Muslim Heretics Conference

By Anwar Elshamy
TWO leading Islamic thinkers have urged Islamic movements in the Arab world to conduct a “radical intellectual revision” to their convictions, saying that these movements should abandon the idea of establishing a religious state.
Dr Radwan al-Sayed, a professor of Islamic Studies at the Lebanon University, said that Islamists should stop thinking of setting up an Islamic state, which he said, is “not possible because it is dogmatic”.
“While the religious state is not possible, it is the civil state, where the law rather than the Sharia rules, which we all should stick to. It is the insistence of Islamic movements to establish an Islamic state which triggered a horrendous clash with the Arab counties’ regimes. Any Islamic state would have a problem with democracy because Islamists seek to create a religious state in which the infallible Islamic Sharia would replace the law though Sharia is merely a way of life. Even the Islamic caliphate state was not a religious state at all,” al-Sayed said at “the Islamic Movements and Democracy: Lebanon as an Example” seminar yesterday. The seminar was organised by the Doha-based Arab Democracy Foundation (ADF).
Al-Sayed, who is also a visiting professor at Harvard and Chicago universities, slammed both Hamas movement and Hezbollah party for what he called “resorting to violence to attain their goals”.
“Islamic movements should denounce violence and ban it by all means because when they exercise it, they do that in the name of God. Though Hamas has developed its approaches as an Islamic movement, it has relapsed into violence against the Palestinians who voted for it. The same practice committed by Hezbollah when it swept Beirut and controlled it by the force of weapons this year just to obtain more advantages over the other rival factions,” he said.
He also blamed the rise of Islamic movements around the Arab world on what he called “the weakening of the religious institutions by the Arab regimes”, saying that this has created a vacuum, which Islamists sought to fill.
“A main obstacle to democratisation in the Arab countries is the ruling regimes themselves. They suppress all the civil society movements including the Islamists. In Egypt, as an example, Islamic movements flourished only after the Al Azhar authority has been sidelined and weakened by the State. One can easily notice that the violent fundamentalists appeared in every Arab country where the traditional religious institution was weakened,” he explained.
“Any democratisation in the Arab world would be impossible without involving Islamists who constitute 40mn around the Arab world and difficult to be ignored. But at the same time all the current Islamic movements need to conduct some sort of intellectual reform for their approaches.”
About the prospects of democratisation in Lebanon, al-Sayed ruled out the possibility of establishing any democratic system in Lebanon, saying that the different sects making up the country make it impossible to have any type of democracy.
“It is sects which exchange power in Lebanon rather than parties. I believe that there would be no future for democracy in Lebanon because of this. We have two armies, one for the government, and the other for Hezbollah. The aircraft of a Lebanese pilot was shot down only because he entered the zone controlled by Hezbollah. I can’t perceive any democracy in a country where sectarianism prevail the concept of the state,” he added.
He slammed the military regimes that assumed power in the region during the last decades, saying they undermined all the values of the Arab communities.
Dr Salah al-Din al-Jurashi, a Tunisian Islamic researcher and analyst, called on Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to abandon theme of “Islam is the solution”, saying this slogan creates confusion and make them “seem to be in monopoly of Islam”.
“I hope that Islamists can give up the idea that application of the Sharia will solve all the problems of our societies and do some sort of calm revision of their approaches. Without a radical revision made by Islamists, a relapse would remain possible,” he said.
He also warned against the aggravation of conflict among the Lebanese parties saying that “any conflict with Hezbollah would mean an all-out war between the Sunnis and Shias. I hope that we can denounce the inevitability of the conflict between the Sunnis and Shias as this will only benefit the enemies of Islam including the US and Israel,” he added.

Gulf Times – Qatar’s top-selling English daily newspaper - Qatar

Weighing in on future of Europe. ‘(The Russians) were waiting until they were strong enough to announce their intentions’

DAVID JOHNSTON, The Gazette

Published: 4 hours ago

The recent Russian military strike in Georgia has suddenly shown Moscow to be as big a wild card in Europe’s political future as the question of whether or not European countries will make a place for sharia law, says British-born author and political commentator Christopher Hitchens.

In a wide-ranging interview before his speech last night in Montreal on the future of Europe, Hitchens said preoccupation with the political implications of rising Muslim populations in Europe has been overshadowed in recent weeks by the apparent rebirth of Russian imperialism.

“(The Islamic question) has been eclipsed by the very sudden realization that the Russians were not just wasting or biding their time over the last 10 years, but under (leader Vladimir Putin) were waiting until they were strong enough to announce their intentions, which they have suddenly done (in Georgia),” said Hitchens, contributing editor of Vanity Fair and columnist for slate.com .

“We are now faced with Russian imperialism, not of the Bolshevist kind but of the much more traditional czarist, right-wing-chauvinist, Russian Orthodox Christian kind. It could be more menacing because it might be less amenable to reason or deterrence and therefore it could be less stable, less rational.”

Hitchens elaborated on these same parallel plot lines of Russian and Islamic influence on the future of Europe in his 30-minute speech last night at the inaugural 357c Speakers Series at Ex-Centris on St. Laurent Blvd. The Gazette and La Presse are media partners in the speakers’ series, which is to continue through next May.

Hitchens spoke with The Gazette for close to 30 minutes at Club 357c yesterday. Here are some highlights:

On whether he agrees with Bernard Lewis of Princeton University that rising Muslim immigration will probably make Islam the majority religion in Europe in 100 years and push the continent toward political chaos.

“Your fellow countryman Mark Steyn … (formerly of the National Post) makes similar sorts of exponential projections, of which I am a bit dubious because they don’t allow for various things: the number of Muslims who come to Europe to get away from (Islamic fundamentalism) or the number of Muslims who will be born (in Europe) who won’t want to be treated as if they were at one with Pakistan. So you never know. There might be exemplary forces in the other direction (i.e, resulting in better integration).”

On how he has been described in the English-speaking world as a polemicist, essayist, commentator and pamphleteer, but very rarely as an “intellectual” in the more common French or non-anglo-American use of the word.

“There are two prefaces to the word intellectual that make people uneasy with it. In the English-speaking world, one of these prefaces is pseudo. People are nervous about being called an intellectual. They’d rather not be called one than be called a pseudo-intellectual. Even more bizarre is the preface public. As if one could be a private intellectual, a secret intellectual.”

On what he thinks of Liberal member of Parliament Michael Ignatieff - like Hitchens in 2003, a left-wing intellectual who surprised people by coming out in favour of the invasion of Iraq. Hitchens has since moved to the political right; Ignatieff lost his bid in 2006 to become federal Liberal leader.

“I know Michael. He’s never going to be a right-wing intellectual. … I think he wished he had waited.”

On the impasse within the Quebec separatist movement.

“My understanding of it is that now there are enough members of the francophonie - from places like Haiti - who don’t want separatism that it is never going to happen now. It’s always just off the boil. And thus you have to suspect that politicians who call for it are engaged in a certain amount of bravado - ‘Hold me back before I tear the guy’s throat out.’ ”

djohnston@thegazette.canwest.com

The world according to Hitchens

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Brigitte Gabriel, who started her career as an anchor for World News, an evening Arabic news program in the Middle East. As a terrorism expert and the founder of the nonprofit organization ACT! for America, Brigitte Gabriel travels widely and speaks regularly on topics related to the Middle East. She has addressed audiences at the FBI, the United States Special Operations Command, the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and the Joint Forces Staff College, among others. She is the author of the new book, They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It

FP: Brigitte Gabriel, welcome back to Frontpage Interview.

Gabriel: Thank you Jamie. I am delighted to be back with you again.

FP: What inspired this book?

Gabriel: After writing my first book, “Because They Hate,” which tells my personal experiences facing Islamic terror and is a warning to people in the West, I realized that I must go even further defining the threat we face and follow up the warning with solutions and a call to action. “Because They Hate” paved the way and prepared readers for me to take the gloves off and really define in outright terms what we and all non-Muslims are really facing. Events following the first book dramatically enabled me substantiate the underlying motivation behind Islamic terror and Islamic goals and aspirations. I felt that the additional dearth of historically proven implications of these goals can be ignored only at our own peril. Everyone must become informed and mobilized to stop them before it is too late.

FP: You title one of your chapters, Purists Drink Their Islam Straight. Tell us a little bit about what this means.

Gabriel: This is a straightforward inside look at a devout enemy motivated by religion who is willing to destroy the whole world in order to achieve our complete submission under Islam. I do not mince words. What we are calling radical Muslims are nothing more than devout purists. I quote the Koran verse after verse using the same words these terrorists use in their speeches and their videos. We have turned a deaf ear and pretend that this couldn’t be true for too long. I use a publicly suppressed and potentially volatile Pentagon intelligence study on the source of Islamic extremism to substantiate the fact that it is the Koran, the holy Islamic book, that is driving them. It is the religion itself, straight from the mouth of the Prophet Mohammed, the perfect man, according to Muslims. It is not yet politically correct to talk about a religious war. But this is exactly what we are facing: a religious war declared by devout Muslims. The Islam of Mohammed is back. It’s not radical Islam. It is not Wahhabi Islam, it’s Mohammed’s original Islam. We are committing cultural suicide by turning a blind eye to the danger Islam continually spells out.

FP: What exactly is a moderate Muslim?
Gabriel: A moderate Muslim is a non-practicing Muslim. A non-practicing or non-devout Muslim is a man who doesn’t pray 5 times a day, does drink alcohol, doesn’t attend a mosque regularly, believes he is equal to all other people and God’s creation. Does not believe that Apostates should be killed. He believes that people have the freedom to chose what religion they want to belong to. He does not believe that Jihad should be declared on non Muslims until they convert or pay the Jizya. He believes that gays should not be killed according to Sharia Law even if he disagrees with their lifestyle. He believes that his wife is his equal and is entitled to the same respect and education as any other man; that she is not his property according to the Koran; that she should not be covered from head to toe or even wear a hijab; that he does not have the right to beat her just because he is a man and she is a woman, that Jews are his equals in the eyes of God.

Most moderate Muslims do not know the real teaching of the Koran and many of them have never read it. In debates between the moderates and the radicals about the Koran, the radical always win the arguments because Islamic law is on their side. They can quote you chapter and verse from the Koran to support their arguments while the moderates just sit speechless not knowing how to respond.

FP: What is the Muslim Brotherhood project for North America?

Gabriel: The Muslim Brotherhood project for North America is a detailed document found in Switzerland in 2001. It details a 100 year plan for radical Islam to infiltrate and dominate the West. This document became known in the Intelligence circles as “The Project”. The plan was conceived and written by the Muslim Brotherhood which is the world’s oldest and most sophisticated Islamic terrorist group created in Egypt in 1928. The Muslim Brotherhood boasts seventy off shoot terrorist organizations operating throughout the world.

The project was dated 1982 and it details strategies and tactics by which Islamists can gradually infiltrate nations and ultimately dominate the world with Islamic political and religious ideology. Some of the most alarming ideas outlined are: incitement to hate and commit violent acts against Jewish, Christian and other non-Muslim entities; using methods other than violence to implement cultural Jihad, and establishing a rapport with western communities until trust is won and Islam is established. The project’s intentions have been implemented throughout the world since its creation.

FP: You discuss an emerging Islamonazi army all around the world. Tell us about this frightening phenomenon.

Gabriel: The world now faces a new generation of students being indoctrinated into hatred, violence and jihad. Madrassas (Islamic schools) all over the world have paved the way and set the standards for such radical education. From Saudi Arabia to Spain, Britain to Bahrain, America to Australia, Islamic madrassas now operating in nineteen world capitals preaching intolerance and fostering an environment of hate, loathing and resentment toward Western culture, Christians, Jews, Shiites, secular Muslims and non-Muslims.

Since 1973, wealth from oil revenues has allowed the Saudis to spread the strict original Islam of Mohammad throughout the world by financing Islamic madrassas. Saudi textbooks frequently quote verses from the Koran or Hadith that condemn non-Muslims, especially Christians and Jews. In many instances, the verse will direct the reader to commit murder in the name of Allah. There are roughly 225 Islamic madrassas registered in the United States. This is what is contributing to the radicalization of Muslims born and bread in England, Canada, America and Australia who want to kill their follow countrymen in the name of Islam.

FP: There are Madrassas and Islamic schools in America that are actually using Americans’ tax money to teach their pedagogy. This is quite incredible. What is happening here and why?

Gabriel: Radical Islamic influence in America’s educational system reaches beyond the university level into grade schools and high schools, both public and private. Islamic schools in America teach almost 50,000 students per year. Many of them are breeding grounds for Jihad and are financed with American Taxpayer’s money. I give many examples in the book about such schools. One is the Islamic Academy of Florida, a private school for grades one through twelve in Tampa Bay. In 2003 the academy received more than $350,000 worth of taxpayer-funded school vouchers to help underprivileged children attend their school. In the same year a federal grand jury in Tampa issued a fifty-count indictment against the academy for being an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood organization Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The indictment claimed the academy was helping support the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and its mission of murder and violence by raising funds through school vouchers and fundraisers.

Another Islamic day school, the American Youth Academy was awarded in 2005, $325,000 of taxpayer money for its elementary/secondary school program. In addition, $2,500 was awarded to the school for each child enrolled in their pre-kindergarten programs.

The Islamic Academy of Florida and the American Youth Academy are prime examples of Islamic terrorists and their associates operating right under our noses. The amazing thing is that taxpayers were unintentionally funding the overseas murders of innocent citizens, including Americans.

FP: You talk about Jihad Camps in America. What are they and how are we allowing this to happen on our own shores?

Gabriel: The Muslim Brotherhood in America is creative and far reaching in its attempts to spread the world of Allah and hatred for infidels. They are now indoctrinating young Muslim children into radicalism in boy scouts and summer camps. At some of those “Summer Camps” children spend their afternoons sitting indoors, listening to speakers that preach “the way of Jihad” for true believers of Islam. Speakers usually are well known in the field of radical Islam and instruct Muslim youth on the mission of Jihad. Before 9/11, administrators and campers would refer to these camps as “jihad camps.” In the post 9/11 atmosphere, ICNA, MAS, MSA, YM, and YMS are much more cautious about making any references to jihad. The camps are now touted as retreats for Muslim children to learn about their heritage. Some speakers have prepared Muslim youth for their deaths with presentations such as “Preparation for Death,” by Dr. Nouman Ali Khan, “The Life in the Grave,” by Imam Badawi, and “Do You Want Paradise?” by Br. Jawad Ahmad. Ahmad began his lecture with the words, “This should be our goal in life, I want to go to Jannah [paradise].” They are using our laws and freedoms in preparing a new generation of martyrs and we are allowing it to happen in the name of multiculturalism and diversity.

FP: Are we winning or losing the fight against Islamic Jihad?

Gabriel: Right now we are in the middle of this fight militarily, socially and psychologically. Jamie, history and Viet Cong generals tell us that we were winning the war in Vietnam in the 60’s, but because leftists, communist sympathizers and the media told us we were loosing, we ended up loosing. Now we are seeing the same dynamics all over again with Islamic jihad. We are winning on the battle field in Iraq and being defeated here at home. Because of our lack of national solidarity here in America we are giving the enemy confidence and strengthening their resolve making things drag on and loosing more soldiers in the field. This political and ideological division along with our apathy, ignorance, materialism and short sightedness are working against us. We must match our enemy’s religious resolve for subjugation with a united secular resolve for freedom.

FP: How can we stop this threat to our western societies? What can the average individual do?

Gabriel: History reveals very clearly that the apathetic give way to the passionate and the complacent are subdued by the committed. This is why I founded ACT! for America, www.actforamerica.org. ACT! For America is mobilizing people all over the country and giving them the tools to resist the Islamic infiltration in our society on every level: schools, government, universities, and corporations. We now have 200 chapters across America and and tens of thousands or members.

We are now conducting “citizens Action training” seminars all over the country to give people the tools and knowledge to mobilize effectively.

Organized power at the grass-roots level will trump the voices of political correctness and be more powerful than the establishment media. A good example of this is the demise of the immigration reform legislation in the U.S. Congress in 2007. In spite of support from the media, the political left, and even some on the political right, the proposed legislation was shelved due to the outcry of citizens across America. In short, the voice of grass-roots America triumphed over the voice of the elite.

We are not waiting for this phenomenon to occur in the war against Islamofascism. We are not simply hoping for a spontaneous grass-roots eruption that may or may not come. We are making it occur by organizing ACT! for America chapters and supporters across America. We will force elected representatives to choose – align themselves with the voice of grass-roots America or the voice of political correctness. We just launched our Congressional score cards and voter education project. We keep tabs on bills we consider important to our national security and the threat of Islamofascism. We research how each congressman and senator votes on these bills. People can download the scorecards from our website or obtain hard copies from ACT! for America chapter activists. We make it easy for every voter in America to know exactly how their congressmen and senators voted. I encourage every person reading this interview to join us by going to www.actforamerica.org. We have now launched ACT! Australia, ACT! Canada, ACT! Nigeria, and in the process of establishing chapters in Britain, France, Israel, The Netherlands, and Spain.

FP: Do you ever fear for your own personal safety? From where do you get your courage?

Gabriel: I wouldn’t be human if I didn’t fear for my safety especially when I receive threats and have Al-Qaida discussing me on their Internet website saying I’m fighting Islam. Talk like that tends to fire up the die-hard Islamists. And I don’t want to be an easy target for their wrath. I take the security measures required to insure my safety and that of my family. I go to great length organizing security when I speak or travel publicly. However I know what is at stake and why it is so important to speak out boldly and loudly right now before it is too late. As to where I get my courage? My parents taught me to stand up for that which is right even though sometimes the right thing to do wasn’t the most popular. I reflect back on talks around the dinner table about things my father was doing as a government official and the flack he was getting for doing them even though they were the right things to do. I vividly remember my childhood and the suffering I went through as my parents and I lived in a bomb shelter for 7 years. Those memories give me the courage to continue on and insure this will never happen again to me or to my children. I know what is at stake. I do not want history repeating itself. I lost my country of birth, Lebanon, to radical Islam, I do not want to lose my adopted country America.

FP: Who are your heroes in the world today?

Gabriel: My parents will always be my number one heroes. Having grown up in a country that did nothing for my security, I would say my next heroes are our military generals like David Petraeus, Thomas McInerney, Paul Vallely and the many others like them and those who serve under them and on whose shoulders America’s freedom has been preserved. Other heroes as well are the few Muslims and former Muslims speaking out laying their life on the line to do so like Ayan Hirsi Ali, Zuhdi Jasser and others.
FP: Brigitte Gabriel, that you for joining us.
Gabriel: Thank you Jamie.

FrontPage Magazine

Mickey Mouse performs at an event in Urayasu city in Chiba

CAIRO (AFP) — An Egyptian Muslim scholar has called for an end to risible religious edicts after a Saudi cleric said Mickey Mouse was an agent of Satan who should die, local media reported on Wednesday.

Sheikh Mohamed al-Munajid, a cleric who often appears on Saudi television and who is also a former Saudi diplomat in the United States, said last week that mice were “agents of Satan” and should be killed.

“Sharia (Islamic law) calls for the extermination of all mice. That includes the rodents as well as ‘the famous cartoon mouse’,” he said.

He blamed Mickey Mouse for causing people to become soft on mice.

However, Suad Saleh, a woman preacher who hosts a popular television programme on fatwas, or religious edicts, told the English-language daily Egyptian Gazette that Munajid’s ruling “tarnishes Islam’s image.”

“An edict should be based on knowledge, logic and reason,” she said. “Yes, mice should be killed when seen according to Islam’s teachings. But it is illogical to deal with a cartoon character as a live mouse and kill it.”

In 2005, the former dean of Egypt’s Al-Azhar University, the world’s oldest Islamic seat of learning, said in a widely criticised ruling that nudity during sex annuls a couple’s marriage.

Saleh said Muslim clerics should learn to become more media savvy.

Earlier this month, another Saudi cleric said owners of satellite television channels that broadcast “immoral” content deserved to die.

AFP: Egypt cleric says Mickey Mouse is not agent of Satan

I must take exception to Elizabeth Samson’s Sept. 10 op-ed, “Criminalizing Criticism of Islam.” While her arguments are broadly valid, Ms. Samson’s moral cudgel appears to be wielded only against the villains of current fashion: Islam and Muslims.

Ms. Samson claims to defend freedom of speech, but this instead seems to be about freedom to cause injury. The “freedom of speech” exercised by Geert Wilders in his film “Fitna” is vacuous, hate-filled and devoid of accuracy. But because of its anti-Islam positions, Mr. Wilders is hailed as a hero. Having seen “Fitna,” I challenge him to prove the “quotes” from the Quran that he cites, or anything he discusses in his flight of fantasy.

There are numerous European laws that punish the defamation of religions and — in the case of Denmark — causing pain to people of any faith. Yet Flemming Rose of the Jyllands-Posten deliberately commissioned cartoons insulting the prophet Muhammad. I believe he wanted to goad Muslims, and his tactic worked with a tiny minority of intolerant Muslims. I doubt if Mr. Rose would publish pictures of rape victims or dead children, and certainly not anti-Semitic or antiblack articles. The media always exercise care and self-restraint because of the potential for injury, and because they wish to avoid retribution from powerful quarters. But not when it comes to Muslims.

Ms. Samson fears the extraterritorial jurisdiction assumed by Jordan. She appears oblivious to the many extraterritorial U.S. laws under the guise of “fighting terror” and many European countries’ laws against Holocaust denial. She appears singularly ignorant of the many articles of the U.S. Constitution that have been shredded while Congress remained spinelessly silent. She should learn about Secret Evidence Act, the practice of indefinite “detentions” and the U.S. “military tribunals” — the gold standard for the kind of “kangaroo courts” she laments. Ms. Samson also ignores covert, forcible kidnappings and rendition for torture, practiced by the U.S. and aided at least by Canada, Italy and Germany. Not to mention Poland, Bulgaria and Britain, which seem to have no issues with hosting U.S. ghost prisons on their territories.

To be sure, developing countries, including Muslim countries, need lessons in civil freedoms and justice. But not from people who act like the three monkeys (”See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil”) toward their own sacred cows.

Jafar Siddiqui
American Muslims of Puget Sound
Lynnwood, Wash.

Ms. Samson bemoans Jordan’s recent move to prosecute foreign speech that “libels” Islam. She notes this is a growing assault on free speech as this sensitivity to Islam’s sensitivities seems to be reaching deep into Europe and the United Nations.

The problem is that Ms. Samson misses the elephant in the room — or more aptly, the shark in the bathtub. Jordan’s prosecution of slanderers of Islam has little to do with Jordan’s “secular” legal code and everything to do with Shariah, or Islamic law.

The prosecution is made possible because Jordan’s constitution embraces Islam as the country’s official religion and establishes Shariah religious courts in some cases. It also specifically qualifies every statement of religious freedom and equality before the law with a neat little subterfuge, typically worded as “customs observed in the Kingdom”; even this is further redacted by “public order” and “morality.” What this really means of course is that no liberty or notion of equality can offend Shariah.

Thus, the Jordanian Penal Code, of which Ms. Samson writes as if it were a secular Arab problem, is nothing more than traditional Shariah — which considers as “slander” truthful statements that offend a fellow Shariah-adherent Muslim. Slandering (i.e., insulting even if truthful) Muhammad, Shariah or Allah is considered apostasy if by a Muslim and kufr (state of being an infidel) if by a non-Muslim. The penalty for such offenses under traditional, “moderate” Shariah is death.

So it turns out that Jordan, that oh-so moderate of Muslim fiefdoms, is simply applying traditional Shariah by using a modern long-arm jurisdictional notion to prosecute those who might insult Islam from afar.

And while Jordan implements traditional Shariah laws against slandering Islam, The Wall Street Journal is touting Shariah-compliant finance as the next wunderkind of the global financial world.

David Yerushalmi
Washington

Freedom to Speak or to Cause Injury? - WSJ.com

There are strange happenings in the world of international jurisprudence that do not bode well for the future of free speech. In an unprecedented case, a Jordanian court is prosecuting 12 Europeans in an extraterritorial attempt to silence the debate on radical Islam.

The prosecutor general in Amman charged the 12 with blasphemy, demeaning Islam and Muslim feelings, and slandering and insulting the prophet Muhammad in violation of the Jordanian Penal Code. The charges are especially unusual because the alleged violations were not committed on Jordanian soil.

Among the defendants is the Danish cartoonist whose alleged crime was to draw in 2005 one of the Muhammad illustrations that instigators then used to spark Muslim riots around the world. His co-defendants include 10 editors of Danish newspapers that published the images. The 12th accused man is Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, who supposedly broke Jordanian law by releasing on the Web his recent film, “Fitna,” which tries to examine how the Quran inspires Islamic terrorism.

Jordan’s attempt at criminalizing free speech beyond its own borders wouldn’t be so serious if it were an isolated case. Unfortunately, it is part of a larger campaign to use the law and international forums to intimidate critics of militant Islam. For instance, in December the United Nations General Assembly passed the Resolution on Combating Defamation of Religions; the only religion mentioned by name was Islam. While such resolutions aren’t legally binding, national governments sometimes cite them as justification for legislation or other actions.

More worrying, the U.N. Human Rights Council in June said it would refrain from condemning human-rights abuses related to “a particular religion.” The ban applies to all religions, but it was prompted by Muslim countries that complained about linking Islamic law, Shariah, to such outrages as female genital mutilation and death by stoning for adulterers. This kind of self-censorship could prove dangerous for people suffering abuse, and it follows the council’s March decision to have its expert on free speech investigate individuals and the media for negative comments about Islam.

Given this trend, it’s worth taking a closer look at the Jordanian case.

The prosecutor is relying on a 2006 amendment to the Jordanian Justice Act that casts a worryingly wide net for such prosecution. Passed in response to the Danish cartoons incident, the law allows the prosecution of individuals whose actions affect the Jordanian people by “electronic means,” such as the Internet. The 2006 amendment, in theory, means anyone who publishes on the Internet could be subject to prosecution in Jordan. If the case against the 12 defendants is allowed to go forward, they will be the first but probably not the last Westerners to be hit by Jordan’s law.

Amman has already requested that Interpol apprehend Mr. Wilders and the Danes and bring them to stand before its court for an act that is not a crime in their home countries. To the contrary. Dutch prosecutors said in July that although some of Mr. Wilders’s statements may be offensive, they are protected under Dutch free-speech legislation. Likewise, Danish law protects the rights of the Danish cartoonists and newspapers to express their views.

Neither Denmark nor the Netherlands will turn over its citizens to Interpol, as the premise of Jordan’s extradition request is an affront to the very principles that define democracies. It is thus unlikely that any Western country would do so, either. But there is no guarantee for the defendants’ protection if they travel to countries that are more sympathetic to the Jordanian court.

Unless democratic countries stand up to this challenge to free speech, other nations may be emboldened to follow the Jordanian example. Kangaroo courts across the globe will be ready to charge free people with obscure violations of other societies’ norms and customs, and send Interpol to bring them to stand trial in frivolous litigation.

A new form of forum shopping would soon take root. Activists would be able to choose countries whose laws and policies are informed by their religious values to prosecute critical voices in other countries. The case before the Jordanian court is not just about Mr. Wilders and the Danes. It is about the subjugation of Western standards of free speech to fear and coercion by foreign courts.

Ms. Samson, an attorney specializing in international and constitutional law, will join the Hudson Institute this fall

Criminalizing Criticism of Islam - WSJ.com

The next US president should speak out for better relations with the Muslim world in his inaugural address and pursue an accord between Israel and the Palestinians within three months of taking office, a diverse coalition of 34 former US officials and civic leaders said in a report being issued Wednesday.

The proposals, which include diplomatic engagement with Iran, are designed to reverse Muslim extremism and enhance US international security. They are based on the conclusion that improving US relations with Muslim countries and communities is critical, the report said.

Also, it said, the new president should reaffirm immediately a US commitment to prohibit all forms of torture.

On promoting democracy among the Arabs, a hallmark of President George W. Bush’s foreign policy, the report envisioned a cautious role for the United States: improving governance and civic participation without imposing a particular set of institutions, parties or leaders.

Bush’s war on terror, the report said, has been inadequate and sometimes counterproductive. It recommends “partnership” with Muslims committed to nonviolent political and economic development to reverse extremism and promote reform within authoritarian governments.

US ex-officials want good US relations with Islam | International | Jerusalem Post

By ERIC GORSKI – 12 hours ago

A U.S. Muslim advocacy group Tuesday asked the Federal Election Commission to investigate whether a nonprofit group that distributed a controversial DVD about Islam in newspapers nationwide is a “front” for an Israel-based group with a stealth goal of helping Republican presidential candidate John McCain.

The promoters of “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West” denied trying to promote any presidential campaign. They said it’s also incorrect to tie the DVD campaign to Jerusalem-based educational group Aish HaTorah International, although current and former employees are involved with the project.

The Council for American-Islamic Relations asked the FEC to investigate the DVD distribution, which targeted about 28 million households mostly in battleground election states.

The DVDs — which critics call anti-Muslim propaganda — were inserted this month into more than 70 newspapers and paid for by the Clarion Fund, a nonprofit founded in 2006. The group’s focus is “the most urgent threat of radical Islam.” It has declined to identify board members or its funding.

Never picked up for traditional distribution, “Obsession” features scenes of Muslim children being urged to become suicide bombers, 9/11 carnage and interviews with critics of Islam.

Another organization, the Endowment for Middle East Truth, is a partner with the Clarion Fund in “The Obsession Project,” which will also include research publications and issue forums.

Ari Morgenstern, a spokesman for that group, said targeting swing states was designed to attract media attention, but is not meant to influence the election result. He said the film “makes a very clear and upfront distinction between the majority of peaceful followers of Islam and those people who subscribe to a radical Islamic ideology.”

In its complaint, CAIR cites New York Secretary of State records showing that three people who incorporated Clarion Fund also are employees or have been employees of Aish HaTorah International, a Jerusalem-based Jewish educational organization that has offices around the world.

“American voters deserve to know whether they are the targets of a multimillion-dollar campaign funded and directed by a foreign group seeking to whip up anti-Muslim hysteria as a way to influence the outcome of our presidential election,” Nihad Awad, executive director of CAIR, said in a statement.

As evidence of a McCain bias, CAIR cites a story in the Patriot News of Harrisburg, Pa., which reported that a Clarion Fund Web site ran a pro-McCain article before it attracted notice and was taken down.

“If you heighten the hysteria over national security or terrorism or do anything to make people more fearful, it’s clear they would trend toward McCain because that’s been his mantra throughout the campaign,” said Ibrahim Hooper, a CAIR spokesman.

Under federal election law and the tax code, nonprofit groups are restricted from getting involved in candidate races and foreign nationals may not contribute to American campaigns. The DVD’s distributors say their efforts are issue-based and don’t break election laws.

The Canadian producer of the film, Raphael Shore, is a full-time employee of Aish HaTorah International, an educational group that avoids politics, said Ronn Torossian, a New York-based spokesman for the group. Shore’s work on the DVD project was not done under the banner of Aish HaTorah, Torossian said.

“These are independent activities of individuals,” he said.

Gregory Ross, spokesman for the New York-based Clarion Fund, declined to discuss the complaint’s specifics. He pointed out that it’s normal for nonprofits to keep donors’ identities private. He said the group has “thousands of donors that span the political spectrum.”

“We are not telling people who to vote for,” said Ross, a former employee of Aish HaTorah International. “We’re just saying no matter who gets in office, the American people should know radical Islam is a real threat to America. We don’t feel radical Islam is getting its fair share of press.”

The group is preparing to release another film, “Third Jihad,” but has no plans for mass distribution, Ross said.

On the Net:

• Council on American-Islamic Relations: http://www

The Associated Press: Muslim group seeks probe of ‘radical Islam’ DVD