The Conservative Papers » Daniel Pipes

Uncovering Early Islam

kalel — Mon, 21 May 2012 08:19:22 +0000

by Daniel Pipes
National Review Online
May 16, 2012

Portrait of Ignaz Goldziher.

The year 1880 saw the publication of a book that ranks as the single most important study of Islam ever. Written in German by a young Jewish Hungarian scholar, Ignaz Goldziher, and bearing the nondescript title Muslim Studies (Muhammedanische Studien), it argued that the hadith, the vast body of sayings and actions attributed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad, lacked historical validity. Rather than provide reliable details about Muhammad’s life, Goldziher established, the hadith emerged from debates two or three centuries later about the nature of Islam.

(That is like today’s Americans debating the Constitution’s much-disputed Second Amendment, concerning the right to bear arms, by claiming newly discovered oral transmissions going back to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Obviously, their quotations would inform us not what was said 225 years ago but about current views.)

Since Goldziher’s day, scholars have been actively pursuing his approach, deepening and developing it into an full-scale account of early Islamic history, one which disputes nearly every detail of Muhammad’s life as conventionally understood – born in 570 A.D., first revelation in 610, flight to Medina in 622, death in 632. But this revisionist history has remained a virtual secret among specialists. For example, Patricia Crone and Michael Cook, authors of the synoptic Hagarism (Cambridge University Press, 1977), deliberately wrote obliquely, thereby hiding their message.

Cover of Hagarism.

Now, however, two scholars have separately ended this secrecy: Tom Holland with In the Shadow of the Sword (Doubleday) and Robert Spencer with Did Muhammad Exist? (ISI). As their titles suggest, Spencer is the bolder author and so my focus here.

In a well-written, sober, and clear account, he begins by demonstrating the inconsistencies and mysteries in the conventional account concerning Muhammad’s life, the Koran, and early Islam. For example, whereas the Koran insists that Muhammad did not perform miracles, the hadith ascribe him thaumaturgic powers – multiplying food, healing the injured, drawing water from the ground and sky, and even sending lightening from his pickax. Which is it? Hadith claim Mecca was a great trading city but, strangely, the historical record reveals it as no such thing.

The Christian quality of early Islam is no less strange, specifically “traces of a Christian text underlying the Qur’an.” Properly understood, these traces elucidate otherwise incomprehensible passages. Conventionally read, verse 19:24 has Mary nonsensically hearing, as she gives birth to Jesus, “Do not be sad, your Lord has placed a rivulet beneath you.” Revisionists transform this into the sensible (and piously Christian), “Do not be sad, your Lord has made your delivery legitimate.” Puzzling verses about the “Night of Power” commemorating Muhammad’s first revelation make sense when understood as describing Christmas. Chapter 97 of the Koran, astonishingly, invites readers to a Eucharist.

Cover of Did Muhammad Exist.

Building on this Christian base, revisionists postulate a radically new account of early Islam. Noting that coins and inscriptions from the seventh century mention neither Muhammad, the Koran, nor Islam, they conclude that the new religion did not appear until about 70 years after Muhammad’s supposed death. Spencer finds that “the first decades of the Arab conquest show the conquerors holding not to Islam as we know it but to a vague creed [Hagarism, focused on Abraham and Ishmael] with ties to some form of Christianity and Judaism.” In very brief: “the Muhammad of Islamic tradition did not exist, or if he did, he was substantially different from how that tradition portrays him” – namely an Anti-Trinitarian Christian rebel leader in Arabia.

Only about 700 A.D., when the rulers of a now-vast Arabian empire felt the need for a unifying political theology, did they cobble together the Islamic religion. The key figure in this enterprise appears to have been the brutal governor of Iraq, Hajjaj ibn Yusuf. No wonder, writes Spencer, that Islam is “such a profoundly political religion” with uniquely prominent martial and imperial qualities. No wonder it conflicts with modern mores.

The revisionist account is no idle academic exercise but, as when Judaism and Christianity encountered the Higher Criticism 150 years ago, a deep, unsettling challenge to faith. It will likely leave Islam a less literal and doctrinaire religion with particularly beneficial implications in the case of Islam, still mired in doctrines of supremacism and misogyny. Applause, then for plans to translate Did Muhammad Exist? into major Muslim languages and to make it available gratis on the Internet. May the revolution begin.

Mr. Pipes (DanielPipes.org) is president of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. © 2012 All rights reserved by Daniel Pipes.

Popular Posts:

Rating: 10.0/10 (3 votes cast)

Source material can be found at this site.

Join the forum discussion on this post

No related posts.

Chris Christie’s Islam Problem

kalel — Wed, 02 May 2012 00:12:34 +0000

by Daniel Pipes and Steven Emerson
National Review Online
May 1, 2012

A Quinnipiac poll in April showed Chris Christie the most popular potential Republican vice-presidential candidate, thanks to his budget cuts and standing up to government employee unions. But the governor of New Jersey has a problem, specifically an Islam problem, in the way of his possible ascent to higher office. We regret to report that, time and again, he has sided with Islamist forces against those safeguarding American security and civilization.

Derek Fenton removed by police after burning pages of the Koran in 2010.

Some examples:

2008: When serving as U.S. attorney for New Jersey, Christie embraced and kissed Mohammed Qatanani, imam of the Islamic Center of Passaic County, and praised him as “a man of great goodwill.” He did this after Qatanani had publicly ranted against Jews and in support of funding Hamas, a U.S. government–designated terror organization, and on the eve of his deportation hearing for hiding an Israeli conviction for membership in Hamas. In addition, Christie designated a top aide, Assistant U.S. Attorney Charles McKenna, to testify as a character witness for Qatanani.

2010: After Derek Fenton burned three pages of a Koran at a 9/11 memorial ceremony, his employer, New Jersey Transit, got Christie’s approval to fire him. Christie vocally endorsed Fenton’s termination, even though this meant protecting Islam at the expense of Fenton’s constitutional right to free speech, declaring, “I don’t have any problem with him being fired.” The American Civil Liberties Union successfully represented Fenton to get his job back.

2011: Christie appointed an Islamist, Sohail Mohammed, to the New Jersey state superior court. Mohammed’s record includes serving as general counsel to the American Muslim Union (which has stated that a “Zionist Commando Orchestrated The 9-11 Terrorist Attacks”), acting as spokesman for Muslim prisoners who went on a hunger strike due to being jailed during Ramadan, defending Palestinian Islamic Jihad operative Sami Al-Arian (whose indictment, Mohammed said, was “nothing but a witch-hunt”), and helping Qatanani’s legal defense. Mohammed is not a lawyer for Islamists but one of them.

Gov. Christie talks to Sohail Mohammed at the American Muslim Union.

When members of New Jersey’s Senate Judiciary Committee asked Mohammed appropriately tough questions about his enthusiasm for Islam’s archaic law code, the Shari’a, Christie ridiculed the lawmakers: “Shari’a law has nothing to do with this [appointment of Mohammed] at all. It’s crazy. It’s crazy. … So, this Shari’a law business is crap. It’s just crazy. And I’m tired of dealing with the crazies. I mean, you know, it’s just unnecessary to be accusing this guy of things just because of his religious background.” Delighted by this outburst, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) thanked and applauded Christie.

2012: Revelations that the New York Police Department had conducted surveillance of Islamists in the New Jersey towns of Newark and New Brunswick prompted not gratitude but outrage from Christie, who termed the action arrogant and paranoid while mocking NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly as “all knowing, all seeing.”

In short, Christie has hugged a terrorist organization member, abridged free-speech rights, scorned concern over Islamization, and opposed law enforcement counterterrorism efforts. Whenever an issue touching on Islam arises, Christie takes the Islamist side against those –the DHS, state senators, the NYPD, even the ACLU – who worry about lawful Islamism eroding the fabric of American life.

"Secure America Now" took out a full-page advertisement on Mar. 19 in the New Jersey Journal, protesting Gov. Christie's interference into the New York Police Department's counterterrorism efforts.

“Secure America Now” took out a full-page advertisement on Mar. 19 in the New Jersey Journal, protesting Gov. Christie’s interference into the New York Police Department’s counterterrorism efforts. (Click here for enlarged version.)

Two factors render this pattern especially curious: First, soft-on-Islamism policies are common among Democrats but rare among Republicans (Grover Norquist being the major exception). Second, Christie has an ostentatiously pro-Israel stance, as reflected by his speeches and his recent “Jersey to Jerusalem” trip; this makes him unusual, for pro-Israel views typically go hand-in-hand with concern about Shari’a. How does one reconcile the Christie contradiction?

It could be that, other than fiscally, he is not a conservative but a moderate. It could be ego: the governor is just more brilliant than the rest of us. Or, as several analysts suggest, it could be cynical double pandering: Muslims get what they want most and Zionists what they want most, with each party ignoring what Christie does for the other. Interestingly, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut pursued this double track policy (soft on Islamism, staunch on Israel) and became the Democrats’ VP candidate in 2000.

Whatever the reason, we conclude that Chris Christie lacks the moral compass, gravitas, and integrity needed to serve as vice-president of the United States.

Mr. Pipes is president of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution. Mr. Emerson is executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism. © 2012 by the authors. All rights reserved.

Popular Posts:

Rating: 10.0/10 (2 votes cast)

Source material can be found at this site.

Daniel Pipes: Turkey’s Military Capitulation Hits Home

kalel — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 06:21:00 +0000

by Daniel Pipes
April 16, 2012

“Retired Gen. Çevik Bir jailed in postmodern coup case” reads the headline in Today’s Zaman, complete with a picture of a policeman accompanying Bir as he left a courthouse after being arrested.

Bir is the Turkish military figure I have had the most contact with, so his arrest has a personal feel that the other incarcerations did not.

Here is a picture of him presenting me with a souvenir gift at military headquarters in Ankara in 1997. (April 16, 2012)

Popular Posts:

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Source material can be found at this site.

Islam’s Cartoon Missionaries

kalel — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 03:33:46 +0000

by Daniel Pipes
National Review Online
April 17, 2012

Comic books as a method of missionizing for Islam (da’wa)?

Yes. One year ago, Harvard University hosted a workshop to teach comic book artists how to address Americans’ “unease with Islam and the Middle East.” And later this week, Georgetown University will air a PBS documentary, Wham! Bam! Islam! celebrating a comic book called The 99.

Wham! Bam! Islam!

The 99 sounds innocuous. Adweek describes its topic as “a team of multinational superheroes [who] band together to fight the forces of evil.” The American children’s network Hub more fully explains that, “Created by noted Middle East scholar and clinical psychologist Dr. Naif al-Mutawa, [it consists of] superhero characters who must work together to maximize their powers. Each member of The 99 embodies one of 99 global values such as wisdom, mercy, strength or faithfulness, and they hail from 99 different countries on seven continents. The series’ superheroes portray characters designed to be positive role models, representing diverse cultures, who work together to promote peace and justice.”

Who can object to the promotion of “global values … representing diverse cultures”?

But a closer look reveals the Islamic nature of the comic book. The title, 99, refers to Islam’s concept that God has 99 names, each of which appears in the Koran and embodies some attribute of His character: the Merciful, the Compassionate, the Kind, the Most Holy, and the All-Peaceful, but also the Avenger, the Afflicter, and the Causer of Death.

The comic book, produced by the Teshkeel Media Group of Kuwait, tells a partly-factual, partly-fantastical tale that begins in 1258 A.D., when the Mongols besieged Baghdad. Librarians supposedly saved the wisdom of the city’s main library by encoding it in 99 gems that get scattered around the world. The heroes must find these “gems of power” before an arch-villain does. Each of them is an ordinary Muslim who, through contact with a gem, achieves superhuman powers and represents one of God’s 99 attributes.

The superheroes are all Muslims (i.e., not Christian, Jewish, Hindu, or Buddhist), some of whom come from Western countries like the United States and Portugal. In contrast, villains are primarily non-Muslims.

Naif al-Mutawa

Al-Mutawa describes contradictory goals for The 99. Sometimes, he insists “I’m not looking to convert anyone.” In this mode, he hopes “Jewish kids think that The 99 characters are Jewish, and Christian kids think they’re Christian, and Muslim kids think they’re Muslim, and Hindu kids think they’re Hindu.”

At other times he says he devised the series on concluding that “the Arab world needed better role models.” He aspired to develop “a new cast of superheroes for the children of the Islamic world” and hoped his work “may well help save a generation” of Muslims. He even thinks his cartoon characters can “salvage Islam’s reputation.” Indeed, discussion about The 99 stresses its Islamic component. The New York Times notes that its superheroes are “aimed specifically at young Muslim readers and focusing on Muslim virtues.” The Times (London)described the series’ mission as instilling “old-fashioned Islamic values in Christian, Jewish and atheist children.”

The cover of the comic.

Likewise, Barack Obama praised the comic books for having “captured the imagination of so many young people with superheroes who embody the teachings and tolerance of Islam.” An Islamic investment bank whose products “fully comply with Shari’ah principles” invested US$15.9 million in Teshkeel and complimented it for “highlighting Islam’s rich culture and heritage.”

In short, The 99, available in both Arabic and English, contains overtly Islamic content and explicitly promotes Islam. Granted, its Islam has modern aspects, but among non-Muslims the series engages in surreptitious da’wa.

In addition to the comic books, Al-Mutawa has developed some spinoffs (online comics, games, lunch boxes, and theme parks) and envisages others (newspaper comics, stickers, and perhaps toys). But most of all, he wants an animated cartoon. Although the Hub network planned in 2011 to air The 99, this never happened, largely because criticism caused it to shy away from a show instilling “Islamic values in Christian, Jewish and atheist children.”

Five of "The 99," from left: Mumita (speedy), Dr. Razem (a gem expert), Rughal (mystery powers), Jabbar (expandable) and Noora (sees truth).

In short, to the Islamic indoctrination of Western children, already present in schools through textbooks, additional school materials, and classroom trips, now add comic books and their many spin-offs, actual and potential. The 99 might be fine for Muslim children but, support from Georgetown University notwithstanding, non-Muslim children should not be exposed to missionizing propaganda of this sort.

Mr. Pipes (DanielPipes.org) is president of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. © 2012 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.

Popular Posts:

Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Source material can be found at this site.

Join the forum discussion on this post

It’s Not Road Rage, It’s Terrorism

kalel — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 07:45:39 +0000

by Daniel Pipes
National Review Online
April 3, 2012

On February 25, 1994, Baruch Goldstein, an Israeli doctor of American origins, went to the mosque at the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, and murdered 29 Muslims with an automatic weapon before being overwhelmed and himself killed. This massacre prompted conspiracy theories and riots in Muslim circles, including accusations that the government of Israel stood behind Goldstein, an allegation that strenuous denunciations of his attack by the Israeli government did not fully deflect.

Rashid Baz, who attacked a Jewish target in New York City in 1994.

On March 1, four days later, Rashid Baz, a New York livery driver of Lebanese origins, fired two guns at a van carrying Hasidic Jewish boys on a ramp leading to the Brooklyn Bridge, killing Ari Halberstam, 16, a yeshiva student. Baz was quickly apprehended, convicted, and sentenced to 141 years in prison. Circumstantial evidence pointed to a link between the two events, for Baz was immersed in the Arabic-language media coverage of Goldstein’s attack, he attended the incendiary Islamic Center of Bay Ridge, and he was surrounded by Muslims who condoned terrorism against Jews. More than that, friends indicated that Baz was obsessively angered by the attack in Hebron and the psychiatrist for his legal defense, Douglas Anderson, testified that Baz “was enraged” by it. “He was absolutely furious. . . . Were it not for Hebron this whole tragedy [in New York] wouldn’t have occurred.”

Yet the seemingly obvious connection between Goldstein and Baz could not be established because Baz accounted for his violence by referring to post-traumatic stresses from his experiences in Lebanon. And so, despite the preponderance of evidence, the Federal Bureau of Investigation adopted Baz’s own dissemblance and called the murder on the Brooklyn Bridge an act of “road rage.” Only after Halberstam’s mother devoted years of effort did the FBI in 2000 reclassify the Baz attack as terrorism.

Mohammed Merah, who attacked a Jewish target in Toulouse in 2012.

And thus matters rested until a few days ago, when Baz’s confession in 2007 finally became public via a New York Post article. In it, Baz acknowledged the impact of the Goldstein atrocity on him, admitted having specifically targeted Jews, and confessed to following a van of Hasidic boys for two miles from the Manhattan Eye and Ear Infirmary to the bridge. Asked if he would have shot at a van full of black or Latino people, he replied, “No, I only shot them because they were Jewish.”

This belated confession points to a recurring problem of politicians, law enforcement, and the press with Islamist terrorism: their unwillingness to stare it in the face and ascribe murder to it.

Most recently, this avoidance reared its ugly head in the case of Mohammed Merah in Toulouse, France, where the establishment’s immediate impulse was to assume the murderer of three soldiers and four Jews was a non-Muslim. As my colleague Adam Turner notes in the Daily Caller, “the elite Western public officials’ and media’s speculation about the true killer, prior to the discovery of his identity, heavily focused (also here and here and here) on the belief that he was a white European neo-Nazi.” Only when Merah himself boasted of his crime to the police and even sent videos of his actions to Al Jazeera did the other theories finally vaporize.

El Sayyid Nosair, who attacked a Jewish target in New York City in 1990.

The Baz and Merah examples fit a much larger pattern of denying Islamist terrorism that I trace as far back as the 1990 assassination of Rabbi Meir Kahane in New York City by El Sayyid Nosair, an attack initially ascribed by the police department’s chief of detectives to “a prescription drug for or consistent with depression.” Since then, time and again, the establishment has conjured up similarly lame excuses for Islamist terrorism, including “a work dispute,” a “stormy [family] relationship,” the acne drug Accutane, an “attitude problem,” and “loneliness and depression.”

Most disturbing, however, is the tendency to ascribe Islamist terror to diminished mental capacity. As Teri Blumenfeld notes in the current issue of the Middle East Quarterly, “Muslims who kill in the name of their religion frequently evade punishment in Western courts by pleading insanity or mental incompetence.” In Western courts, indeed, defense lawyers routinely attribute acts of jihadi murder to insanity.

Ignoring the religious and ideological roots of Islamist terrorism carries a heavy price; not thoroughly investigating the Kahane assassination meant overlooking materials that could have prevented the World Trade Center bombing in 1993; and Merah’s apprehension sooner would have saved lives. Islamism must be squarely faced to protect ourselves from future violence.

Mr. Pipes (DanielPipes.org) is president of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. © 2012 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.

Popular Posts:

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Source material can be found at this site.

Join the forum discussion on this post

Dennis Kucinich, Lefty for Radical Islam

kalel — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 05:33:42 +0000

by Daniel Pipes
Investigative Project on Terrorism
March 26, 2012

Keith Ellison and Andre Carson receive considerable attention as the first two Muslims to serve in the U.S. Congress. The novelty of their presence, however, should not obscure the fact that Congress includes other representatives, invariably on the left wing of the Democratic party, who also carry water for Islamist interests and causes.

Not themselves Muslim, their relative obscurity attracts less attention to them and may make them more effective. For example, When the U.S. House voted 390-5 in 2009 in favor of a resolution concerning Israel’s right to self-defense against Hamas, Carson voted for the resolution and Ellison voted “present.” In contrast, Dennis J. Kucinich, Gwen Moore, Ron Paul, Nick Rahall, and Maxine Waters cast the “no” votes. In addition to those five, their ranks also include Cynthia McKinney, Gregory Meeks, and James Moran.

Kucinich (in the middle) meets with ten members of the CAIR staff including Nihad Awad, executive director of the national office.

Kucinich, 65, a representative from the Cleveland area since 1996 whose recent primary loss signals the probable end of his political career, offers the single best example of this phenomenon, having gone further down this path than any other national elected official and receiving more attention for it, particularly during his campaign for president of the United States in 2004.

Kucinich’s far-left positions on a range of topics (most memorably, a promise to establish a Department of Peace) did not exactly burn up the campaign trail then but his platform did resonate among more than a few Democratic voters in a fractured race; he won 8 percent of the vote in Utah and Washington state, 9 percent in his home state of Ohio, 16 percent in Maine, 17 percent in Minnesota, and an impressive 26 percent in Hawaii. (Comparable efforts in a 2008 campaign for president fell flat, with him nowhere winning over 2 percent of the vote.)

This respectable showing brought considerable news coverage to his 2004 campaign that in turn uniquely exposed the candidate’s positions and activities vis-à-vis Islamism.

Kucinich’s Positions

Already before 2004, Kucinich had displayed a soft spot for Islamism, defined as the ideology seeking to apply Islamic law (the Shari’a) worldwide. For example, he insisted on accepting a $500 donation in 1997 from Washington’s then reigning Islamist, Abdurahman Alamoudi. Only after Alamoudi was arrested in 2003 on charges of taking money from Libyan intelligence, charges which landed him a long jail term, did Kucinich finally return the 1997 contribution.

In his 2004 presidential campaign, Kucinich adopted key elements of the radical Islamic message and worked closely with North America’s most aggressive Islamist group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). He echoed its line about American Muslims having “suffered much over the last few years” and their having “been scapegoated and they’ve been subject to profiling and have been subject to law enforcement practices which are truly repugnant in a democracy.” He presented key policies (opposition to the Iraq war and the Patriot Act, “support of Palestinian rights”) as being Muslim-friendly. He even argued that his proposals for universal healthcare and expanded public education “are consistent with their [Islamic] religious beliefs about providing for the less fortunate and the needy.”

"Leslie Sinclair, also known by the Arabic name Munira, expresses her enthusiasm for Dennis Kucinich at Idriss Mosque near Northgate" in Washington State on February 3, 2004.

Kucinich identified himself closely with American Muslims, calling them the bellwethers of the U.S. government’s “intolerance, surveillance, and oppression.” At times, he waxed lyrical: “In its suffering the Muslim community is helping America to transform. We’re defending all Americans, all liberties. Stand up and live your faith: Celebrate Islam. Promote and share understanding. This country owes you a debt of gratitude.” At other times, he got emotional: when he denounced the deportation of an illegal Muslim immigrant from Venezuela, the Cleveland Plain Dealer described his eyes “brimming with tears” as he declared his intent “to move heaven and earth” to keep her in the country.

A reporter described how, in one remarkable meeting with Muslims, Kucinich quoted the Qur’an with “the passion of an itinerant preacher” and roused the audience to get on its feet and chant “God is great” (Allahu Akbar). To another Muslim audience he announced, “I keep a copy of the Quran in my office.”

(In this, Kucinich anticipated former British prime minister Tony Blair, who announced in June 2011: “I read the Qur’an every day. Partly to understand some of the things happening in the world, but mainly just because it is immensely instructive.”)

His campaign website had one special page devoted to Arab-Americans and another devoted to Muslims. Some Kucinich campaign literature was translated into Arabic. Of special interest is the page lauding his “long record of making himself accessible to the Muslim community”:

He has hired or taken as interns a number of Muslim Americans. [DP comment: for example, Souheila Al-Jadda served on his House staff.] He meets regularly with his Muslim and Arab-American constituents in Cleveland. In his presidential campaign he has spoken several times at CAIR events, the only candidate to do so – and in spite of getting some very negative press from right-wing commentators for it. [DP comment: judging by the "Muslims for Kucinich" website, this is a reference to me] He also spoke at the ISNA [Islamic Society of North America] convention on August 30, 2003.

In addition, the site went on, Kucinich “created the post of National Muslims for Kucinich Coordinator on his campaign staff.” In all, “Muslims working as campaign volunteers, including the National Muslims for Kucinich Coordinator, have found not only the candidate himself but also his staff to be welcoming and indeed eager to work with them and to reach out to the Muslim community.”

Kucinich also touted his support among Muslims, naming Islamist organizations as proof:

Leaders in national Muslim organizations like CAIR, ISNA, and the American Muslim Alliance have expressed support for Kucinich’s candidacy. A group of nearly 100 supporters, ordinary Muslims from around the country, have organized an email list to receive updates on the campaign and learn about volunteer opportunities. The membership of this group has tripled in the last month [DP comment: this page is not dated, so it is not clear which month is referred to] and continues to grow on a daily basis. There does not seem to be any comparable organized group of Muslims supporting any of the other candidates.

In return for these expressions of solidarity, Kucinich looked for Muslim electoral support. Not surprisingly, Kucinich urged Muslims to vote as a block so as to enhance their political muscle; this not only followed the Islamist organizations’ line but presumably reflected his hope to be the beneficiary of their votes.

Kucinich’s Calendar

The candidate devoted extensive time and effort to addressing and meeting Muslims in person. MSNBC noted, for example, how he made sure “mosques and Muslim organizations are on his agenda as he stumps around the country.” A partial listing from the height of the primary season included:

November 30, 2003: Kucinich spoke at CAIR’s Seventh Annual Fundraising Banquet outside of Washington, D.C.
December 20-21: Kucinich electronically addressed the annual convention of the Muslim Public Affairs Council and won 17 percent support in its straw poll, coming in second behind Howard Dean.
December 30: At the behest of CAIR Kucinich visited the Islamic Society of the Tampa Bay Area, was “shown around a free medical clinic, full-time Muslim school and food pantry for the needy,” and he met with CAIR members. CAIR’s communications director in Florida, Ahmed Bedier, announced his approval of Kucinich: “We can feel the sincerity and the emotions and see that he believes what he is saying. It’s rare to find someone in Washington like that.”
January 13, 2004: CAIR’s Ahmed Bedier praised Kucinich for carrying “with him the flag of true patriotism and the message of inclusiveness and peace.”
January 25: Kucinich appeared at a presidential campaign forum in Houston co-hosted by CAIR.
January 27: Steve Cerny, Virginia co-chair of Kucinich for President, sent out a memo addressed to “Muslim Supporters of Kucinich for President,” that began with “Assalaamu Alaykum” (normally a phrase only used among Muslims) and pleaded with recipients to attend an organizing meeting on Jan. 31. Cerny told about “a major presence at the big Eid celebration at the DC Armory” on, Feb. 1, other Eid celebrations, and at “as many mosques as we can” on Feb. 6. Cerny also told about plans to print 30,000 flyers targeted to the Muslim community, the campaign’s lists of registered Muslim voters and its plan to call them “to remind Muslims of the election and ask their support for Kucinich.”
January 29: The Detroit-based Arab-American Political Action Committee gave Kucinich over two-thirds of the votes cast by its members in an endorsement for president. (Another report indicated that Kerry received no votes.)
February 1: Kucinich started the day “at an Islamic Festival at the University of New Mexico where he told attendees that, as president, he would work to rebuild relations between the Muslim community and the U.S. government.”
February 3: Kucinich spent 1½ hours at the Idriss Mosque in Seattle, half an hour with the leaders and an hour with the community. The invitation made two statements of note: (1) This event “may include salat al-maghrib, observed by Representative Dennis Kucinich.” (2) Kucinich, not the mosque, initiated the event when he “requested to meet with the local Muslim Community.”
February 28: Kucinich visited the Masjid Omar ibn Al-Khattab in downtown Los Angeles and discussed Iraq, education, and the prison system with about 65 persons.
March 8: At an event sponsored by CAIR’s San Antonio office, Kucinich met with a reported 400 Muslims. Sarwait Husain, the head of that office, announced at the occasion: “Even if he doesn’t win [the presidency], he can represent our voice in Congress.”

After 2004

.”"]

"Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich addressed issues of peace and civil liberties at a gathering of San Antonio's Muslim community on March 5[, 2004

Kucinich continued along the same path of reaching out to Arabs, Muslims, and Islamists. For example, his website long continued to list “Arab Americans” as an “issue.”

He visited the Middle East in 2006 during the Hizbullah-Israel war and focused exclusively on the destruction caused by Israel and did not visit the scenes of Hizbullah attacks in Israel.

In June 2007, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 411 to 2 for Resolution 21, “Calling on the United Nations Security Council to charge Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and United Nations Charter because of his calls for the destruction of the State of Israel.” Kucinich (along with Ron Paul) was one of the two to vote against the resolution.

In 2008, according to the far-left Inter-Press Service, Kucinich alone of the presidential candidates attempted to court the Muslim vote. That same year, he condemned U.S. policy vis-à-vis Iran but not Iranian policy vis-à-vis the United States and called for establishing a “National Commission on Truth and Reconciliation” which he wants to “have the power to compel testimony and gather official documents to reveal to the American people … the underlying deception” that was the Bush administration’s response to 9/11.

Kucinich called on Muslim support in 2009, stating that the health care issue offers Muslims “the opportunity to reach out to people of all faiths. This is a teachable moment for Muslims, whose every greeting has peace in it. Get involved in the current debate.”

In a 2010 interview with Turkish Policy Quarterly, Kucinich fawningly addressed Turks and their Islamist government: “To my Muslim brothers and sisters in Turkey I say Selamunaleykum. We should be extending peace to each other. Turkey is an open, democratic, pluralistic democracy and the U.S. should promote respect for Islam.” Also in 2010, Kucinich adopted the Islamist line that drone strikes against Al-Qaeda targets conducted by the Bush and Obama administrations have helped stoke “fanaticism and radicalism.”

Kucinich is reported to be the only member of Congress publicly to condemn the Obama administration’s 2010 authorization to assassinate Anwar al-Awlaki, the U.S. citizen and terrorist sponsor in Yemen accused of ties to several attacks in the United States. He is probably the only one in 2011 to praise the government of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad for showing “a willingness to listen” to the opposition that he was at that moment massacring.

Conclusions

Kucinich fawningly endorses CAIR. (For an enlarged version of this letter, click on image.)

Although Kucinich cut an eccentric figure among the Democrats running for president – seeking the Islamist vote in 2004 was a sure way not to reach the White House – his close association with radical Islam was innovative and pathbreaking.

This is confirmed by Howard Dean’s following in Kucinich’s footsteps during his own 2004 presidential campaign. The National Council of Pakistani Americans relates, for example, how Dean met in Milwaukee with about 100 members of the newly formed Muslim Electorate Council of America (MECA). In so doing, it states, he “helped Muslims create a precedence that no American Presidential aspirant should ignore” and it portrays this event as going beyond what Kucinich did:

Dennis Kucinich also went to a few Muslim functions. However, those functions were arranged by major national organizations as part of their fund raising efforts. Those meetings were not organized on election 2004 issues. “What we witnessed in Milwaukee is a new phenomenon. Muslim voters are making a bold statement and creating a grassroots movement of political empowerment without the influence of major political establishment,” said Dr. Aslam Abdullah, the founding director of MECA.

Can we expect to witness future Democratic candidates promising to espouse Muslim interests (as defined by CAIR and its ilk) to the White House? I expect so. More broadly, one sees a growing connection between the Left and radical Islam, as plumbed by David Horowitz in Unholy Alliance (Regnery) and by me in a number of articles. Among many other consequences, a long-term sorting out of votes is currently underway; as I wrote in 2003, “Arabs and Muslims, for all their sympathy for Republican economics, will vote Democratic, and Jews, for all their agreement with the Democrats on abortion, will vote Republican.”

Mr. Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org) is president of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. © 2012 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.

Popular Posts:

Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Source material can be found at this site.

Join the forum discussion on this post

Four Down: Saleh No Longer Yemen’s President?

kalel — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 13:16:49 +0000

by Daniel Pipes
February 25, 2012
Cross-posted from National Review Online: The Corner

Three Arab dictators-for-life lost power in 2011: Ben Ali of Tunisia on January 14, Mubarak of Egypt on February 11, and Qaddafi of Libya on October 20. Now, the first Arab dictator of 2012 seems to be down: Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen.

Abed Rabu Mansour Hadi - Yemen's new president in fact as well as in name?

Seems because his has been a protracted and contorted process that included Saleh’s resignation on November 23, elections on February 21, and the festive swearing in today of his successor, Abed Rabu Mansour Hadi. Following the “Pipes rule of Arab elections” (namely: If you know the result ahead of time, you are voting for the real powerbroker; if you don’t know the result in advance, then you are voting for a position that hardly matters), that Hadi was the only candidate for president suggests he has real power. By the way, he was the country’s vice president since 1994 and is field marshal of the Yemeni armed forces.

But, as Laura Kasinof of the New York Times puts it, Saleh “still wields considerable influence. His relatives control most of the military and government security agencies, and it remains to be seen how independent Mr. Hadi, a longtime Saleh loyalist, will be.” So, Hadi’s installation might be a gambit for Saleh to retain control. We shall see.

Who’s number five? Bashar al-Assad. After that, it’s unclear who’s umber six, but I bet on a newly-wobbly King Abdullah II of Jordan, thanks to his incompetence in dealing with the growing Islamism of his Bedouin political base. (February 25, 2012)Popular Posts:

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Source material can be found at this site.

Resettling the Mujahedeen-e Khalq of Iraq

kalel — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 07:45:56 +0000

by Daniel Pipes
February 28, 2012
Cross-posted from National Review Online: The Corner

Tragedy looms as Iraqi authorities threaten by April 30 forcibly to expel 3,400 Iranians, members of the Mujahedeen-e Khalq. MeK members rightly fear for their lives if pushed across the border for the Iranian regime criminalizes membership in the MeK and abominates the organization, its determined foe.

Some background: Saddam Hussein allied with the MeK (also known as the People’s Mujahedeen Organization of Iran, or PMOI) against their common enemy in Tehran. Following the U.S.-led conquest of Iraq in 2003, MeK members living in Iraq acquired “protected persons” status and entered a political limbo, neither friend nor enemy of the occupying powers. With the gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops and increasingly close ties between the Iraqi and Iranian governments, MeK circumstances worsened to the point that in April 2011 Iraqi troops attacked Camp Ashraf, its Iraqi home since 1986, killing 34 people and injuring 325.

Cooler heads prevailed after this dangerous flare-up. With U.S. government approval, Baghdad signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the United Nations in December 2011. In it, the Government of Iraq committed to the relocation of Camp Ashraf (now renamed Camp New Iraq) residents to a temporary transit facility where the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) would begin the process of transiting MeK members in Iraq to refugee status, a necessary first step to resettle them outside Iraq.

Camp Liberty from the air in 2009.

Toward this end, about 400 MeK members voluntarily left Camp Ashraf on Feb. 18 and moved to Camp Liberty, a former U.S. military base. Their transfer, however, was marred by threats from Iraqi forces, harassment from elements of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, and inhospitable living conditions and constant police surveillance within Camp Liberty.

This move cast doubts on Iraqi government intentions and set a worrying precedent. Further, there is no clear sense how the MeK members will all be processed as refugees within the next two months, much less of their ultimate destination for resettlement outside either Iraq or Iran.

Here follow some practical recommendations for Washington, which must not abandon the organization most feared by the tyrants in Tehran:

Establish a contact group along with the UNHCR, the Iraqi government, and MeK representatives to safeguard MeK members who leave Camp Ashraf, as agreed upon in the December MoU.
Pressure the UNHCR to get the refugee processing done quickly.
Remove the unwarranted terrorist tag from the MeK, as the European Union has already done. Government and private sources alike reveal no evidence that the MeK engages in terrorist activities or has the capability and intent to do so. The discredited “terrorist” description, however, has real-world consequences. For example, Iraq’s Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has linked ill-treatment of Iranian dissidents to the MeK’s designation as a terrorist group; and the terrorist label, understandably, makes third countries reluctant to resettle MeK members.
Seek out culturally similar hosts for MeK members; perhaps Persian-speaking countries (such as Tajikistan or Afghanistan) or Muslim Middle Eastern countries hostile to the Islamic Republic of Iran (such as Saudi Arabia or the Persian Gulf statelets).

These steps offer a way to resettle MeK members and resolve an urgent impending human tragedy in advance of the looming April 30 deadline. (February 28, 2012)Popular Posts:

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Source material can be found at this site.

Join the forum discussion on this post

[Symposium on] The U.S. and Israel

kalel — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 04:20:58 +0000

by Daniel Pipes
March 6, 2012
Cross-posted from National Review Online: The Corner

With Washington, D.C., talking Israeli politics, National Review Online asked experts: “Going into a presidential-election year, what’s a sane, responsible Israel policy?” For the responses of the other eight respondents, click here.

Two premises shape my preferred U.S. policy toward Israel.

Negatively, the two countries have the same enemies and suffer from the same problems coming out of the Middle East, notably WMD, wars, terrorism, piracy, anarchy, tyranny, refugees, drug trafficking, counterfeiting, oil and gas disruptions, extremist ideologies, conspiracy theories, etc. More than that: they share enemies. Anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism are first cousins, with one usually leading to the other.

Truman and Ben Gurion, with Abba Eban between them: Where it all began.

Positively, judging by such criteria as United Nations votes, bilateral commerce, intelligence cooperation, military alliance, intellectual influence, religious bonds, shared values, the U.S.-Israel bond is arguably the closest international tie in the world, making it what I call “the family relationship of international politics.” One revealing symptom: the two states can barely restrain themselves from interfering in each other’s affairs.

Together, these negatives and positives point to a self-evident policy conclusion: cooperate, seek synergy, work toward shared goals. Contra Obama, avoid daylight between the leaderships. Deal with differences quietly and effectively. Announce to all that the two governments agree on fundamentals and will not be divided.

Try this and see how existing problems, from the Iranian nuclear buildup to the Arab upheavals, start to look less formidable. (March 6, 2012)Popular Posts:

Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Source material can be found at this site.

Join the forum discussion on this post

Are Egypt’s Islamists Heading for a Fall?

kalel — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 23:44:05 +0000

by Daniel Pipes
February 4, 2012
Cross-posted from National Review Online

Terrified of the secular/modern/liberal demonstrators who made their presence known in Tahrir Square, as well as of the soccer hooligans, Mohamed Tantawi and Egypt’s Supreme Council of the Armed Forces have forged a mutually beneficial relationship with the country’s Islamists, thereby blocking their joint opponents from power. Very clever – but maybe too clever by half. Here’s why:

Over half of Egypt's caloric consumption comes from abroad, leaving the country vulnerable to international staple prices.

In Egypt, which imports more than half its caloric intake, wages must keep up with the price of food or people begin to starve. Yet the country appears to be heading for a monumental financial collapse in 2012, and perhaps by the summer. If Islamists strut about as though they rule Egypt, the population will blame them and their SCAF allies – not the Tahriris – for its hunger. The anger could quickly turn ferocious. After waiting 84 years to attain legitimacy and power, the Muslim Brotherhood may find it got suckered into taking over the ship’s helm just as it heads into an iceberg.

Comments: (1) A joke circulating during Hosni Mubarak’s reign (“Why hasn’t Mubarak appointed a vice president?” “Because he can’t find anyone dumber than he is”) appears to be wrong. Tantawi is even more incompetent than Mubarak.

(2) Military dictatorship, which has been firmly in control of Egypt since 1952, has so badly run the country into the ground that its rule finally appears to be in jeopardy. (February 4, 2012)Popular Posts:

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Source material can be found at this site.

Join the forum discussion on this post