab-Afghan Mujahideen got their start with Pakistani and US intelligence agencies, and still maintain extensive ties with Pakistan's ISI, many of whose members sympathize with their extremist agenda. Through narcotics trafficking and other organized crime activities, they are also connected to corrupt elements in the Pakistani government, as well as in the US government, as I repeatedly address in this blog.

This heroin trafficking at first was a way to further destabilize the Soviet Union, by generating an enormous social problem among the civilian population at home and among Soviet troops in Afghanistan by getting them hooked on heroin; the sale of heroin also provided a way of funding the holy war against Moscow. But, as with the Arab-Afghan Mujahideen themselves, when the war ended, the Afghanistan-based heroin trafficking lived on; it became a scourge on the world scene, attaining a life of its own, complete with its own set of rules and objectives.

And this brings me to the second thing to keep in mind: just as the heroin trafficking attained a life of its own, so did the Arab-Afghan Mujahideen movement attain its own life and life's mission -- it is no longer under the control of the ISI, and certainly not of the US intelligence community; it has become a monster, a threat to the entire world, infidel and Muslim alike.

After the collapse of Taliban post-9/11, this terror infrastructure led by bin Laden moved to Pakistan, and has added to the radicalisation which has claimed so many innocent lives, including that of the former prime minister. A look at the history of militancy in the subcontinent also brings out the fact that Islamic fundamentalism is a direct result of the efforts of hardline Sunni groups to subdue Shias, Ahmadias and others.

Fundamentalist Sunni outfits like Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP), which went after Shias, enjoyed the patronage of influential sections of the Pakistan establishment.

There was an overlap of objectives, of course. Former Pakistan president General Zia-ul-Haq, follower of Deobandi sect of Sunnis, set up SSP in 1979 to not only counter the Shias but marginalised pro-democracy forces seeking an end of his brutal military regime.

Some of the radical elements of the SSP parted ways and formed Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) in 1996. LeJ, which is suspected to have carried out the attack on Bhutto at the behest of Al-Qaida, is nothing but the armed wing of SSP like Jaish-e-Mohamed and HuJI which had also branched out of SSP. The connections of all jihadi groups with each other are obvious whether they are fighting in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq or India.

This is another key point: in this context, there is no such thing as "our" Mujahideen and "their" Mujahideen. Pakistan's ISI organizes, trains, equips and supports militants who wage jihad against India in the Kashmir region. But, once in the world of jihad, these same militants are just as likely to battle Russian, Serbian, Israeli or American infidels -- until we all either convert to Islam, "pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel [ourselves] subdued", or have been sent to the eternal fires.

As I stated in Benazir Bhutto's Assassination:

Pakistan's ISI was behind this one. Al Qaeda was probably a bunch of witting dupes, and Mushy is likely a dupe-after-the-fact.

The implication here is that the ISI also has a life of its own, and that it does not necessary take orders from "President" Mushy. Many ISI people are undoubtedly very professional and dedicated to Pakistan, and follow the lawful orders of their lawfully appointed superiors. Some of those may have an issue with Mushy's seizure of power.

Regardless, in the ISI there are also rogues who are linked to jihadism and organized crime, and Bhutto, while certainly not free of curruption herself, may have been a serious threat to terrorists and narcotraffickers.

While Evils Are Sufferable

Excerpts from the Declaration of Independence:



We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,



That summarizes what I think is worth defending about America, and thereupon can be found the foundation of my resistance against khawarij militants like Osama bin Laden and his allies in certain parts of the Islamic world.



and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.



And there is the explanation as to why we have been so patient regarding this onslaught we are facing, when so many people are calling for more serious and more determined resistance.

Bin Laden & Co. won't stop until they have so angered America that we finally send them on their way to Allah.

The devil always overplays his hand.

Rabid Lunatics

There's a post over at Tariq Nelson's blog, entitled Embarrassed by the Lunatic Fringe. I reproduce a big chunk of it here:

The UK Doctors’ bomb plot, the Red Mosque standoff seem to be the straws that broke the camel’s back. Many of us were already feeling embarrassed by the actions of the lunatic fringe and their blood thirsty actions, but these two things seem to have taken the cake.

This has been culminating for a long time as we get embarrassing news all the time, but a group of doctors try to kill and maim and a lunatic mullah uses children as human shields in a mosque. This on top of the past six years of near constant bad news since the 19 maniacs flew the planes into the buildings on 9/11.

How many regular American Muslims are tired of having to explain such idiocy and irrationality at work and other places?

How many regular Muslims are just horribly embarrassed when they see Mickey Mouse suicide bombers and stupid blood libel theories propagated by their co-religionists?

How many regular Muslims now feel the need to disassociate themselves completely and start to represent themselves as just an individual and a person practicing a personal faith and not as a member of ‘the ummah’.

How many are now saying “I’m not with them”?

How many are just tired of being embarrassed?

Yes, the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, but why do there seem to be so many rabid lunatics?

This is a very interesting post.

As I write this post, now eleven days after that was posted at Tariq Nelson's blog, there are 35 comments. Some of them are very interesting; I reproduce three:

Farooq Says:


July 10th, 2007 at 2:28 pm

Even though my co-workers don’t associate me with the death cult , I still don’t like for Islam to be associated with these mad men

Umar Lee Says:


July 10th, 2007 at 2:54 pm

I am not embarassed because I am not living for others or what they think or I would not be a Muslim in the first place as that wins you few friends in America. I am more angry at nuts acting in the name os Islam and people supporting them.

[...]

HaakimNow Says:


July 11th, 2007 at 12:02 am

Salaam;

Lets be frank, this has nothing to do with Islaam. Its about NAFS, DUNYA Power and Influence over IGNORANT, SHEEPISH Muslims.

What has happened to our intellectual heritage, have we become so enamored in "Group Think" or "Sheikh Think" that we seek Fatwas on the most mundane issues of life ? Should I consult the Imam, on the permissibility of brushing my hair towards the Qiblah ? Have we become so obsessed with symbols of piety likes, beards, sujdah marks, and dhikr beards that we have no clue about actual piety ?

Yes, I am embarrassed!

I think Tariq Nelson's description of the "lunatic fringe" as "rabid lunatics" is very apt.

One question remains: "...why do there seem to be so many rabid lunatics?"

I think the consideration of that question is at the heart of why Stop Islamic Conquest exists.

My question is: Is this really a lunatic fringe?

If so, of what? A lunatic fringe of a decent religion, presumably?

Or, are people like Tariq Nelson and his commentators the decent fringe of a lunatic ideology?


Let me offer another quote from Submission.org, found in an editor's note about terrorism:

We have been witnessing the injustice and oppression done by terrorists taking the lives of innocent people, everywhere.. We have been deeply touched by the killing and the blood shed that have been taken place by hands of humans all over the world.

The evil behavior carried out by any radical individuals under the banner of the religion of Islam, (Submission to God alone), seeking political or social gain is strongly objurgated in the Quran. Teachings that promote aggression, oppression, violence and unjustified killing have no where in the Quran. Terrorism has no place on earth.

Much of what I omit in this quote consists of citations from the Quran supporting the above comment; please see the original.

The quote then concludes:

We, submitters to God alone, are adding our voices to all those who cherish the human values and rights granted to man-kind by the One God, the Creator. We definitely share with you the hate of all what the so-called Muslims all over the world are practicing in the name of Islam. We'll keep declaring, with a very loud and firm voice that the Quran and this great religion of Abraham (Submission), both, condemn all kinds, forms, and names of unjustified killings and blood shed.

We call upon Christians, Jews, Muslims and all the believers in God to verify the truth about the religion of Submission (Islam) through this most comprehensive website where we have the most clear, accurate and modern translation of the Quran by Rashad Khalifa, Ph.D.

Knowledge is the cure for one's ignorance.

" And you shall know the truth , and the truth shall make you free."[ The Bible: Jhon 8:32]

"You shall not accept any information, unless you verify it for yourself. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them."[ The Quran, 17:36]

The time has now come that we can not remain silent no more. The time has come that we should take action and try our best to prevent terrorism in the world. We hope to bring love, peace and tolerance into this world based on respect, compassion, and a solid foundation of knowledge.

May God bless all who strive for peace and true happiness.

However you answer the questions posed above, let's keep in mind that many people in the Islamic community are in just as much danger as us infidels. Indeed, if there is anything bloodier than Islam's borders, it is Islam's interior.

"...why do there seem to be so many rabid lunatics?"

"Muslims Must Renounce Terror"

Hat tip to Pela at Gummihund.

My plea to fellow Muslims: you must renounce terror

As the bombers return to Britain, Hassan Butt, who was once a member of radical group Al-Muhajiroun, raising funds for extremists and calling for attacks on British citizens, explains why he was wrong


Sunday July 1, 2007
The Observer


When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.

By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.

Friday's attempt to cause mass destruction in London with strategically placed car bombs is so reminiscent of other recent British Islamic extremist plots that it is likely to have been carried out by my former peers.
And as with previous terror attacks, people are again articulating the line that violence carried out by Muslims is all to do with foreign policy. For example, yesterday on Radio 4's Today programme, the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: 'What all our intelligence shows about the opinions of disaffected young Muslims is the main driving force is not Afghanistan, it is mainly Iraq.'

He then refused to acknowledge the role of Islamist ideology in terrorism and said that the Muslim Brotherhood and those who give a religious mandate to suicide bombings in Palestine were genuinely representative of Islam.

I left the BJN in February 2006, but if I were still fighting for their cause, I'd be laughing once again. Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of the 7 July bombings, and I were both part of the BJN - I met him on two occasions - and though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many of my peers to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain, our own homeland and abroad, was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary state that would eventually bring Islamic justice to the world.

How did this continuing violence come to be the means of promoting this (flawed) utopian goal? How do Islamic radicals justify such terror in the name of their religion? There isn't enough room to outline everything here, but the foundation of extremist reasoning rests upon a dualistic model of the world. Many Muslims may or may not agree with secularism but at the moment, formal Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion. There is no 'rendering unto Caesar' in Islamic theology because state and religion are considered to be one and the same. The centuries-old reasoning of Islamic jurists also extends to the world stage where the rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) have been set down to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war.

What radicals and extremists do is to take these premises two steps further. Their first step has been to reason that since there is no Islamic state in existence, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr. Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world. Many of my former peers, myself included, were taught by Pakistani and British radical preachers that this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief. In Dar ul-Harb, anything goes, including the treachery and cowardice of attacking civilians.

This understanding of the global battlefield has been a source of friction for Muslims living in Britain. For decades, radicals have been exploiting these tensions between Islamic theology and the modern secular state for their benefit, typically by starting debate with the question: 'Are you British or Muslim?' But the main reason why radicals have managed to increase their following is because most Islamic institutions in Britain just don't want to talk about theology. They refuse to broach the difficult and often complex topic of violence within Islam and instead repeat the mantra that Islam is peace, focus on Islam as personal, and hope that all of this debate will go away.

This has left the territory of ideas open for radicals to claim as their own. I should know because, as a former extremist recruiter, every time mosque authorities banned us from their grounds, it felt like a moral and religious victory.

Outside Britain, there are those who try to reverse this two-step revisionism. A handful of scholars from the Middle East has tried to put radicalism back in the box by saying that the rules of war devised by Islamic jurists were always conceived with the existence of an Islamic state in mind, a state which would supposedly regulate jihad in a responsible Islamic fashion. In other words, individual Muslims don't have the authority to go around declaring global war in the name of Islam.

But there is a more fundamental reasoning that has struck me and a number of other people who have recently left radical Islamic networks as a far more potent argument because it involves stepping out of this dogmatic paradigm and recognising the reality of the world: Muslims don't actually live in the bipolar world of the Middle Ages any more.

The fact is that Muslims in Britain are citizens of this country. We are no longer migrants in a Land of Unbelief. For my generation, we were born here, raised here, schooled here, we work here and we'll stay here. But more than that, on a historically unprecedented scale, Muslims in Britain have been allowed to assert their religious identity through clothing, the construction of mosques, the building of cemeteries and equal rights in law.

However, it isn't enough for Muslims to say that because they feel at home in Britain they can simply ignore those passages of the Koran which instruct on killing unbelievers. By refusing to challenge centuries-old theological arguments, the tensions between Islamic theology and the modern world grow larger every day. It may be difficult to swallow but the reason why Abu Qatada - the Islamic scholar whom Palestinian militants recently called to be released in exchange for the kidnapped BBC journalist Alan Johnston - has a following is because he is extremely learned and his religious rulings are well argued. His opinions, though I now thoroughly disagree with them, have validity within the broad canon of Islam.

Since leaving the BJN, many Muslims have accused me of being a traitor. If I knew of any impending attack, then I would have no hesitation in going to the police, but I have not gone to the authorities, as some reports have suggested, and become an informer.

I believe that the issue of terrorism can be easily demystified if Muslims and non-Muslims start openly to discuss the ideas that fuel terrorism. (The Muslim community in Britain must slap itself awake from this state of denial and realise there is no shame in admitting the extremism within our families, communities and worldwide co-religionists.) However, demystification will not be achieved if the only bridges of engagement that are formed are between the BJN and the security services.

If our country is going to take on radicals and violent extremists, Muslim scholars must go back to the books and come forward with a refashioned set of rules and a revised understanding of the rights and responsibilities of Muslims whose homes and souls are firmly planted in what I'd like to term the Land of Co-existence. And when this new theological territory is opened up, Western Muslims will be able to liberate themselves from defunct models of the world, rewrite the rules of interaction and perhaps we will discover that the concept of killing in the name of Islam is no more than an anachronism.

This gives us great insight into why terror crops up repeatedly in our midst: radical preachers radicalize local mosques even in the West, and the product is radical violence from citizens in western countries.

What I appreciate about this author's comments is that: he admits the existence of passages in Islamic texts calling for violence, and condemns the violence; he acknowledges the positive aspects of living in the UK; and, he acknowledges the mistake he had made by following the radical preachers of hatred.

Final Warning!

We've heard so many warnings from Al Qaeda that, to me, it was starting to sound like a barking dog that maybe isn't going to bite, at least like it did on 9/11.

An excellent analysis in Jamestown.org's Global Terrorism Analysis (linked by America's Truth Forum Terrorism Update) entitled Al-Qaeda's American Recruit Releases Something Entirely New by Michael Scheuer sheds some light on what may be happening. Here are some excerpts (numbers in brackets are footnotes; see original link):

The American Adam Gadahn—now known as Azzam al-Amriki (Azzam the American)—has emerged as the third most important spokesman among al-Qaeda leaders, following Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri [1]. While officially only a member of al-Qaeda's media committee, Gadahn has joined bin Laden as the only other al-Qaeda member who has devoted entire statements to directly addressing the U.S. president and American citizens. To be sure, al-Zawahiri has ridiculed the president and talked to Americans, urging conversion and warning of coming attacks, but for the most part these statements have been in the context of regional issues—such as Iraq—for which he is the group's lead spokesman. Gadahn, therefore, is at the core of al-Qaeda's most important U.S.-oriented communication projects—although this does not necessarily mean he is fully involved in military operations—and seems to serve as the speaker responsible for ensuring that there is no way Americans can misunderstand what bin Laden is talking about. Speaking in the idiom of American English, and often using contemporary slang, Gadahn is the sledge that drives home the spike of bin Laden's messages for Americans.

So this guy is the mouthpiece to make sure the message gets communicated. This is because the message is deemed important, and Al Qaeda does not want the world to say that America wasn't warned.

In this role, Gadahn's May 29 videotape entitled "Legitimate Demands" constitutes a rare and perhaps singular item in the immense corpus of al-Qaeda's statements, interviews, essays, sermons and editorials [2]. At the most basic level, it completes what appears to have been Gadahn's assignment to amplify bin Laden's effort to satisfy his post-9/11 critics by ensuring that Americans were—according to the Prophet Muhammad's guidance—offered the chance to convert to Islam and warned about coming attacks well before they occurred. Bin Laden both offered conversion and warned Americans multiple times between Spring 2002 and Summer 2006, and Gadahn focused on clarifying bin Laden's conversion offer in a lengthy September 2006 video called "An Invitation to Islam" [3]. Gadahn's words in the conversion video were shorn of most of the Quranic references common to bin Laden's rhetoric and were spoken in the American vernacular.

Again, in accordance with Islamic Law, we are being warned and being offered the chance to "submit" in a language we can understand: idiomatic American English spoken by an American.

Gadahn's bare-knuckled and supremely confident presentation sharpens and clarifies the message of warning bin Laden has repeatedly delivered to Americans; it is spoken by an American, in modern English, and is studded with contemporary slang and catch-phrases. Gadahn's words also have a note of finality about them, as if he is saying there will be no more warnings from al-Qaeda, and the choice for Americans is between surrender and domestic attack. Again, this is out of character for the rhetoric of bin Laden and al-Zawahiri, and it suggests that they ordered Gadahn to make a last-warning to Americans before al-Qaeda attacks inside the United States. The obvious unacceptability of the demands also suggests that al-Qaeda has an attack ready and that nothing short of a U.S. capitulation would deter it. In Gadahn's words, "the die has been cast" and an era has begun that will see "your end, not ours" [10].

Basically, the demands made on us are such as to ensure non-compliance. This khawarij is confidently warning us of an imminent, decisive strike.

The strike is planned to be severe. We are being warned so the world cannot blame Al Qaeda for such a terrible attack coming without notice or without a chance for the US to surrender.

What kind of an attack? Some people have suggested a hit on a US school. But, consider FBI Director Mueller's recent speech about nuclear terrorism.

Al Qaeda is warning us in preparation for the use of nuclear weapons. They're confident because the weapons are already in place in the United States -- ?

Preparations are possibly too far along for them to not use the weapons should they decide not to -- ? -- but in any case, there is probably too strong a desire for their use, and too many resources invested in the preparations.

Also keep in mind that every day that the weapons are around but have not been used is another day that they might get discovered, or that, for some reason, something might go wrong so that Al Qaeda loses them. Nuclear weapons are a big investment, moving them into place in the US is a big investment, and Al Qaeda doesn't want to lose that investment.

It's nukes -- but when and where?

Nutters

There are some interesting posts over at Tariq Nelson's blog, posts which address the problems the Islamic community faces in dealing with those Muslims who support hatred, violence or terrorism, referred to as "Nutters".

Tariq Nelson seems to have devised a test to determine if a Muslim may be a supporter of terror: the Nutter IQ Test

How many spies are watching you at all times?

a) 2-3

b) 25-30

c) The entire NSA, plus two satellites are assigned to me and Bush gets daily updates of my movements


How many spies are there in the world?

a) 300 million

b) 400 million

c) There are actually 12 billion people on earth and not 6 billion. The other 6 billion unaccounted for people are the spies!


How many weekly trips to KFC do you make to try to catch spies?

a) Once a week, too many other restaurants to cover

b) 2-3 times a week

c) Everyday during lunch, and boy have a I caught a lot of them red handed, greasy fingered and acting like it tasted good


If a Jew is traveling from California at 55 MPH and another Jew is traveling from Maine at 65 MPH, how long before they control the world?

a) About 15 minutes

b) Depends on if they are eating cookies made with Palestinian blood

c) Which world are we talking about here BROTHER?!


What time do all the whites come to the black community and litter the streets?

a) 8:00AM when everyone is asleep

b) There are actually 25 hours in a day and they come at 13:00PM

c) I can’t find them …those sneaky jokers are using cloaking devices!


How much do spies get paid?

a) Thousands!

b) Billions!

c) Even MORE…MILLIONS!


Finish the following sentences:

Bruce Lee is …

a) a person spying on me that looks just like the Kung Fu dude

b) a code name for a plot against me

c) … not dead, but frozen in carbonite under Chatsworth and they’re gonna melt him down as soon as the economy gets better


Yusuf Smith, Amir Butler and Tariq Nelson are …

a) all members of the Illuminati. Codenames: “Hammer”, “Slammer” and “Flyguy”

a) Cheney, Bush and Nino Brown

c) The Sith Lords Darth Fitnah, Darth Verilous and Darth Calamitous and all carry those red lightsabers developed by the Pentagon


Fluoridated water is …

a) contains microscopic brainwashing chips to turn people into spies

b) destroys the microscopic brainwashing chips consumed when eating KFC

c) contains microscopic hearing devices


Are your socks the exact same pair you put on this morning? How can you be sure that no-one’s replaced them with a different but similar pair at some point?

a) Not at all sure, now that you mention it!!!!

b) How do you know I’m wearing socks BROTHER?!!

c) I don’t wear cotton socks as they’re part of a government plot to get you to wipe over them. Spies and those fooled by the gov’t wear cotton. I wear leather socks which can’t be secretly replaced


The media is

a) a hive minded monolith controlled by the Jews

b) has outposts on seven continents and the nineteen planets of the solar system

c) Hmmm, both a and b …because we know that there are nineteen planets in the solar system each with a spy base


Are WE in the Matrix??

a) Hmmm, I’ve never thought of that one! Better give it some thought and if we are how I can get out of here

b) Yes, YOU are!

c) The Matrix is a Jewish plot


Just how noble are you?

a) Me, my takfeeri friends and the terrorist bandits we support are the only noble people on earth. Light shines off our our faces from our nobility

b) It’s A)

c) All of the above

Here's another post, entitled Islamic Lessons or Brain-washing sessions?, which addresses the radicalization that is being attempted in some mosques. Go to this link and see the illustration!

(For my thoughts on radicalization, see Deal with the Devil and Khawarij.)


I may be slowly getting away from calling people like Tariq Nelson "moderate Muslims" -- to call them that increasingly seems to imply that if they took their religion more seriously, they would be terrorists. This is certainly not the case.

There is a great deal in the Koran and in Islamic writings that, in the hands of radicalized, hateful people, can be used to justify criminal acts -- and this is exactly what Bin Laden & Co (and many others) do.

However, there are many people in the Islamic community who do not interpret this material in that same way; they never have, and I don't think they ever will: they're just not criminals.

The Khawarij seem to be of the mind that "either you're with us, or you're with the infidels" -- and they have no tolerance for people who think for themselves. No wonder; people who think for themselves are going to question the criminal hatred of the Khawarij, and honest questioning of their actions is, for the Khawarij, the beginning of the end. The Khawarij are the Islamofascists, and they are totalitarian because they have to be; any freedom anywhere on the planet jeopardizes their power, which is nothing more than a house of cards built on lies, half-truths, paranoia, and hatred.

We can have all the reservations we want about Islam; we can disagree with it; we can question it; we can dislike it.

Let's keep in mind, though, that there are many people in the Islamic world who are every bit as threatened by Khawarij Islamofascism as we are. Indeed, there are people in the Islamic world who are right now more threatened and more oppressed by Koran-waving criminals than most of us ever will be: consider all the honor killings, for example.

Question Islam; the world needs to question Islam to survive.

But, let's not try to turn away decent people in the Islamic community who, if not our friends, at least honestly have no desire to be our enemies.

If, in questioning Islam, we turn away decent people who are our natural allies in the face of criminal and terrorist threats, then we may find that we leave them nowhere to turn but to our enemies. If we drive someone into the welcoming, hateful arms of the Khawarij Islamofascists, then we have hurt that person, and, ultimately, ourselves.

Al Qaeda's Latest Threats

Al Qaeda's latest threats are in an article in the news today, American Al Qaeda Member Threatens Attack, subtitled: "Says U.S. Faces Attack Worse Than 9/11 If It Refuses To End Involvement In Muslim Territory" -- CAIRO, Egypt, May 29, 2007

An American member of al Qaeda warned President Bush on Tuesday to end U.S. involvement in all Muslim lands or face an attack worse than the Sept. 11 suicide assault, according to a new videotape.

Wearing a white robe and a turban, Adam Yehiye Gadahn, who also goes by the name Azzam al-Amriki, said al Qaeda would not negotiate on its demands.

"Your failure to heed our demands ... means that you and your people will ... experience things which will make you forget all about the horrors of September 11th, Afghanistan and Iraq and Virginia Tech," he said in the seven-minute video.

I previously addressed the possibility that Al Qaeda has nuclear weapons and that they might be targeting the US: Nuclear Strike on US Imminent?

The threat that we may "experience things which will make you forget all about the horrors of September 11th, Afghanistan and Iraq and Virginia Tech" may indicate that Al Qaeda is finalizing preparations for their use.

Gadahn, who has been charged in a U.S. treason indictment with aiding al Qaeda, spoke in English and the video carried Arabic subtitles. The video appeared on a Web site often used by Islamic militants and carried the logo of al Qaeda's media wing, as-Sahab.

Gadahn, who appeared in an al Qaeda video last September in which he called on Americans to convert to Islam, demanded that Bush remove all U.S. military and spies from Islamic countries, free all Muslims from U.S. prisons and end support for Israel. He said a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq alone would not satisfy al Qaeda.

Ben Venzke at IntelCenter, a U.S. government contractor that monitors al Qaeda messages, said the group likely did not believe any of its demands would be met.

"It essentially allows al Qaeda to say that it has provided fair warning and is thus no longer responsible for the outcome," Venzke said in a statement.

Typical of the militant Islamic world: blame the target.

There's a chance, of course, that it's not their nuclear weapons, but rather something else.

Possibly it might be an assault on a school that they're planning. Remember, it was buddies of theirs that did Beslan. If it's a strike on a school, they will likely be selective about the age of the students in the school they attack. They may not want high school students, some of whom might be able to resist them a little. At Beslan, they killed several of the strongest men from among the group early on. There's a good chance they will want females old enough to rape; again, though disputed, there are persistent reports that the terrorists raped some of the adolescent girls at Beslan. Assuming all of this is accurate, schools with sixth-to-ninth graders, logically, would probably be in the most danger.

Gadahn, a California native, is the first American to be charged with treason in more than 50 years and could face the death penalty if convicted. He also was indicted on a charge of providing material support to terrorists.

Moderate Islam

I was out scouting the Islamic world today.

I found a blog post entitled Moderate in the Extreme, which, in turn links to an article at Christian Science Monitor entitled Why I am not a moderate Muslim (I linked here to the print version, the Muslim Matters link is to the HTML version -- in case that is significant).

If I understand this correctly, the key point seems to be summed up here:

The term moderate Muslim is actually a redundancy. In the Islamic tradition, the concept of the "middle way" is central. Muslims believe that Islam is a path of intrinsic moderation, wasatiyya. This concept is the namesake of a British Muslim grass-roots organization, the Radical Middle Way. It is an initiative to counter Islam's violent reputation with factual scholarship.

This was demonstrated through a day-long conference that the organization sponsored in February. The best speaker of the night was Abdallah bin Bayyah, an elderly Mauritanian sheikh dressed all in traditional white Arab garb, offset by a long gray beard.

The words coming out of the sheikh's mouth – all in Arabic – were remarkably progressive. He confronted inaccurate assumptions about Islam, spoke of tolerance, and told fellow Muslims an un­pleasant truth: "Perhaps much of this current crisis springs from us," he said, kindly admonishing them. He chastised Muslims for inadequately explaining their beliefs, thereby letting other, illiberal voices speak for them.

I was shocked by his blunt though nuanced analysis, given his traditional, religious appearance. And then I was troubled by my shock. To what extent had I, a hijabi Muslim woman studying Middle Eastern/Islamic studies, internalized the untruthful representations of my own fellow Muslims? For far too long, I had been fed a false snapshot of what Islamic orthodoxy really means.

The sheikh continued, challenging Mr. bin Laden's violent interpretation of jihad, citing Koranic verses and prophetic narrations. He referred to jihad as any "good action" and recounted a recent conversation with a non-Muslim lawyer who asked if electing a respectable official would be considered jihad. The sheikh answered "yes" because voting for someone who supports the truth and upholds justice is a good action.

The sheikh, not bin Laden, is a depiction of true Islamic orthodoxy. The sheikh, not bin Laden, is the man trained in Islamic jurisprudence. The sheikh, not bin Laden, is the authentic religious scholar. But to call him a moderate Muslim would be a misnomer.

Please go to the links provided and read for yourselves what these people have to say. I think their message is one that needs to get out.

The viewpoint expressed in the passage that I cited is very interesting. It is a viewpoint that I very much respect -- very much! -- but one that I also disagree with.

The Koran, for anyone who is not aware, is put together in a way that I consider to be rather strange: With the exception of the first Sura ("chapter"), which is rather short, generally the longest "chapters" are first, and the shortest ones are last. I would expect a book like that to be organized historically, perhaps, with the earliest "chapters" first and the latest ones last. The latter is not the case, as the early chapters, when Mohammad (and I truly do wish Mohammad peace) was at Mecca, are scattered throughout, and the later chapters, when Mohammad was at Medina, are scattered throughout.

Consequently, I began reading the Koran, and thus began with the longest chapters first. Some of those chapters were written at the beginning of Mohammad's career, and some were written at the end of his career.

I must comment here that to properly understand the Koran, one is advised to read the traditions recounted in the ahadith (plural of hadith), which seem to provide background to what the Koran means by offering historical glimpses of how Mohammad lived.

(Those of you who know more about this than I do, or who are able to explain it better, feel free to leave a comment that will be greatly appreciated!)

Admittedly, I have not read all of the Koran, and only a tiny fraction of the volumes of ahadith.

However, I am most emphatically not "cherry-picking" verses and passages to read. I am taking them as they come.

My impression is that Islam is a belief system that lends itself to violent interpretation.

I believe the point that is made in the passage I quoted above and in the links is that such a violent interpretation is a perversion.

I am not going to argue in this post whether or not such a violent interpretation is a perversion; instead, the point I am making here is one that I have made elsewhere in this blog. Regardless of whether or not a violent interpretation is the correct interpretation, a violent and intolerant interpretation is very much the interpretation that is being propagated by powerful circles in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Those powerful circles are very well-funded with the world's petrodollars.

If forty percent of the world's known oil reserves were under Mauritania, instead of under Saudi Arabia, then the interpretation of Islam held by the sheikh mentioned in the quote would be the one getting the funding and getting spread.

That, however, is not the case. Radicalized Wahhabism has the backing of the petrodollars, bin Laden is the billionaire, not bin Bayyah, and the world faces on onslaught of Islamic conquest.

Make no mistake about it: If bin Laden, the radicalized Wahhabis, and the other Khawarij get their way, bin Bayyah will be takfir, and will suffer a fate perhaps worse than that of us kuffar.

Since MuslimMatters.org puts forth a view of Islam, I will link to them under "Islam: You Decide". Maybe I should link to them under "Islam as Seen by Apostates and Infidels", like I did to Tariq Nelson. Maybe I should put Tariq Nelson under "Islam: You Decide". I don't know.

This much I do know: To stop Islamic conquest, the civilized world needs to offer the Khawarij terrorists two choices: 1) renounce terrorism and violence, and live peacefully, or 2) die.

And if the terrorists refuse to live peacefully, then they need to die violently.

Modern Khawarij

Originally posted at "Modern Khawarij"

From an article at Liberal Islam Network, entitled Modern Khawarij, Published on 4/10/2004:

(The translation is a little rough in places.)

This article was published previously in Indonesian at 20/9/2004

Terror begins in the head, and then through the hands befalls the earth. Some people imagine that the whole world is in opposition to them, and that therefore they must build a fortress to protect themselves against any attack. Theirs is a siege mentality. In such conditions, only the language of anger emerges. A friendly attitude towards ‘the other’ will be considered as weakness, and therefore must be
avoided.

"Terror begins in the head...." We're off to a promising start.

Sa’duddin Ibrahim, Director of Ibnu Khaldun Centre for Development Studies, Cairo, wrote an interesting column in an Arabic newspaper published in London, Al Hayat. Titled “Al Islamiyyun al-‘Arab Dhidd al-‘Alam” (the Arab Islamist versus the World), it describes the disturbing symptom in which Arab Islamists use violence and disseminate terror, everywhere, from Chechen, Kashmir, Indonesia, Thailand, Pakistan, to Afghanistan.

"The Arab Islamist versus the world...." That's exactly what we're dealing with. While many of the foot soldiers among the terrorists are not Arabs, many of them are. Beyond that, the ideology, which is for the most part Wahhabi Islam, is definitely Arab. Islam itself originated in Arabia, although the Muslims would fairly say that it originated with Allah; without arguing that point either way, I still contend that it was first propagated on earth in Arabia. If, then, a Muslim would accept that human shortcomings have come into Islam, which this article seems to do, then I suggest that the first opportunity for those human shortcomings to enter Islam was when humans first became involved with it on the Arabian peninsula. Indeed, Khawarij Muslims first surfaced at the very beginning of the Islamic era.

Beyond that, a point that I make repeatedly, is about the Arabization of the Islamic world. This hateful brand of Islam, Wahhabism, is today being propagated by Saudi Arabia. The state sponsor of hate, the Saudi Royal Family, pays for many of the new mosques being built in the world today. The preachers of hatred in those mosques are put there by the Saudi Arabs: they either come from Saudi Arabia, or are at least sent there, especially to Medina, for training.

So, "Islamist" is a term used for radicalized, hateful, highly politicized Islam, mainly Wahhabism, and so much of today's Islamism comes from Arabia -- and always has.

For example, in less than a week (since 30/8 up to 5/9, 2004), the Arab Islamists claimed responsibility for a great deal of violence: slaughtering 12 Nepalese, exploding two commercial airplanes in Russia in which 100 people died, and recently taking hostage students in a school in Beslan-Russia during which over 200 people subsequently died in a rescue attempt by Russian forces. 10 of the hostage-takers were Saudies.

Keep in mind that this preceding paragraph was not published on The Religion of Peace or some website like that, but rather was published on a Muslim website! There are Muslims out there who not only see what is going on, but who are willing to speak honestly about it!

The organization exporting terror, Tandzim al-Qa’idah or al-Qaidah, was established and led by a Saudian millionaire, Osama ben laden. The question is this: why has this happened? Why do Arab countries breed radical-extremists? Is it related to Islam, a religion born in Arabia?

It wasn't just Osama bin Laden -- the Saudi Royal Family has been very active in this, as well.

I think Muslim society must dare to make a radical critic, and admit there is an ‘ulcer’ in the social body. Anyone who studies the history of modern Islamic movements will know that the relation between Islam and the ideology of violence and terrorism is not so strange. The most important turning point in the history of modern Islamic movement was the appearance of a figure named Sayyid Qutb, ideologist of al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun of Egypt. He was the first Muslim ideologist to interpret jihad as an offensive teaching, not a defensive one (read: jihad difa’i), but something to be used to justify the use of violence against the enemies of Islam.

In the classical era, there was Khawarij which was radical and which considered their enemy as infidels. The modern Islamic group is the modern khawarij. Don’t be deceived by the people behind the Bali blast, and the Marriot and Australian Embassy bombings. Though they may be pious people in terms of performing rituals, as has been said by Sa’aduddin Ibrahim, they are more dangerous to Islam than beneficial. They, with their interpretation, have changed the image of Islam from the religion of peace, to the religion of terror, exactly like the Khawarij people did in ancient times.

[Ulil Abshar-Abdalla]

(Translated by Lanny Octavia, edited by Jonathan Zilberg)

Once again, much of the Islamic world understands that these terrorists are Khawarij.


Now, follow my logic here:

1) Those who support the Khawarij are state sponsors of terror.

2) Saudi Arabia supports the Khawarij.

That means that

3) Saudi Arabia is ...

America's friend in the War on Terror, if you believe President Bush.

(I don't anymore.)

The Killing, Ver 1.0 (JIHAD ME)

Has your jihad become less profitable lately?

Have your terror attacks lost their appeal for your followers?

Are you tired of the same old suicide bombings?

Do you have untold billions of dollars of illegal drug money that you need to launder?

Would you like to invest that money, launder it, and make an incredible profit, all in the same transaction?

If you answered yes to one or more of these questions, perhaps we can help.

JIHAD ME is a holy war improvement service dedicated to making your terrorism the most pleasing jihad imaginable in the eyes of Allah.

Here is a testimonial from one of our satisfied clients, Sheikh Osama bin Laden.


JM: Sheikh, tell us your experience with JIHAD ME!


SHEIKH: Well, I had been in the holy war business for years. I fought the Russians, the Israelis, but, you know, it was just getting boring. So, I tried to bomb the World Trade Center, but it didn't work. Oh, our bomb was big, but we just didn't really know what we were doing. We only killed a handful of people. I was pretty bummed out with the results.


JM: Yes, I can well imagine. So, by Allah, what did you do?


SHEIKH: I called JIHAD ME. They really turned things around for me!


JM: What did JIHAD ME do for you, Sheikh bin Laden?


SHEIKH: Well, first, JIHAD ME showed me how to take down the World Trade Center. I had just tried it with one bomb in the basement. Looking back on it now, it seems so amateurish. But JIHAD ME's highly skilled professionals showed me what I had to do to succeed. They showed me that the only way to bring those Twin Towers down was with explosives precision-placed for a controlled implosion. JIHAD ME advised me on the proper kinds of explosives to use, and where to place them. They even helped me acquire the needed explosives and blueprints of the target!


JM: Wow! But that's not all JIHAD ME did, is it, Sheikh?


SHEIKH: Oh, no, JIHAD ME did much more! I had billions of dollars of illegal drug money that I needed to launder. JIHAD ME's innovative solution turned that problem into a real opportunity.


JM: How did JIHAD ME launder your drug money, Sheikh?


SHEIKH: JIHAD ME's highly trained consultants recommended hijacking some airliners, and crashing two of them into the World Trade Center, one into each of the Twin Towers. This created a diversion. While all the investment brokers and financiers were trapped, screaming for their lives in those skyscraping infernos, my drug money was getting laundered through stock trades being made on their computers. (laughs) They were so busy jumping out the windows, they didn't even notice that their computers were continuing to work, churning away at my stock trades, laundering my billions.


JM: Wow, that is innovative! But you mentioned that JIHAD ME turned it into an opportunity for you. How did they do that?


SHEIKH: That's the best part. Since we knew which businesses were going to be hit, we could capitalize on that by betting on stocks that we knew our attack would influence. Within a few days of the attack, my money was not only laundered, but I was billions richer.


JM: Yeah, this just gets better and better. How did you get away with this, Sheikh?


SHEIKH: Well, we were planning to bring down the towers anyway, so, after I had laundered my billions and made billions more, we just imploded them. The computers that we ran the stock trades through were destroyed. The evidence was buried in the smoldering rubble. And, since everyone thought crashing hijacked planes into buildings was the only crime I committed that day, it didn't even occur to people to think I had another motive, so nobody is investigating.


JM: Wow, you really made a killing!


SHEIKH: I sure did. When I saw those Twin Towers come down, I knew I had picked a winner! And, to top it all off, we hijacked and crashed two other planes that day, and that just convinced everyone even more that the hijackings were the real terror act of the day. Nobody's even looking for the money that I made, and that's a good thing, because if they ever find it, they might find me!


JM: Well, your secret is safe with me. Thank you, Sheikh bin Laden, and may Allah be pleased with you.


You heard it. If JIHAD ME can do that for Sheikh Osama bin Laden, imagine what we can do for you!

Our professional staff will show you how to kill infidels and polytheists by the thousands, launder money by the billions, and turn a killer profit into the deal! We will make you a true leader among the Khawarij Mujahideen. What could be more pleasing to Allah?

So, if you are ready to spice up that holy war, and make one hell of a profit doing it, just call our toll-free number:

1-666-JIHAD-ME

and ask about our Nuclear Special!

That number again:

1-666-JIHAD-ME

Call now! Operators are standing by.

Saudi Arabia: The Kingdom's Third Option

(References: The Power of Saudi Arabia's Islamic Leaders; Website of the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia.)


When we last left Saudi Arabia's Royal Family, they were quite squarely between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea.

First of all, let's make sure we understand in what way the Saudi government is in a predicament.

Recall how, during the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, the Saudi Government addressed the possibility of using oil as a weapon against the United States over Israeli policy (see reference):

In September, Deputy Oil Minister Prince Saud al-Faysal stated that "Saudi Arabia is undoubtedly now prepared to use its key position as a major world supplier of crude oil to bring pressure on the U.S. government to moderate its pro-Israeli policy."

And, of course, shortly thereafter the 1973 Oil Embargo made history.

What would have happened if, twenty-eight years later (2001), the following had occurred?

In September, President of the United States George W. Bush stated that "The United States is undoubtedly now prepared to use its key position as a major military power to bring pressure on the Saudi government to moderate its pro-terrorist policy."

What would happen if some US President were to say that at some point in the future?

I could envision Mecca and Medina being trampled underfoot by a powerful infidel army.

I wonder if Allah would be pleased with that....


But, perhaps Yankee Doodle isn't tolerant enough. Perhaps Yankee Doodle is a little Islamophobic. Perhaps Yankee Doodle should make a greater effort to appreciate the diversity of our world.

Okay. Here we go. I shall endeavor to learn a little about the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

:)



From Government on the Saudi Embassy's website:

Saudi Arabia is a monarchy based on Islam. The government is headed by the King, who is also the commander in chief of the military.

The King appoints a Crown Prince to help him with his duties. The Crown Prince is second in line to the throne.

The King governs with the help of the Council of Ministers, also called the Cabinet. There are 22 government ministries that are part of the Cabinet. Each ministry specializes in a different part of the government, such as foreign affairs, education and finance.

The King is also advised by a legislative body called the Consultative Council (Majlis Al-Shura). The Council proposes new laws and amends existing ones. It consists of 150 members who are appointed by the King for four-year terms that can be renewed.

The country is divided into 13 provinces, with a governor and deputy governor in each one. Each province has its own council that advises the governor and deals with the development of the province.

Because Saudi Arabia is an Islamic state, its judicial system is based on Islamic law (Shari’ah). The King is at the top of the legal system. He acts as the final court of appeal and can issue pardons.

So, basically, the King of Saudi Arabia is the boss of the Kingdom.

1) He is at the top of the Legislative Branch, and makes the laws.
2) He is at the top of the Executive Branch, and is responsible for executing and enforcing the laws.
3) And he is clearly at the top of the Judicial Branch, and has final authority for interpreting the laws.

Wow, I feel more tolerant already!

:)

Let's see if we can learn some more.

From Basic System of Government:

The Basic System of Government identifies the nature of the state, its goals and responsibilities, as well as the relationship between the ruler and citizens. It defines the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as an Arab and Islamic sovereign state; its religion is Islam and its constitution is the Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah.

(This last paragraph is clarified in the fine print.)

The King, who also acts as prime minister, ensures the application of the Shari'ah and the State's general policy, and supervises the protection and defense of the nation. The Crown Prince is appointed by the King. Members of the Council of Ministers assist the King in the performance of his duties.

The new bylaws introduced for the system in 1992 further explain that the purpose of the State is to ensure the security and rights of all citizens and residents. It emphasizes the importance of the family as the nucleus of Saudi society. The family plays a vital role by teaching its members to adhere to Islamic values.

In defining the relationship between the ruler and the people, the system emphasizes the equality of all Saudi citizens. All are equal before God and in their concern for the well-being, security, dignity and progress of their nation. All citizens are also equal before the law.

So, in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the King is responsible for the application of Islamic Law, known as Shari'ah, and that includes a mandate "to ensure the security and rights of all citizens and residents".

Wow! I feel ready for a test!

:)

I would like to devote a section of this post as a special message to his Highness, the King of Saudi Arabia, the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, and his closest, most trusted advisors. If you are not in that group, you are on your honor to not read the following message! Remember, Allah is watching!




So, Your Highness & Royal Company, how are things going?

Ready to come to Jesus? Maybe later?

Been practicing swimming? Not a lot of places to practice in the desert?

I understand.

:)

You know, I think I see a way out of your predicament.

When your predecessor, Muhammad ibn Saud (may Allah be pleased with him) made his deal with his new friend Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (ditto) to spread Wahhab's beliefs about Islam, he set in motion a series of events which seems to have gotten out of control, and which now threatens the very existence of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Saud's descendents, and the two places in the world holiest to Islam -- places of which (and people of whom) you are the custodian! You need to bring these events back under control.

Here's what you do:

As the country's supreme religious leader and Custodian of Islam's Two Holiest Mosques at Mecca and Medina, declare that Al Qaeda are Khawarij (which everyone in the Islamic World knows is true, by the way). Declare them to be in rebellion against Allah and the teachings of Allah's Apostle (peace be upon him). Declare that their jihad is a false jihad, and that it is a severe violation of Islamic Law, since they are killing other believers. Declare that battling against the khawarij terrorists is the only true jihad in light of khawarij outrages. Furthermore, since Islamic Law is the law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, declare that anyone who supports the khawarij terrorists is a traitor to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, guilty of treason, and will be dealt with appropriately.

As the King of Saudi Arabia, as the country's supreme religious leader and the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, tell the Kingdom's religious leaders that they have wandered too far astray from true Islam, that they are preaching too much hatred, that they are driving people away from true Islam, and that they are converting themselves and others into khawarij. In short, tell them to get their act together.

When they appeal this through appropriate channels, and the case comes before the Kingdom's supreme religious leader and top justice of the judicial system, hear their case, then rule in favor of yourself, and offer them the choices to either 1) toe the line or 2) be arrested for treason.

Replace any leader -- religious, political or military -- that doesn't follow the new course; they all serve at your discretion.

Crack down on the all funding of and other support for terrorism. Put an end to it. Show the world that you are serious about the War on Terror, which is really a War on Khawarij Terrorists, which it is your holy duty before Allah to prosecute to the fullest of your abilities.

Once you are doing this, and so have gained credibility and prestige in the international arena, turn to the United States, and anyone else as appropriate, thank them for defending Islam's holiest places, and point out to them that, since those places are no longer threatened by invading armies, it is time for their military forces to leave the Kingdom, except for those few that you deem to be still of use to the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques. This will gain you further credibility and prestige in the Islamic World, especially within the Kingdom, since no one will be able to accuse you of being some infidel's puppet. The traditional, conservative Muslims will respect you. Your concern for Islam will be seen as genuine, in very sharp contrast to the "concern" of Osama bin Laden, who is making a handsome profit off his khawarij terrorist banditry.

Your Highness, you have been too tolerant, and the khawarij terrorists have taken shameless advantage of your tolerance and generosity. It is high time these khawarij terrorist bandits get put in their place!

I suggest, Your Highness, that you do it now, while there is still time....

In September, the President of the United States stated that "The United States is undoubtedly now prepared to use its key position as a major military power to bring pressure on the Saudi government to moderate its pro-terrorist policy."

Khawarij

Also known as Kharijites, these people were among the earliest radicals in the Islamic World. Kharijism traces its origins to the first Islamic Civil War: declaring that there should be no rule but Allah's, the Kharajites refused human arbitration, and instead preached a radical fundamentalist ideology, rejecting authorities that they deemed corrupt, and declaring jihad, even against other Muslims, to be the sixth pillar of Islam.

Sound familiar?

Islam's holy texts have references to battles against these people:


Book 005, Number 2328:

'Ali said: Whenever I narrate to you anything from the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) believe it to be absolutely true as falling from the sky is dearer to me than that of attributing anything to him (the Holy Prophet) which he never said. When I talk to you of anything which is between me and you (there might creep some error in it) for battle is an outwitting. I heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) as saying: There would arise at the end of the age a people who would be young in age and immature in thought, but they would talk (in such a manner) as if their words are the best among the creatures. They would recite the Qur'an, but it would not go beyond their throats, and they would pass through the religion as an arrow goes through the prey. So when you meet them, kill them, for in their killing you would get a reward with Allah on the Day of judgment.

Book 005, Number 2335:

Abu Dharr reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Verily there would arise from my Ummah after me or soon after me a group (of people) who would recite the Qar'an, but it would not go beyond their throats, and they would pass clean through their religion just as the arrow passes through the prey, and they would never come back to it. They would be the worst among the creation and the creatures. Ibn Samit (one of the narrators) said: I met Rafi' b. 'Amr Ghifari, the brother of Al-Hakam Ghifari and I said: What is this hadith that I heard from Abu Dharr, i. e. so and so? -and then I narrated that hadith to him and said: I heard it from the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him).

Google it and see what you get.

It is not uncommon in the Islamic World today to link radicalized Wahhabism back to Kharijism, and forward to terrorism. Readers of this blog already know about the links between Wahhabism and terrorism; here is some reading material for you regarding the links between Wahhabism and Kharijism. These are two articles that I quote in their entirety, without comment:


The Wahabi and the Khawarij

Surprising, there are many similarities between the Wahabi and the Khawarij which distinguish them from the rest of the Muslim. Some of these common points follow.

1. The Khawarij disagreed with all Muslims by maintaining that whoever commits a cardinal sin is a heretic. The Wahabis copied them by equating heresy with committing what they considered to be sins.[15]

2. The Khawarij decreed that if committing cardinal sins become common in a Muslim land then it deserved to be considered dar harb, literally a land of war and those who live in it forfeit their lives and possessions.

This is also the Wahabi's verdict on the nation of Islam if they believe that it is permissible to travel to the Prophet's tomb and the shrines of pious men and ask for their intercession with Allah, though they worship only Allah and perform good deeds.

It is clear from the previous two points that the Wahabis are more disruptive and evil than the Khawarij While the khawarij based their verdict of heresy on deeds that all Muslims agreed on being cardinal sins, the Wahabis chose acts which are not actually sins but favourable deeds performed by devout early Muslims including the Prophet's Companions.

3. The Wahabis and the Khawarij are similar in their strict application of religion and their ossified interpretations of its doctrines. Thus when the Khawarij read the Quranic verse: «Judgment belongs to Allah» they said that whoever allowed resort to settlement is an idolator. 'There is no judgment but Allah's' became their slogan. And though it is indisputable it was misapplied to justify their deviant ways. This attitude illustrates their ignorance of Islam and rigid thinking since the principle of settlement of dispute through adjudicator or third-party intervention was established by the Holy Quran, the Prophet's Tradition and the deeds of the Companions and early Muslims. It is also supported by common logic.

Similarly, the Wahabis interpreted the following verses:

«You alone we worship and You alone we pray for help».[16]

«Who is he that can intercede with Him but by His own permission».[17]

«No intercession shall avail with Him but that which He Himself allow».[18]

To mean that anyone who justifies visiting the Prophet's Mosque or the shrines of pious Muslim and ask for their intercession is an idolator. They considered such acts as tantamount to worshipping the Prophet or those pious Muslims instead of Allah. Accordingly, they declared that there is no deity but Allah and there is no intercession except His.

While these heated declarations are indisputable, the intentions behind them are open to suspicions. The Wahabis chose to ignore the tradition established by the Companions and early Muslims regarding the legality of visiting the Prophet's Mosque and other shrines and asking for intercession.

4. Ibn Taimia observed that the deviant group the Khawarij was the first bida' or corruption in Islam because its followers judged other Muslims as heretics and legalized killing them.[19] It can be added that the Wahabia, and for the same reason, is the last bida' in Islam.

5. Some of the Prophet's comments on the rise of the Khawarij and their deviation from Islam also apply to the Wahabis. Consider, for example, the Prophet's saying that: «a group of people shall emerge from the east who reads the Quran without understanding it. They shall deviate from it like an arrow missing its target. Shaving the head shall be their distinguishing characteristic.»[20] In commenting on this saying, al-Qastalani said that «'due east' means east of al-Medina such as Najid and further.»

Najid is the birthplace of Wahabia from which it spread to other places. Also, shaving their heads was one of the Wahabis' established tradition which was mandatory for all their followers including women. None of the deviant groups who predated them was known to impose it. Some of the religious scholars who witnessed the rise of this movement maintained that there is no need to write books to refute the Wahabia because it is sufficient to repeat the Prophet's saying that 'Shaving the head is their distinguishing characteristic,' since none has done it before them.

6. The Prophet described the Khawarij as «those who will slaughter Muslims and leave the pagans unharmed.» This also applies to the Wahabis who fought only Muslims. Their scholars and books also call for waging war on other Muslims only.

7. Al-Bukhari reported that Ibn Omar described the Khawarij as «having applied verses revealed regarding pagans to the believers.»[24] Ibn Abbas is reported to have said on the same subject:

Don't be like the Khawarij who interpreted some [verses] of the Quran to apply to the faithful. Those verses were revealed regarding followers of other divine messages and pagans. The Khawarij were ignorant of their meanings and as a result they killed [Muslims] and looted their possessions.

The Wahabis followed suit by applying verses revealed in the case of idolaters to the believers.

8. We can now imagine the following dialogue between a Sunni and a Wahabi:

-The Wahabi: The Hanabila [i.e. followers of Imam Ibn Hanbal] books are also ours. Which of these books do you disapprove of? If you indeed have something against them then you must cite their books and not their critics!
-The Sunni: What do you think of the Karamita? [a dissident group formed during the Abbasid rule].
-The Wahabi: They are pagans and idolaters.
-The Sunni: But they claim adherence to the Prophet Household's doctrines and that their books are also theirs. But the books of the Prophet Household contain nothing but words of enlightenment and truth.
-The Wahabi: The Qaramita were liars and historians have demonstrated their heresy and falsification.
-The Sunni: Then you accept evidence presented by historians?
-The Wahabi: Yes! Imam al-Shafi said that the historian's methodology in relying on multiple sources is better, in his opinion, than the acceptance of a single source by the narrators of the Prophet's Tradition.
-The Sunni: Then you must accept what the historians considered as evidence of the Wahabi heresy. A person's deed may be held as evidence against him or her even if he denies doing it. And when the Qaramita legalized murdering Muslims and stealing their possessions no doubt regarding their heresy remained. This also applies to your Wahabi masters.
-The Wahabi: (was angry and speechless).
- The Sunni then added: What is your opinion of the description of the Khawarij as heretics who shall be punished with Hell's fire?
-The Wahabi replied: The consensus is that the Khawarij deviated from the true path and thus incurred Allah's wrath. But the Khawarij were put to rout at the Nahrawan battle and the Wahabis do not belong to them!
-The Sunni said: Why do you think the Khawarij deserved Allah's wrath? was it because of the inadequacy of their prayers and fasting?
-The Wahabi: No!
-The Sunni: Was it then because of their devotion, or recital of the Quran or paying lipservice to the truth?
-The Wahabi: No!
-The Sunni persisted: Why then? Tell me!
-The Wahabi stammered and could not manage a reply.
-The Sunni: There is one and only one reason for incurring Allah's wrath and that is legalizing the slaughter of innocent Muslims and the theft of their possessions after calling them heretics and also whoever makes the claim that he is the only true Muslim. Anyone who commits such deeds and makes such claims deserves the same fate.

A Demonstration that the
Wahhabis are Khawarij

bismillahi'rrahmani'rrahim

As for the Qarniyyun, their land has not been blessed by Allah with any wali or salih since the beginning of Islam down to the present day. Instead, he only gave it the Qarn al-Shaytan ['the Devil's Horn'], whose followers were the Khawarij of the thirteenth and subsequent Islamic centuries. So fear God, and do not be like he who is beguiled by them, and supports their corrupt sect and worthless opinion, and their state of misguidance which was explicitly described by the Prophet (upon whom be blessings and peace), who characterised them as the 'Dogs of the Fire' [kilab al-nar], and informed us that they are the 'worst of all who dwell beneath the sky', and that they 'swerve from the religion as an arrow swerves away from its target,' and that they mouth among the best of sayings in the form of their prattlings about Tawhid, and implementing the Sunna, and combating bid'as - and yet, by Allah, they are drowning in bid'a; in fact, there is no bid'a worse than theirs, which causes them to 'swerve from the religion as an arrow swerves away from its target', in spite of their superficial efforts in worship and adherence to the religion. It is as the Prophet (upon whom be blessings and peace) declared: 'one of you would despise the prayer he says among them, and the fasting he completes with them; they recite Qur'an but it goes no further than their collarbones.'

It is for this reason that he refrained (upon him be blessings and peace) from making du'a for Najd in the way that he had prayed for the Yemen and for Syria, for he said: 'Allahumma bless us in our Yemen; bless us in our Syria' - and they said, 'And in our Najd, o Messenger of Allah?' (upon him be blessings and peace), but he repeated his prayer for the Yemen and for Syria; and they repeated their utterance; until he said, the second or the third time round, in order to explain why he would not pray for Najd:

'That is the place of earthquakes, and fitnas, and from it the Devil's Horn shall rise.' [Narrated by Bukhari.] And nothing has emerged from there to bring about earthquakes and fitnas in the religion like Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, who was astray and led others astray. Hence he was the Devil's Horn foretold by the Messenger (upon him be blessings and peace), and he abstained from offering prayer for Najd because of him, and because of the fitnas which would flow from his demonic da'wa. Whoever adheres to that da'wa has committed unambiguous kufr, and is destined for apostasy and 'swerving from the religion', as is visible in the case of the other mulhids [heretical unbelievers] of the age who are notorious for their ilhad, for in every case they began by holding fast to the sect of the Devil's Horn, as is well-known to scholars of experience and insight.

Wa-salla'Llahu 'ala sayyidina Muhammadin wa-'ala alihi wa-sahbihi kullama dhakaru a-dhakirun wa-ghafala 'an dhikrihi al-ghafilun.
wa'l-hamdu li'Llahi rabbi'l-'alamin

This article by a Muslim author, The Salafi Cult. better known as the Khawarij, explains that Wahhabism comes from Saudi Arabia, that its name has been changed to Salafism to keep people from knowing what it is, and then roundly condemns it as khawarij teachings. The article blames the British as the source of the "heresy" of Wahabism/Salafism; I don't buy that for a moment, but the article is nonetheless very interesting.

By the way: reading that article, don't think that it's kooks in the Islamic World condemning "the homicidally absolutist attitudes of the Islamist factions in the Arab world" as Kharijism. Here are three links to information about an article written by no less than the Dean of Islamic Law in Qatar Univeristy condemning Islamic radicalism as Kharijism.

Qatar University Dean Against Fanatic Islamists

Dean of Islamic Law, Qatar University: The fight against terrorism must begin with curricular, educational, and media reform in the Arab world

Dean of Islamic Law, Qatar University: The fight against terrorism must begin with curricular, educational, and media reform in the Arab world

More references:

Khawarij Make Takfeer of Keith Ellison

“Islamist” = “Khawarij”

Modern Khawarij

New Kharijism

Neo-Con Salafis (Saudi-Salafis)