By Benyamin Solomon

The Arab media network Al Jazeera documents some of the human rights violations by the terrorist Hamas organization.

The Arab media outlet Al Jazeera made a report on the Hamas killings of Palestinians. This is some more examples of the brutality of the Hamas occupation of Gaza [my article on it is here].

According to the Al Jazeera report, a NY Times colomnist and Gaza resident Taghreed el-Khodary was around where there was a killing by Hamas of a suspected "collaborator". The Hamas butcher [who carried out the killing] saw that she was horrified and asked,"Are you horrified for a collaborator"? The NY Times journalist recounted this experience to Al Jazeera.

It should be stated that Al Jazeera is not pro-Israel one bit. In fact, it's Arabic version includes a show hosted by the Muslim Brotherhood Spiritual Guide Yusuf Qaradawi who publicly supports suicide bombings on Israel.

Many accuse the Al Jazeera network of being biased for and giving aid to America's enemies in the Arab and Muslim world. Fatah accused Al Jazeera of pro-Hamas bias. It was Hamas that came to the defense of Al Jazeera and claimed that it was fair and objective [for source see the last hyperlink mentioned]. Yet even the news network of what Hamas calls fair and objective came to document the Hamas crimes in Gaza, something that is a big gamble of safety for a Gaza resident to do.

As I said [see second hyperlink for source], Hamas is in no position to attack Israel’s treatment toward the Palestinians, considering the fact that Hamas is far more brutal to the Palestinians. What's mind boggling is how can Hamas be fighting for Palestinian "rights" if it commits crimes against the Palestinians that are far worse than what Israel did.

Human Rights Watch [HRW] also accused Hamas of committing human rights violations against innocent Palestinians. Make no mistake about it. Not only is Hamas the real occupiers when it comes to Gaza, Hamas is an organization full of butchers. Hamas thirsts for blood.

Hamas is not fighting for Palestinian rights. It's fighting for the extermination of the Jewish state and for an Islamic caliphate that's ruled by Sharia to dominate the world. Ismail Haniyeh and Mahmoud al-Zahar are some of the biggest fuhrers of the Arab and Muslim world.

According to Al Jazeera, Palestinian human rights groups themselves condemned the Hamas human rights violations. Hamas seeks to impose a Taliban-style dictatorship on Gaza.

Even Al Jazeera, where anti-Israel views flourish [to say the least], reported on some of the human rights violations by Hamas, which gets support from guys like Jimmy Carter, who was one of the worst Presidents America ever had. Carter even called on the Obama Administration to remove Hamas from the US State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations [FTO]. Yet the same Hamas is butchering its own people [yet Hamas claims to be fighting for its own people] and slaughters Jewish men, women and children. Hamas is an occupying terrorist force and is a terrorist butcher organization.

By Benyamin Solomon
The NY Times reported on the barbaric execution of Taliban POWs by Afghan warlords. The NY Times cried for the Taliban. I condemn that execution. However, what the Afghan warlord did to the Taliban POWS is the same thing the Taliban did to innocent people. And the difference is that the Taliban did it to innocent people, whereas the Afghan warlords did it to Taliban terrorists.
What time is it? Cry for radical Islamic terrorists time. These radical Islamic thugs want the world to cry for them when they become victims. But they victimize other people at the same time. They carry out barberic executions publicly whether in front of video cameras or in public squares. Remember this message. Today's Taliban men who were helpless victims were yesterday's terrorists. What happened to those Taliban prisoners is the same thing the Taliban did to innocent people, as I said. Make no mistake about that. Apparently, liberals just love to cry for radical Islamic terrorists and fall for their BS.

By Benyamin Solomon
The Egyptian Muslim reformer Tawfik Hamid decided to use an ABC's method to define radical Islam and to expalain the worldview of that movement. I take no credit for it in anyway. The following is the ABC's method Tawfik Hamid uses to explain what radical Islam stands for:

Apostates killing

Beating women and stoning women to death for adultery

Calling Jews pigs and monkeys.

Declaring war on Non Muslims to spread Islam after offering Non Muslims three options – subjugate to Islam, pay Jizia (a humiliating tax), or be killed.

Enslavement of Other Human Beings.

Fighting and killing Jews before the “End of Days”.

Gay killing.

Vol. 8, No. 21    12 February 2009

By Col. (res.) Jonathan Fighel, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs [JCPA]

 

• The Mumbai attacks have been linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba and radical Islamic groups in Kashmir generally. Yet it would be a mistake to see Lashkar only as a local organization with only a local agenda.
• Saudi Arabia has contributed very much to what Lashkar-e-Taiba looks like, how it thinks, its motivation, ideology, and funding. Saudi Arabia presents itself as the protector and the spearhead of the defense of Muslims around the world against what they define as the Western cultural attack.
• The Saudis are very committed to recruiting, funding, and funneling ideology to embattled Muslim minorities, and use Muslim charities as their tool to implement this policy. The Saudi methodology is to take advantage of a humanitarian crisis to get a foot in the door. Who could be against assisting widows and orphans and setting up schools and clinics? Some of the money is indeed funneled to support terrorism - families of suicide bombers.
• The notion of global Islam has also penetrated to Gaza and exists under the umbrella of Hamas, which is enabling a revival of global jihadi organizations there such as Jaish al-Islam and others. This phenomenon is radicalizing the already radicalized society in Gaza.
• Hamas could agree to a hudna (calm) for fifty years, but there will be no recognition of Israel or a cessation of the struggle against it. If Hamas was ready to act pragmatically, it would no longer be Hamas. And then the frustrated factions within Hamas would break off and join up with the radical global jihadi organizations in Gaza.

 

The similarity of the November 2008 attack in Mumbai to the attack on the Savoy Hotel in Tel Aviv in 1975 was striking. At that time, a Palestinian organization based outside the borders of Israel, in a safe haven in Lebanon, had undergone months of specialized training. With a high level of prior intelligence, several very dedicated assault groups attacked a high-value target.

The Mumbai attacks were not a conventional suicide attack. Since 1998, al-Qaeda's hallmark has been suicide attacks, based upon the whole rationale of jihad, sacrifice and martyrdom. But the attacks in Mumbai did not resemble 7/7 in London or the attacks in Madrid or any other al-Qaeda-style attacks.

 

What Is Lashkar-e-Taiba?

The Mumbai attacks have been linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba and radical Islamic groups in Kashmir generally. Yet it would be a mistake to see Lashkar only as a local organization with only a local agenda.

The creation and flourishing of Lashkar-e-Taiba would not have been possible unless they were supported by three major elements. The first is the ideology of global jihad. The second is funding and support from external sources. And the third is a territorial base which enables them to conduct activities and maintain training camps.

What is Lashkar-e-Taiba and why is it relevant to the Middle East? Lashkar collects funds from Pakistanis and Kashmiris, as well as the Pakistani community in the Persian Gulf, in the United Kingdom, and elsewhere. Its website appears under the name of Jamaat ud Dawa and the group maintains ties to religious and militant groups around the world. The Jamaat ud Dawa website links directly to the Hamas website.

 

The Saudi Connection

Since the beginning of the 1990s, Saudi Arabia has contributed very much to what Lashkar-e-Taiba looks like, how it thinks, its motivation, ideology, and funding. Saudi newspapers at the time published calls for jihad to support all Muslim struggles around the world. Kashmir was seen as a place where jihad was taking place, so donations were solicited for the Muslims living there. Allah was said to bless the warriors of this financial jihad.

In August 1999, the Saudi newspaper Al Jazeera reported on a press conference conducted by the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), a Saudi-based charity supervised by the government. The group's secretary-general, Maneh al-Johani, praised the role played by Saudi Arabia in providing assistance to Muslims around the world, especially in Kashmir. Johani equated the Kashmir issue with the situation in Kosovo and Palestine, and called on Muslims to help the Kashmiri people.

Radical Wahhabi, Salafi, Saudi Islam sees the world in confrontation, with zones of jihad where Muslim minorities are struggling politically and religiously against other forces. The struggle can be with Israel, Serbia, India, or the Philippines. Saudi Arabia presents itself as the protector and the spearhead of the defense of Muslims around the world against what the former Supreme Religious Authority of Saudi Arabia, the late Sheikh Abdul Aziz Ibn Baz (Ben Baz), defined as the Western cultural attack.

This is the ideology behind Saudi politics. The Saudis are very committed to recruiting, funding, and funneling ideology to those Muslim minorities, and use Muslim charities as their tool to implement this policy. In September 2000, the Saudi newspaper Al Jazeera reported on an additional press conference by WAMY Secretary-General Johani, who discussed Saudi Arabia's role in providing aid to Kashmir and asked the Islamic countries to play an effective part in saving Kashmir's Muslims. Johani described the Kashmiri people's jihad and noted that they had suffered thousands of casualties. "The Kashmiri people want to protect their Islamic entity and we must help them," he concluded.

Since the end of the war in Afghanistan in 1989, the Saudi contribution to entrenching the phenomenon of global jihad around the world has mushroomed, whether in Chechnya, the Philippines, Kosovo, or the Palestinian territories. Yet for all this, Saudi Arabia is not held accountable. 

The Saudi methodology is to take advantage of a humanitarian crisis to get a foot in the door. Who could be against assisting widows and orphans and setting up schools and clinics? It is a methodology that has been duplicated all around the world. Since direct assistance to armed groups is problematic for Saudi Arabia, they use "charities," which are actually organizations that use the social network called the dawa to propagate their ideology through mosques, health clinics, and madrassas, to influence minds and recruit supporters to Wahhabi-style ideology and commitment. Some of the money is indeed funneled to support terrorism - families of suicide bombers.

It is now evident that the so-called Saudi non-governmental charities are closely monitored by the Saudi government. The Saudis have understood that they were under pressure from the West and so they were very willing to sacrifice the Al-Haramain charity. It was banned and dismantled, but other charities were not, like the Islamic Relief Organization (IRO). The Saudi charities just change names and, unfortunately, nothing concrete is being done. There is no all-out campaign to dismantle all those charities.

 

Training Camps in Pakistan

Lashkar-e-Taiba has created an infrastructure inside Pakistan which is relevant to struggles beyond the boundaries of Kashmir or India. It has created an operational capability in its training camps through the use of highly skilled instructors, veterans of the Afghan war. Some well-known terrorists have passed through those training camps before launching their attacks. The shoe bomber, Richard Reid, was trained in a Lashkar training camp, as was Dhiren Barot, a British subject and a Hindu who converted to Islam, who was the mastermind of a failed gas cylinder bombing plot in London and who also prepared detailed blueprints for al-Qaeda of the buildings in New York's financial district.

Lashkar-e-Taiba is headed by Muhammad Saeed, who plays a key role in the group's operational activities, terrorist training camps, ideology, and in its worldwide activities. Saeed was reportedly arrested in Pakistan in February 2009. Saeed determines where the graduates of the Lashkar camps in Pakistan are sent to fight and in 2005 he personally organized the infiltration of Lashkar militants into Iraq. He was in Saudi Arabia at the time, with the knowledge of the Saudi government (you cannot enter Saudi Arabia without permission). He also arranged for Lashkar operatives to be sent to Europe as fundraising coordinators. So Saudi Arabia again was a launching pad for sending highly-trained mujahidin to the war against the Americans in Iraq. This shows the global nature of Lashkar-e-Taiba. It is not just a provincial organization but one that has a global reach.

Haji Mohammad Ashraf has been Lashkar's chief financier since 2003, expanding the organization and increasing its fundraising activities. Mahmoud Mohammed Ahmad Ba'aziq, a Saudi national, served as the Lashkar leader in Saudi Arabia during the 1980s and 1990s, before Ashraf, and coordinated fundraising activity with non-governmental charities and businessmen in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi regime is aware of the money going to Lashkar in Saudi Arabia for its activities around the world.

Lashkar operations chief Zakir Rehman Lakvi was also reportedly arrested in a Pakistani raid on a Lashkar training camp. He was one of the masterminds of the Mumbai attack and was in constant cellular phone contact with the attackers. Lakvi has been very much involved in military operations in Chechnya, Bosnia, and Iraq.

Lashkar-e-Taiba would not have evolved to the scale they have reached without Saudi assistance. One key Saudi who helped build Lashkar into such an efficient and highly-trained organization is Abdul Aziz Barbaros. Barbaros, whose real name is Abdul Ahman el-Dosfari, fought with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. He was one of the founding members of Lashkar in Kashmir after the end of the Afghan war. He also traveled to Bosnia to assist the al-Qaeda-oriented mujahidin brigades there. During the 1980s and 1990s Barbaros served as a critical link between Lashkar, wealthy and pious Saudi financiers, and Pakistani and Muslim fanatics around the world.

Hamas leader Sheikh Yassin in Gaza routinely delivered speeches addressed to Lashkar-e-Taiba militant rallies in Kashmir and Pakistan. This is an example of the general mindset of radical Islamic solidarity. The Hamas leader in Gaza showed that he cared about what was happening with other Muslim minorities around the world, as they should care about what is happening in Gaza or the West Bank. This is not necessarily directly connected to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In Iraq, this is seen as a struggle against the American "Crusade occupation." This reflects Bin Laden's 1998 declaration of jihad, when he spoke of the Islamic front against the Crusaders and the Jews. So everything is linked and what happened in Mumbai has a wider perspective.

 

Global Islam Penetrates Gaza

The notion of global Islam has also penetrated to Gaza and to some extent in the West Bank. This phenomenon exists under the umbrella of Hamas, which enables a revival of global jihadi organizations in Gaza such as Jaish al-Islam and others. The emergence of these groups is worrying because they are very much inspired by the global jihadi, Saudi Wahhabi ideology - a strict interpretation of Islam which is being interpreted into political and terrorist activity. What is important in this phenomenon is the radicalization of the already radicalized society in Gaza.

The bottom line is that we are seeing the same pattern of global jihad-oriented groups starting to be active in Gaza. They have carried out some attacks, mostly directed against foreign, Western institutions like the YMCA and the American School. Yet they have played only a marginal role in attacks against Israeli targets.

 

Hamas in Gaza

I think the situation of Hamas control in Gaza is irreversible. From my reading of Hamas publications in Arabic, it is clear that there is no way back, only ahead, to take control in the West Bank if they become strong enough. Hamas could agree to a hudna (calm) for fifty years, but there will be no recognition of Israel or a cessation of the struggle against it.

If Hamas was ready to act pragmatically, it would no longer be Hamas. It would be something else. And then the frustrated factions within Hamas would break off and join up with the radical global jihadi organizations in Gaza. Those organizations hope to provide a refuge for Hamas radicals who believe that any normalization or pragmatism would be harmful to the Hamas cause.          

This is not just my hypothesis. The declarations of Hamas leaders Zahar and Siam have hinted that if Hamas were to lose its real identity, people would shift their loyalties and activities to a more genuine Islamic organization, not a pragmatic, opportunistic, hudna-style one.

Should we talk with Hamas? Is the international community ready to sit down with al-Qaeda? There is no difference. It is a total misrepresentation to say Hamas is like the IRA. There is no political wing of Hamas disconnected from the operational wing. There are no pragmatists to speak to. At the end of the day, those who believe that trying to talk to Hamas is the right way to conduct business here in the Middle East will be in for a big disappointment.

*     *     *

Col. (res.) Jonathan Fighel is a senior research scholar at the International Institute for Counter Terrorism (ICT). He is also a member of the International Academic Counter Terrorism Community (ICTAC) and serves as a consultant and expert witness for the U.S. Department of Justice on Hamas trials, as well as to private U.S.-based law firms in cases of prosecuting al-Qaeda terrorism. His expertise also includes the Palestinian Authority, Islamist terror groups (Hamas, PIJ, al-Qaeda), funding, Palestinian terrorism and the Palestinian suicide terrorism phenomenon. This Jerusalem Issue Brief is based on his presentation at the Institute for Contemporary Affairs in Jerusalem on December 9, 2008.

By Benyamin Solomon
I remember when I first heard of Paul Krugman's inaccurate NY Times column on Islamo-fascism. It was while I read one of Alex Constantine's slanderous responses to me. In that response, Alex Constantine called his Conservative opponents Fascist, something he spends a lot of time doing on his blogs. Well, Alex Constantine is not the main focus of this column.
What is the main focus is that this is a response to Paul Krugman's inaccurate 2007 NY Times column "Fearing Fear itself". His column is promoted by left-wing propaganda sites like Crooks and Liars and also by Alex Constantine, who was promoting it in his slanderous response to me. Paul talks about how the Republican party is supposedly using the fear of Islamo-fascism and accuses the GOP of spreading fear toward dark-colored people just for showing the threat of Islamo-fascism. Paul said:

Most Americans have now regained their balance. But the Republican base, which lapped up the administration’s rhetoric about the axis of evil and the war on terror, remains infected by the fear the Bushies stirred up — perhaps because fear of terrorists maps so easily into the base’s older fears, including fear of dark-skinned people in general.

Wrong! The Republican Party wasn't spreading fear of dark-skinned people. The GOP wasn't looking for a candidate who shares that fear. In fact, the current chairman is Michael Steele, who is dark-skinned himself. To be fair to Krugman, he did write his column before Steele became the GOP chairman. But even then, that claim still didn't have any evidence to support it. It was a baseless claim that was spewed by many of the biggest kooks and propagandists from the political left including those from the Democract party. Even in those days, there were still dark-skinned members of the GOP. Boy, they must really fear themselves, Paul. Like a typical liberal, Krugman downplays the threats posed by Islamo-fascists. Paul said:

Mr. Podhoretz, the editor of Commentary and a founding neoconservative, tells us that Iran is the “main center of the Islamofascist ideology against which we have been fighting since 9/11.” The Islamofascists, he tells us, are well on their way toward creating a world “shaped by their will and tailored to their wishes.” Indeed, “Already, some observers are warning that by the end of the 21st century the whole of Europe will be transformed into a place to which they give the name Eurabia.”

Do I have to point out that none of this makes a bit of sense?

Iran being "the main center of the Islamofascist ideology against which we have been fighting since 9/11" is a pretty accurate statement. Iran is ruled by reactionary Jihadist Fascists. Look at their ideology. They sponsor terror and carry out their terror in the name of Islam. What Paul Krugman should know is that Iran's goal of imposing radical Islam on the world is written in Iran's constitution, which says that:

Reading the column, you see that it is mainly an attack against Conservative commentators and then-Republican presidential nominees. But it doesn't contain evidence. Pordhoretz's claim that Islamo-fascists are creating a world that is "shaped by their will and tailored by their wishes" is correct. Look at what's happening in Europe, as I will detail later. Look at what's happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan with the Taliban and in Iraq, Iran and many other places. The facts on the ground already state the same thing. Pordhoretz's claim that "some observers are warning that by the end of the 21st century the whole of Europe will be transformed into a place to which they give the name Eurabia" is also accurate. The respected expert on the Middle East and professor of Princeton Bernard Lewis said,"Europe will be Islamic by the end of the century". Already in Europe, radical Muslims are setting up no go areas where the police is persona non-grata. Muslim radicals impose Sharia law in those areas and seek to impose Sharia law on the rest of Europe and the world. Already in Europe, Sharia courts are already being imposed. Islamo-Fascism is no hoax. It is the ideology of radical Islam. Radical Islamists are Fascists.  Radical Muslims seek to establish some of the most totalitarian societies in the name of Islam. Fascism is where a totalitarian government controls every aspect of individual life in the name of nationalism, religion and/or race. This is Islamo-fascism. Islamo-fascists seek to impose a society where Sharia law will control every aspect of individual life. Radical Muslims have a long list of crimes. They're guilty of torture, and public killings. Radical Muslims kill people in public areas and/or in front of cameras. Modern-day Iran is the embodiment or at least very similar to the kind of society radical Muslims seek to impose. In fact, Iran is ruled by radical Muslims. Iran has the modesty police harass women for not being veiled "properly" and has public executions. Iran had notorious people like Assadollah Lajevardi carrying out killings and tortures of political prisoners who seek to have democracy. Lajevardi was killed in a heroic attack by the People's Mojahedin of Iran [PMOI], which is the main opposition group in Iran. Though Lajevardi may be dead, the Iranian regime has thugs like him that carry out their torture and executions. Look at the Fatwa that calls for the killing of Salman Rushdie. The fatwa keeps being reaffirmed by Iranian leaders and has never been retracted. So Islamo-fascism is real. It wasn't invented by any neo-con [I'm a proud neo-con] nor by any proponent of the war on Iraq. Saddam not attacking America is a matter of perspective. He still harbored terrorists who killed Americans like Abu Abbas, who killed the American Jewish passenger Leon Klinghoff on the Archille Lauro ship that was hijacked by Abu Abbas's faction of the PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization] the PLF [Palestine Liberation Front]. Saddam was good friends with Yasser Arafat, who ordered the killing of the US ambassador to Sudan Cleo Noel. Saddam was allied to and supported terrorists who killed Americans. I don't support every single aspect of the Iraq war and believe that some mistakes were made. For example, I think that America's bombings of the PMOI bases in Iraq were a mistake. They were done to appease Iran.
Paul claims that the Iranian regime was helpful in the 2001 Afghanistan war and that they have no responsibility for 9/11. The 9/11 commission report states that Iran and its proxy Hezbollah trained Al Qaeda terrorists. Even after 9/11, Iran continued to harbor Al Qaeda terrorists including Osama Bin Ladin's son. Iran wasn't helpful to America in the Afghanistan war. That's a myth repeated by Tehran's apologists, who seem to influence the appeasement crowd. Iran gave cheap lip service when it came to condemning the 9/11 attacks and in support of America's efforts against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. In fact, in the 2001 Afghanistan war, Iran actually aided the Taliban. In October 2001, Iran signed a secret agreement to assist the Taliban in its war on America. Paul, let me state you one thing. I do NOT want that kind of help. Paul claims that:

So Paul acknowledges that Iran's regime is a "nasty piece of work" while whitewashing it at the same time. Paul's whitewash of Iran's regime is seen by his claim that Iran cooperated with America against the Al Qaeda and the Taliban, a claim that I already refuted above in this article. Iran has extensive terrorist networks. Iran has extensive terrorist networks in Iraq and is responsible for some of the most deadly terrorist attacks including attacks that killed Americans. Let's take a look at history. Iran carried out the bombing of the Israeli embassy in Argentina in 1992 and attacked the Jewish community center in 1994. Those attacks were approved and directed by the Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Hisehmi Rafsanjani, then-President of Iran helped to carry out the attacks and was one of the Iranian officials who went on arrest warrants in Argentina. Iran helped carry out the kidnappings of Americans in Lebanon in the 1980's and helped to carry out attacks on American forces in Iraq. Iran supplied deadly EFP explosives to their proxy militias to be used against US-led coalition forces. Iran is also responsible for the bombing of the Khobar towers in 1996, which killed more Americans.

 The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps [IRGC] is one of the biggest terrorist organs of the Iranian regime. It's branch the Qods force is especially deadly. Iran also has an extensive intelligence network known as the Ministry of Intelligence and Security [MOIS]. I can state more. I think you get the point. Paul said:

Mitt Romney's ad was [and is] certainly correct. Radical Muslims admit that they want to replace our [America's] constitution with the Koran. There are other jihadists beside Al Qaeda with the same objectives. But Paul assumes that the ad referred to Al Qaeda. Whether Al Qaeda can take over the world and collapse the United States or not, those things are certainly what Al Qaeda seeks to do. Al Qaeda is a deadly terrorist group that is responsible for the killing of many American lives. In 1998, Bin Ladin issued a fatwa that called for the killing of Americans, both civilians and military alike. In November 2001, Bin Ladin said,"I was ordered to fight the people until they say there is no god but Allah, and his prophet Muhammad." Al Qaeda carried out the bombing of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Al Qaeda carried out the bombing of the USS cole. Al Qaeda even carried out the 9/11 attacks, which killed more than 3,000 innocent people. Al Qaeda is not the only force in the Jihadist movement. It is one of them. Radical Muslims, even those who aren't members of Al Qaeda, made it clear that they seek to impose Sharia on the whole world and that they seek to defeat the free world. Paul said:

 Yep, a bunch of lightly armed terrorists and a fourth-rate military power — which aren’t even allies — pose a greater danger than Hitler’s panzers or the Soviet nuclear arsenal ever did.

All of this would be funny if it weren’t so serious.

In the wake of 9/11, the Bush administration adopted fear-mongering as a political strategy. Instead of treating the attack as what it was — an atrocity committed by a fundamentally weak, though ruthless adversary — the administration portrayed America as a nation under threat from every direction.

Iran had a mixed relationship with Al Qaeda. True, Iran did offer to hand over some Al Qaeda terrorists, with the Obama administration rejecting the offer. But even today, Iran continues to be a leading state sponsor of terrorism and a global threat. Iran has an extensive terrorist network. Whenever we see Islamic fundamentalists causing problems, we see that Iran is behind it. I think when Paul said "fourth rate military power" in the above quote, he means Iran and when he said "lightly armed terrorists", he means Al Qaeda. The Islamo-fascists do pose a bigger threat than the Soviets. Look at their ideology. Islamo-Fascism has the expansionist nature of Communism and also includes religious fanaticism and a martyrdom embracing theme. During the Cold War, MAD [Mutually Assured Destruction] was a deterrent to using nuclear weapons for both the United States and the Soviet Union. MAD is not a deterrent with radical Islam. Radical Muslims bragged that they love death more than they love life. they demonstrated it with actions like with suicide bombings and the 9/11 hijackings. Radical Muslims believe that if they die fighting for Allah, they'd go to heaven while the infidels go to hell. That's what the suicide bombers and 9/11 hijackers believed. During the Iran-Iraq war, Khomeini sent Iranian kids to walk on mines, so the advancing Iranian army can fight the Iraqi forces. The kids were given a key, which symbolizes their so-called key to heaven. Iran's nuclear program is a threat because it gives nuclear weapons to an ideology where MAD is not a deterrent to using nuclear weapons. Same is true if the Taliban took over Pakistan, which already has nuclear weapons. Paul claims:

I don't think that bombing Iran's regime is the only solution. I am for supporting Iran's pro-democracy movement that seeks liberty. But bombing Iran's nuclear weapons sites is the second best option. Iran must not have nuclear weapons. The Israeli bombing of Hezbollah did damage them. What strenthened Hezbollah is the cease fire. Hezbollah then used it to get more strength and more control.
Krugman concludes the article as saying:

 While whitewashing them, Paul admits that Al Qaeda and Iran's nuclear program are threats. This "unreasoning fear" is based on fact. Radical Islam is a growing movement. It is the ideology of the regimes in Saudi Arabia and Iran and the ideology of the main opposition group in Egypt the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, the Muslim Brotherhood is the father of radical Islam. Egypt was where it was founded.
Paul admitted that Al Qaeda and Iran's nuclear program are threats. He admitted that Iran's regime "is a nasty piece of work" and that Al Qaeda murders innocent people. But he whitewashes them and denies the ideology that is attacking the free world and that is murdering innocent Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Krugman accused Podhoretz of engaging in "crazy talk". Looking at the evidence, it is Kruman who engaged in "crazy talk". He still engages in "crazy talk" today whenever he writes a column for the NY Times that bashes Conservatives including those who oppose Obama's policies. Accusing the GOP of spreading fear toward colored people is already crazy talk. It was crazy talk then. It's crazy talk today. Krugman's articles are laughable if they weren't so serious. It's him who is providing "comical relief" ["Comical relief" was a term Krugman accuses the Republicans of in his recent column "Stay the Course"]. The threat of radical Islam is right in front of anybody who looks it up. He is one of those liberals who needs to wake up to the fact that radical Islam is a global threat. This ideology is a threat to both Muslims and non-Muslims alike. This ideology is Fascist. If it isn't Fascist, then I don't know what Fascism is. Islamo-Fascism is very real and is an accurate term to describe the ideology of radical Islam.

By Nonie Darwish
FrontPageMagazine.com | Thursday, January 08, 2009

 

With the explosive current events in Gaza, the world needs to understand the roots of this eternal conflict, otherwise we are all kidding ourselves with hopes of peace.

For decades, Arabs had demanded that Israel end the "occupation," and in 2005, Israel did so, disengaging unilaterally from Gaza. With their demands met, there was no ‘cycle of violence’ to respond to, no further justification for anything other than peace and prosperity. With its central location and beautiful beaches on the East Mediteranean, a peaceful and prosperous Gaza could have become another Hong Kong; a shining trade and commerce center. But instead of choosing peace, the Palestinians chose Islamic jihad. They rolled their rocket launchers to the border and started bombing Israeli civilians.

Understanding the reasons why the Palestinians chose violence over peace requires connecting the dots from the behavior of Muslim states back to the laws of Islam: Sharia. Mainstream Sharia books define Jihad as: "to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion." (Shafi’i Sharia o9.0). Jihad is not just the duty of the individual Muslim, but it is also the main duty of the Muslim head of State (the Calipha):

"A Muslim calipha is entrusted to take his people into war and command offensive and aggressive Jihad. He must organize Jihad against any non-Muslim government, which prevents Muslim da’wah (meaning preaching and spreading Islam) from entering its land." (Shafii Law o25.0 to o25.9).

Sharia law# o25.9 states:

"(When the caliph appoints a ruler on a region, his duty includes) if the area has a border adjacent to enemy lands, (he will) undertake Jihad against enemies, dividing the spoils of battle among combatants and setting aside a fifth for deserving recipients."

Also:
 
"The Caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax provided he has first invited them to enter Islam or pay Jizya, the non-Muslim poll tax, (in accordance with the word of Allah Most High Chapter 9 verse 29)."

Zia-Ul-Haq, former President of Pakistan, said "jihad in terms of warfare is a collective responsibility of the Muslim Ummah."

One of Islam’s eminent 20th century scholars, Sheikh Maolana Maududi said:

"Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and program … the objective of Islamic jihad is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish instead an Islamic system of state rule. Islam does not intend to confine this revolution to a single state or a few countries; the aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution."

Some people seem to think that such laws are just historical relics, on the books but not in practice or in control of the minds of Muslims. But that is the kind of denial we cannot afford; these laws rule the hearts, minds and actions of a majority of Muslim individuals and states around the world today. These scriptures are taught, preached and promoted as the incontrovertible and eternal word of God and funded by Saudi petrodollars throughout the world, including Western nations such as the U.K. and the United States.

No Muslim leader can survive in a Muslim country if he announces the end of Jihad against non-Muslim countries and states that all references to Jihad in Islamic law do not apply today. Treating non-Muslim neighboring countries and individual as equals, with respect and in peace without trying to convert them to Islam, is simply against Islamic Law.

Muslim leaders who dare to go against this theology are called traitors and puppets of the ‘Great Satan’ West. That is a description that no Muslim leader wants to be labeled with. When president Anwar Sadat of Egypt signed the peace treaty with Israel in 1979, he told his confidants that he knew he was signing his own death warrant. He understood that under Sharia he must have permanent war with non-Muslim Israel.

How can a Muslim leader or individual avoid the hundreds of Quran and Hadith commandments to Muslims to kill Jews and Christians? Q 9:29: "Fight those who believe not in Allah until they pay the Jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued." Q 9:5: "Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them". Q47.4: "When you encounter the unbelievers, Strike off their heads."

A Muslim leader cannot face his devout Muslim subjects after making a decision to engage in friendship and peace with Jews. Mosques all over the Middle East, after all, recite Mohammed’s commandment to Muslims:

"The Hour [Resurrection] will not take place until the Muslims fight the Jews, and kill them. And the Jews will hide behind the rock and tree, and the rock and tree will say: oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, this is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!" (Sahih Muslim 41:6985, also Sahih Bukhari 4:52:177)

This Hadith, issued by Mohammad, makes a whole group of people illegal to exist. It was issued in the 7th century, not after the 1948 creation of the State of Israel. It is not a response to modern-day grievances; it is a permanent commandment.

Many Muslims claim that Arabs and Jews lived well together for many years before 1948. But that claim ignores the fact that Jews had to live as ‘dhimmies’ under Islamic Law and were never allowed to rule themselves separate of the Islamic Sharia. When Muslims were weak they often treated their dhimmi subjects well and ignored the commandments to kill, subjugate and humiliate them. But Jew hatred is intrinsic to Islamic scriptures that do not permit reformation under the penalty of death.

This is the real basis of the Arab/Israeli conflict: not a conflict over land or occupation, but a divine obligation to destroy neighboring (non-Muslim) Israel, where Jews are no longer dhimmis but are free to rule themselves. We cannot ignore the root of the problem in Muslim scriptures. That is the true force behind the hate and propaganda Jihadist machine against Jews in the Muslim world.

Some Muslims tell me that they don’t believe in Sharia and question why am I making a big deal about it. My answer is that Sharia is the law of the land in 54 Muslim countries and many Muslim groups are demanding Sharia in the West. In 1990, 45 Muslim countries signed the Cairo Human Rights Declaration which stated that Sharia has supremacy over the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Muslim world must look within to its sacred laws, scriptures, sermons, teaching and preaching, and reform the obstacles for peace that have condemned them to a permanent state of jihad. The non-Muslim world must have no illusions.

Hezbollah is using the paths used by Mexican drug cartels to infiltrate America reveals Sara A. Carter, in her Washington Times column.

People have been watching how these drug cartels are terrorizing the streets in Mexico. It is becoming even dangerous in the American-Mexican border. There is proof that the drug cartel activity is even being exported to the US. Now a radical Islamic terrorist group are using the same paths as the Mexican drug cartels to infiltrate America. That radical Islamic group is Hezbollah.

Hezbollah is a radical Islamic Shia group founded by Iran in 1982. Hezbollah’s goal is to turn Lebanon into a radical Islamic proxy state of Iran, eliminate Israel and then impose a radical Islamic caliphate on the world modeled after Iran.

Hezbollah killed the most Americans before Al Qaeda. In fact, there is even some evidence, even mentioned in the 9/11 commission report, that Hezbollah and its Iranian backers are tied with Al Qaeda. Hezbollah’s notorious commander Imad Mugniyeh, who was one of the most brutal Hezbollah terrorists, took part in forming the ties between Hezbollah and Al Qaeda. He was later assassinated on February 12, 2008.

Though a proxy of Iran [Hezbollah deputy Sheik Naim Qassem admitted that Hezbollah doesn't commit terrorist attacks without approval from Tehran], Hezbollah also helped to carry out Syria’s ambitions in Lebanon. Hezbollah has collaborated with Syria when it was occupying Lebanon. Frontline PBS reports that:

As international pressure mounts for Syrian troops to leave Lebanon, Hezbollah, the radical Islamic movement armed and funded by Syria and Iran, has rallied its followers in Lebanon to defend Syria’s continued military presence in the country.

Hezbollah is supported by Syria and Iran and killed the most Americans before Al Qaeda. In 2006, Hezbollah fought a war against Israel, which started when Hezbollah kidnapped IDF [Israel Defense Forces] soldiers. Israel sought to rescue the soldiers. Hezbollah also fired rockets at northern Israel, intending to kill Israeli men, women and children. The rockets terrorized the residents of northern Israel.

That’s some of the basic history of the Hezbollah terrorist group. America is already a victim of the cultural jihad, from groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and the “mainstream” Muslim groups that came from the Muslim Brotherhood. There is already an extensive Islamist network working to turn America into a totalitarian Islamic state ruled by Sharia and giving support to radical Islamic terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. Hamas and Hezbollah already has terrorist cells in the US. Now Hezbollah is working with the Mexican drug cartels to infiltrate America. The drug cartels seek to sell their drugs and undermine the US war on drugs. Hezbollah also sells drugs in order to raise funds, like for their terrorist activities and Jihadist indoctrination. Hezbollah seeks to impose radical Islamic rule throughout the world. The drug cartels and Hezbollah are working together in order to undermine America.

By Daniel Pipes, Frontpage Magazine

September 23, 2004

The hardest thing for Westerners to understand is not that a war with militant Islam is underway but that the nature of the enemy's ultimate goal. That goal is to apply the Islamic law (the Shari‘a) globally. In U.S. terms, it intends to replace the Constitution with the Qur'an.

This aspiration is so remote and far-fetched to many non-Muslims, it elicits more guffaws than apprehension. Of course, that used to be the same reaction in Europe, and now it's become widely accepted that, in Bernard Lewis' words, "Europe will be Islamic by the end of the century."

Because of the American skepticism about Islamist goals, I postponed publishing an article on this subject until immediately after 9/11, when I expected receptivity to the subject would be greater (it was published in November 2001 as "The Danger Within: Militant Islam in America"). I argued there that

The Muslim population in this country is not like any other group, for it includes within it a substantial body of people—many times more numerous than the agents of Osama bin Ladin—who share with the suicide hijackers a hatred of the United States and the desire, ultimately, to transform it into a nation living under the strictures of militant Islam.

The receptivity indeed was greater, but still the idea of an Islamist takeover remains unrecognized in establishment circles – the U.S. government, the old media, the universities, the mainline churches.

Therefore, reading "A rare look at secretive Brotherhood in America," in the Chicago Tribune on Sept. 19 caused me to startle. It's a long analysis that draws on an exclusive interview with Ahmed Elkadi, the Muslim Brotherhood leader in the United States during 1984-94, plus other interviews and documentation. In it, the authors (Noreen S. Ahmed-Ullah, Sam Roe, and Laurie Cohen) warily but emphatically acknowledge the Islamists' goal of turning the United States into an Islamic state.

Over the last 40 years, small groups of devout Muslim men have gathered in homes in U.S. cities to pray, memorize the Koran and discuss events of the day. But they also addressed their ultimate goal, one so controversial that it is a key reason they have operated in secrecy: to create Muslim states overseas and, they hope, someday in America as well. …

Brotherhood members emphasize that they follow the laws of the nations in which they operate. They stress that they do not believe in overthrowing the U.S. government, but rather that they want as many people as possible to convert to Islam so that one day—perhaps generations from now—a majority of Americans will support a society governed by Islamic law.

This Brotherhood approach is in keeping with my observation that the greater Islamist threat to the West is not violence – flattening buildings, bombing railroad stations and nightclubs, seizing theaters and schools – but the peaceful, legal growth of power through education, the law, the media, and the political system.

The Tribune article explains how, when recruiting new members, the organization does not reveal its identity but invites candidates to small prayer meetings where the prayer leaders focus on the primary goal of the Brotherhood, namely "setting up the rule of God upon the Earth" (i.e., achieving Islamic hegemony). Elkadi describes the organization's strategic, long-term approach: "First you change the person, then the family, then the community, then the nation."

His wife Iman is no less explicit; all who are associated with the Brotherhood, she says, have the same goal, which is "to educate everyone about Islam and to follow the teachings of Islam with the hope of establishing an Islamic state."

In addition to Elkadi, the article features information from Mustafa Saied (about whose Muslim Brotherhood experiences the Wall Street Journal devoted a feature story in December 2003, without mentioning the organization's Islamist goals). Saied, the Tribune informs us, says

he found out that the U.S. Brotherhood had a plan for achieving Islamic rule in America: It would convert Americans to Islam and elect like-minded Muslims to political office. "They're very smart. Everyone else is gullible," Saied says. "If the Brotherhood puts up somebody for an election, Muslims would vote for him not knowing he was with the Brotherhood."

Citing documents and interviews, the Tribune team notes that the secretive Brotherhood, in an effort to acquire more influence, went above ground in Illinois in 1993, incorporating itself as the Muslim American Society. The MAS, headquartered in Alexandria, Va. and claiming 53 chapters across the United States engages in a number of activities. These include summer camps, a large annual conference, websites, and the Islamic American University, a mainly correspondence school in suburban Detroit that trains teachers and imams.

Of course, the MAS denies any intent to take over the country. One of its top officials, Shaker Elsayed, insists that

MAS does not believe in creating an Islamic state in America but supports the establishment of Islamic governments in Muslim lands. The group's goal in the United States, he says, "is to serve and develop the Muslim community and help Muslims to be the best citizens they can be of this country." That includes preserving the Muslim identity, particularly among youths.

Notwithstanding this denial, the Tribune finds MAS goals to be clear enough:

Part of the Chicago chapter's Web site is devoted to teens. It includes reading materials that say Muslims have a duty to help form Islamic governments worldwide and should be prepared to take up arms to do so. One passage states that "until the nations of the world have functionally Islamic governments, every individual who is careless or lazy in working for Islam is sinful." Another one says that Western secularism and materialism are evil and that Muslims should "pursue this evil force to its own lands" and "invade its Western heartland." [links added by me, DP]

In suburban Rosemont, Ill., several thousand people attended MAS' annual conference in 2002 at the village's convention center. One speaker said, "We may all feel emotionally attached to the goal of an Islamic state" in America, but it would have to wait because of the modest Muslim population. "We mustn't cross hurdles we can't jump yet."

These revelations are particularly striking, coming as they do just days after a Washington Post article titled "In Search Of Friends Among The Foes," which reports how some U.S. diplomats and intelligence officials believe the Muslim Brotherhood's influence "offers an opportunity for political engagement that could help isolate violent jihadists." Graham Fuller is quoted saying that "It is the preeminent movement in the Muslim world. It's something we can work with." Demonizing the Brotherhood, he warns, "would be foolhardy in the extreme." Other analysts, such as Reuel Gerecht, Edward Djerejian, and Leslie Campbell, are quoted as being in agreement with this outlook.

But it is a deeply wrong and dangerous approach. Even if the Muslim Brotherhood is not specifically associated with violence in the United States (as it has been in other countries, including Egypt and Syria), it is deeply hostile to the United States and must be treated as one vital component of the enemy's assault force.

April 27, 2006

By Magdi Khalil, Mideast Outpost

Editor’s Note: In recent weeks the State Department has reached out to a series of Moslem Brotherhood linked groups in both the U.S. and Europe.

Many have wondered about the Copts’ evident concern over the Muslim Brotherhood’s victory of 88 seats in the last parliamentary elections in Egypt. Why, exactly, are the Copts so upset?

Actually, the Copts are not the only ones to have serious misgivings about this latest development in Egypt’s political life; women, liberals, civil society supporters, leftists, and other advocates of democracy share the same sentiment.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s main slogan is “Islam is the Solution,” a mysterious slogan that excludes “infidels” such as Christians and Jews. Its proclaimed purpose is to “restore the Islamic Caliphate (Islamic political system and rule).”

I have met Muslim Brotherhood leaders more than once in the course of television interviews, and it did not take me long to realize that we come from two different worlds and spoke different languages: our civil perspective versus their religious perspective. However, they have been strangely determined to force the delusion of a “common civil ground” on their audience by using a plethora of mysterious expressions and misleading theories.

The problem with the Muslim Brotherhood is that they are hard to pin down, with their elusive style, word play, taqiyya (deceit), contradictory statements, and double language. They are all-set to accommodate different clients: The West and Americans, the Copts, women, liberals, as well as Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri. To this day they refuse to condemn the writings of

Meanwhile, the Copts have particular reasons to fear the Muslim Brotherhood. First is the Muslim Brotherhood’s racist declarations against the Copts. A famous fatwa (a legal pronouncement in Islam) prohibited the construction of new churches in Egypt. The fatwa was published in Al-Dawaa magazine, which speaks for the Muslim Brotherhood, in December 1980, and was issued by Mohammed Al-Khatib who was, and still is, a member of the guidance council of the Muslim Brotherhood movement. Twenty-five years later, the Muslim Brotherhood still acknowledges the validity of this fatwa.

Another outrageous fatwa issued by Mustafa Mashhour, the brotherhood’s former supreme guide, stated: “Islamic law, Shari’a, is the principal point of reference (authority) for governance. Copts must pay the jizyah instead of joining the army, lest they ally themselves with the enemy, if that enemy happens to be a Christian country" (Al-Ahram Weekly 13 April 1997).

In an interview with the newspaper Azzaman, Mohammed Habib said: “When the movement will come to power, it will replace the current constitution with an Islamic one, according to which a non-Muslim will not be allowed to hold a senior post, whether in the state or the army, because this right should be exclusively granted to Muslims. If the Egyptians decide to elect a Copt for the presidential post, we will issue a protest against such an action, on the basis that this choice should be ours” (Azzaman 17 May 2005).

he danger here lies in the reasoning behind such statements: the presidential post is considered welaya kobra (major governance) and in this case a non-Muslim is not allowed to govern a Muslim, which completely shatters the basic notion of citizenship. It is a given that a non-Muslim Egyptian will have serious obstacles to be elected president. But, the problem is if an obstacle is based on a religious rule advocated by the Muslim Brotherhood.

In an interview with Sameh Fawzi in 1996, Mamoun Al-Hudaibi answered the question whether the Copts were considered citizens or dhimmi by replying that they were both. When pressed for a specific answer, he clearly states: “They are dhimmi” (Al-Hayat, 30 Nov 2005).

The Muslim Brotherhood’s discourse bears a religious and superior tone, with constant references to the “other”, often in a belittling and hurtful manner. The discourse can turn downright hostile: Hassan Al-Banna was quoted as saying: “it is necessary to kill ahl el-ketab (Christians and Jews), and God will give a double recompense for those who fight them.”

At best, the Muslim Brotherhood resorts to vague conciliatory statements such as the famous one: “They (Christians) have the same rights as we do and the same duties as we do.” Yet, there is no way to reconcile the theory of peaceful coexistence on the basis of equality and citizenship and the prospect of a religious majority imposing its rules on the minority – in that case, we are no longer talking about citizenship status but dhimmi status.

The Muslim Brotherhood and their allies insist that the Coptic population amounts to only 6% of Egypt’s total population, in spite of a recent official declaration by Osama Al-Baz that the Copts constitute 12.5% of Egypt’s population, and despite the fact that other organizations have estimated the number of Copts to be 15 million, i.e. 20% of the population. This purposeful twisting of numbers is a strategy used by the Muslim Brotherhood to deny the rights of their opponents.

Finally, Egyptian advocates of democracy strive towards “national integration” for all elements of society, while the Muslim Brotherhood has in mind for the Copts a sort of “religious assimilation,” and there is a big difference between the two. The Brotherhood pushes for the religious assimilation of the Coptic minority through a gradual desertion of their faith, or at the very least through a loss of their cultural and religious identity as it melts into the majority’s Islamic culture.

Throughout the history of Christianity, many martyrs have paid the price for resisting such religious assimilation, but none as much as the Copts. For Copts the idea that religion should become the framework for the state is not even open for debate or compromise.

This is an edited version of an article by Magdi Khalil, a political analyst and executive editor of the Egyptian weekly Watani International.

Benyamin Solomon's note: The editor's note in this article was not written by me. It was written by the editor[s] of Middle East Outpost.

By: Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, September 05, 2008

By Benyamin Solomon, Socyberty

Apr 13, 2009

"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future. But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education." -Ibrahim Hooper, cofounder of CAIR

"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth." -CAIR chairman Omar Ahmad

"Fighting for freedom…fighting for Islam - that is not suicide. They [the suicide bombers] kill themselves for Islam." -CAIR chairman Omar Ahmad.

By Benyamin Solomon

Why the ADL is right to condemn Geert Wilders.

The ADL [Anti-Defamation League] was totally right in condemning Geert Wilders, the Dutch MP. He stated that "the right to religious freedom should not apply to this totalitarian ideology called Islam". Is the Anti-Defamation League right in calling it "antithetical to American democratic ideals"? Of course. 

The first amendment of the US constitution said,"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Didn't Wilders say that Muslims shouldn't have religious freedom? Of course. For Islam is the third monotheist religion. 

Robert Spencer from Jihad Watch wrote an article on Frontpage Magazine that stated that the ADL was wrong to condemn Geert Wilders for his hateful comment. In that article, he focuses on saying some of the truth in Geert Wilder's message. he presents some hateful verses of the Koran. For Geert Wilders stated that the Koran was a book of hatred. Religious texts do have their share of hateful messages and gory. But the Koran also has verses that confirms the right of the Jews to have Israel. Radical Islam including Hamas, Hezbollah and their Iranian backers are in contradiction to verses like the one down below:

We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will
gather you together in a mingled crowd. [Qur'an 17:104]

They do have tolerant verses of like this one:

Say: ''Unbelievers, I shall never worship what you worship, you shall never worship what I worship. You have your own religion and I have mine." (110:1-6)

Spencer also looks for some evidence in Wilders's claim about Muhammad being "a pedophile and a warlord." 

I'm not saying that everything Muhammad did is right. I oppose radical Islam and political correctness's stance on the issue of Islam VS. radical Islam. The ADL called Islamic extremism "the very real threat". Is there an intolerant backward interpretation of Islam known as radical Islam? My answer is yes. Radical Islam respresents the political aspect of Islsm. Mixing politics and religion brings disasterous results. Mixing Islam with politics even brings the expansionist nature of radical Islam. The political aspect of Islam includes expansionism and the imposition of Sharia law. Radical Islam is the political aspect of Islam. Radical Islam doesn't represent all of Islam. Geert Wilders's hateful ignorant claim ignores the fact that there is a tolerant interpretation of Islam. That tolerant interpretation is compatible with democracy and separate from politics. It is only in the individual life. Geert Wilders ignores that there is such a thing as Islamic Zionism, which believes that Allah gave Israel to the Jews. They even quote verses in the Koran including the one mentioned in this article that makes it clear that Israel belongs to the Jews. Many Muslims who follow the so-called "totalitarian ideology" of Islam courageous oppose radical Islam. There is Zudhi Jasser from the American-Islamic Forum for Democracy. What about Tawfik Hamid, who proclaims his pro-Israel views and his love for the Jews in the name of the Koran? Should we not give these guys freedom of religion?

Of course, out of Fundamentalism from Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the one from Islam is a global threat. Unlike the Jewish Fundamentalists and Christian Fundamentalists, both of whom are condemned by most Jews and most Christians, the former of which is condemned by most Israelis including the Israeli government and the latter of which is condemned by the western governments and the most of the people in the west, Islamic Fundamentalism [Islamic Fundamentalism is obviously another way of saying radical Islam] is a global movement and a global threat. Islamic Fundamentalists are main opposition groups like in Egypt, where the father of radical Islam the Muslim Brotherhood is the main opposition group to Hosni Mubarak's authoritarian government, or in power like in Iran and Saudi Arabia. The Islamic Fundamentalist regime in Iran is developing nuclear weapons. MAD [Mutually Assured Destruction] is not a deterrent to Islamic Fundamentalists from using nuclear weapons. For anyone who reads my article, I like to make it clear that I understand these facts. My writings and political views have an anti-Islamist theme. I believe that radical Islam is a Fascist and Nazi-like movement and am all for the terms Islamo-fascism and Islamo-Nazism. I strongly oppose Sharia law and view it as the antithesis to progress, democracy and freedom. But many victims of radical Islam are Muslims themselves.

But Geert Wilders's claim is incredibly ignorant. He claims that Islam is not a religion, but just a totalitarian ideology. He associates radical Islam's interpretation of Islam with the whole religion, despite the fact that there are people like Tawffik Hamid who has a tolerant interpretation of Islam. I oppose allowing the Jihadist incitement in mosques. At the same time, like everyone else, Muslims should have freedom to practice their own faith. Mosques have every right to preach their own faith, just so long as it doesn't spew radical Islamic propaganda.

Is radical Islam a threat? Of course. There are cultural jihadists who pretend to be moderate while seeking to impose Sharia law on the world including America and while working to impose Sharia law on the free from within. There are real moderate Muslims who have a peaceful interpretation of Islam and who oppose the radicals. So Geert Wilder's claim there is hate mongering. The ADL was totally right to condemn Geert Wilders.