Vilifying Islam

1. "Today Muslims and their religion are being increasingly and unfairly vilified......"
Interfaith Conference of Greater Milwaukee (1)

2. " Brace yourselves, because the war with Muslims has just begun....We are only Muslims trying to defend our religion, people, homes and land....we will keep on terrorizing you until you leave our lands and people at peace..The Quran gives us the right to defend. And that's all I'm doing."
Faisal Shahzad, at sentencing for rigging a car bomb in NY (2)

According to Shahzad it was his religion, embodied in the Quran, that spurred him to try to kill people in Times Square in May of this year. Moreover, he claimed that Muslims commit terror in defense of their religion, along with their " people, homes and land." But if Islam inspires people to commit barbaric acts against their fellow citizens (as well as others), then Islam deserves to be vilified, and the Interfaith Conference is wrong to say that it is "unfairly vilified." But is Shahzad right, and does he speak for Islam?

If Shahzad were nothing but a "deranged loner" (like most American assassins), we could dismiss his claims as the rant of a lunatic. But he is not a loner----he was trained for his mission at a jihadist camp in Pakistan. Moreover, since the bombing in Oklahoma City in 1995, every significant terrorist act and attempt in the US (September 11, Fort Hood, shoe-bomber, underwear bomber, etc.) was committed by a Muslim. In addition, all the major terror attacks in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Mumbai, Madrid, London, Israel, Jordan and other countries were also perpetrated by groups of Muslims. Police investigating a series of crimes look for a common link; is there one here?

The nexus between Islam and world terrorism is too obvious to be ignored. Although the vast majority of Muslims have no connection to terrorism, most of those who do embrace terrorism today are motivated by Islam. But what about Islam, as opposed to Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism, impels people to commit these crimes? Are not all religions intolerant of other faiths? Why not Buddhist terror?

Islam teaches that all people should be Muslims, and those who reject Islam should be subservient (dhimmi) to Muslims. The struggle between Islam and the forces opposed to the faith is called jihad, and every Muslim is obligated to participate in jihad until the final victory of Islam over all other ideologies. These principles are not iconoclastic, or held by only one sect or group, but are at the very core of Islam itself, as expressed in the Quran and the hadiths (apocrypha). The idea that Western Civilization is inherently the enemy of Islam was taught by Sayid Qutb, the founder of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, which inspired both Hamas and Osama bin Laden.

The United States is deeply involved in conflicts in the Muslim world: the Middle East, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, in particular. Although we are allied with moderate Muslim leaders in each country, the most vehement Islamicists are always our enemies. Therefore, we, along with the European democracies, are faced with the twin threats of external terrorism and violence perpetrated by Muslims within our own countries who sympathize with our enemies.

We must tread a fine line between legitimate defense against terrorism and religious discrimination. I do not agree with those who would have us adopt Saudi limitations on religious freedom, but apply them to Muslims; we must adhere to our own principles of religious freedom and equal protection of the laws. We have prevailed over the threats of secession, Fascism and Communism without abandoning these principles, and we will prevail against Islamic terrorism as well.

At the same time, we must draw a clear line between denouncing Islam for its triumphalism and intolerance (which is not bigotry) and denouncing certain people who happen to be Muslims (which is). There are plenty of good Muslims, and they deserve all the rights of American citizens, but there is no good Islam.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Quoted in the Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle, October, 2010, page 4.

(2) Associated Press, October 6, 2010.

Slamming Islam

"We're not attacking Islam, but Islam has attacked us...and I believe it is a very evil and wicked religion."
"But true Islam cannot be practiced in this country. You can't beat your wife. You cannot murder your children if you think they have committed adultery.....its a very violent religion."
Rev. Franklin Graham

"Given the heinously hurtful, bigoted statements of Mr Graham against ...Islam, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation Foundation (MRFF) demands that the Pentagon Chaplain Office immediately rescind the invitation to Mr Graham (to speak at National Prayer Day observance)"
Letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, signed by Michael L Weinstein on behalf of MRFF,
(upon request of several Muslim Defense Department employees)

As noted in our April 16 posting, the US District Court for Western Wisconsin has declared the law that directs the President to declare a National Prayer Day unconstitutional. But the ruling does not bar the President from doing so on his own volition, and he intends to sign the proclamation designating May 6 for that purpose. I consider any government sponsorship of religious activities, such as the Pentagon ceremony in which Rev. Graham is to speak, inappropriate.

The MRFF is dedicated to fighting the efforts of some military officers to subject thei soldiers to Christian evangelizing on base. On this point, I totally agree with Mr Weinstein and his group. The letter, quoted in part above, also objects to the participation of a Christian ministry led by Mr Graham in planning and conducting the Pentagon National Prayer Day observance. But I would like to focus on the claim that Graham's bashing of Islam is sufficient reason to rescind the invitation for him to speak there.

I am not defending all the statements quoted above; I do not believe that Islam mandates beating wives or killing children, and anyone can certainly practice "true Islam" legally in the US and elsewhere. Crimes of this type have been committed by Muslims, some even "in the name of Islam", but Islam does not command, or even condone, violence against family.

Yet the nexus between political terrorism in the world today and fervent Islam cannot be denied. Noted Israeli scholar Benny Morris wrote, " ...almost all the world's terrorism emanates from Muslim societies and is directed against non-Muslims (in the Philippines,Thailand, Nigeria, Sudan, Chechnya, India, London, Spain, the United States and Israel) or against other Muslims seen as collaborators with the infidels (in Pakistan, Gaza, Afghanistan and Indonesia." (1) Would Mr Weinstein object to Mr Morris speaking at the Pentagon, too?

Since the perpetrators of all the terrorism noted by Benny Morris have nothing in common but their Islam, there must be an aspect of that faith that impels some of its most fanatical adherents to strap-0n explosives and kill themselves and others after crying out "Allah hu akhbar!"(2) I find the common thread in these actions to be the Muslim concept of "jihad", the struggle between the forces of Islam and the enemies of Islam, which can be just about everybody else. Islamic literature and culture glorify those who give their lives for their faith ("shaheedin"). One Muslim prophecy even says that someday rocks and trees will call out to Muslims to kill the Jews hiding behind them.

Perhaps great world religions go through phases of development like people do. When Christianity was the age that Islam is now, that is the Fourteenth Century, Christian firebrands went about killing and burning Jews, Muslims and even allegedly errant Christians in the name of Christ. ( Maybe if we only wait about six hundred years, Islam will have mellowed so much that the top ayatollahs will sound like Pope John XXIII. ) But right now, Islam is in a phase of self-righteous intolerance, and even of those who do not commit violence in its name, many will cheer it on from the sidelines.

So, when Franklin Graham says that "Islam has attacked us" there is a big grain of truth in that pithy remark. All our major enemies today in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran are fanatical Muslims. So are Hamas and Hezbollah, who threaten Israel. The Pentagon is one place in this nation where this truth should trump political correctness, and pointing this out merely acknowledges reality.

But when you introduce religion into a venue that is dedicated to national security, you bring religious antagonisms into the discussion. That is why the whole idea of a National Prayer Day ceremony at the Pentagon is bad, whether the speaker is Franklin Graham, Shmuely Boteach or Louis Farrakhan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) The New Republic, April 29, 2010, page 42.

(2) Arabic for "God is Supreme!"

Four Myths About Terrorists

Much of what the Mainstream Media say about terrorists is wrong, according to a new scientific study of more than 500 Islamic terrorists by former CIA psychiatrist Marc Sageman, published in a new book entitled "Leaderless Jihad: Terror Networks in the Twenty-First Century." (1)

The book explodes four common myths about Islamic terrorists. Most of Dr Sageman's findings also apply to Marxist American terrorists as well, even though only Muslims were studied for this book.

Myth 1: Terrorists are driven by poverty.
Fact: Most terrorists are middle-class, with more upper-class than poor people. This is also true of American Marxist terrorists, such as the Weather Underground of the early 1970's. For example, Bill Ayers was the son of a utility executive, and his wife Bernardine Dohrn (Whitefish Bay HS, 1959) was the daughter of the credit manager of a Milwaukee appliance store.

Myth 2: Terrorists are crazy.
Fact: Prior to involvement in terror, very few had previously exhibited any signs of mental illness or been treated for it. In fact, according to Sageman, terrorists are in better mental health than the rest of the population of their home countries.
Among American terrorists (not included in the study), only Unabomber Ted Kaczinski showed clear signs of mental illness before he started mailing bombs.

Myth 3: Terrorists lack secular education.
Fact: Nearly two-thirds of Islamic terrorists attended a university, far more than the ten percent in their home countries with any post-high school education.
Among American terrorists, Ayers was a graduate of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, Dohrn earned bachelor's and law degrees at the University of Chicago, and Kaczinski earned a PhD in mathematics at the University of Michigan. Only about half of American high school graduates go to college at all, but the most violent radicals went to the best universities in the nation. On the other hand, Timothy McVeigh did not attend college.

Myth 4: Islamic terrorists are religious fanatics.
Fact: In Sageman's sample, only about a fourth were deeply religious when young, while nearly two-thirds were secular. Many did not even read the Quran until they were in prison, and most knew little about Islam.

Then, why do some young Muslim men become terrorists, while most do not?

Sageman found that about 80% of the Islamic terrorists in his sample were either immigrants to the West from Muslim countries, or sons or grandsons of immigrants. Many harbored a deep sense of grievance against their adoptive countries or Western Civilization. They found a common ground of grievance with other young Muslims in their communities . Often they were drawn into terrorist cells by friends or relatives who were already members.

Discussions among members of these small groups tended to reinforce and confirm the outrage that they felt against those regarded as the enemies of Islam. As the consensus of a group tended to drift in a more militant direction, those who were turned-off by militancy dropped out, leaving the hard-core members in charge. Those angry enough to take action then heard only the voices of those who felt the same way.

Although large numbers of Muslims live in the United States, as well as Western Europe, native Islamic terrorism has been a much greater problem in England, France, and Spain than here. (2) According to Sageman, the difference is that in the US the Muslims are just another minority group, along with blacks, Hispanics, Jews, etc. Muslims are accepted into American society and its economy much more than in Europe, where they are conspicuous as the main "outsider" group and experience substantial discrimination. The homogeneity of the non-Muslim population in many European countries is major factor in the perception of exclusion by the Muslims.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) University of Pennsylvania Press, as reviewed in The New Republic, October 22, 2008.

(2) None of the September 11, 2001, hijackers were US residents, nor were any of those who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993. All of them entered this country from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, and the United Arab Emirates.

"Obsession" Obsession

"American voters deserve to know whether they are targets of a multi-million 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 Council on American-Islamic Relations (1),
referring to the DVD "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West"

By now you have probably received the Obsession DVD with your Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (or other newspaper). If you have not already viewed it, I suggest that you do, if only to understand the controversy over its creation and distribution.

The DVD is full of scenes of terrorism and violence, interspersed with snippets of Islamic radicals preaching hate against Israel, the United States and western civilization. Included are comments by talking heads such as Daniel Pipes, former PLO terrorist Walid Shoebat, and Nonie Darwish, whose father committed terrorist acts against Israel on behalf of Egypt nearly 50 years ago. Although the film is strident and repetitive, it effectively conveys the message that "Radical Islam" (but not all Islam) is at war with the West, and most of the terrorism we see today is due to incitement by radical Islamic clergy.

The DVD was distributed by the Clarion Fund, Suite 800, 255 W 36th Street, New York, New York. About 28 million copies have been sent out. Gregory Ross, a spokesman for the Clarion Fund,who previously raised money for Aish HaTorah (Fire of Torah), refused to identify the leaders or funding sources of the Fund. However, the address of Clarion is the same as that of Aish Hatorah International and HonestReporting, which produced Obsession. However, a spokesman for Aish HaTorah denied any connection with Clarion or the DVD.

It is fairly obvious that the Clarion Fund is a front for Aish HaTorah, a tax-exempt charity. If Aish HaTorah could be proved to have engaged in political activity, it could lose its tax-exempt status. However, the more cogent question is, " Is Obsession intended to affect voting in the November election?"

First, I would note that Obsession does not mention of American political parties or candidates, and does not suggest voting for against anyone. The dates on the film clips indicate that the film is at least two years old, and most of it substantially older. Although there are several photos of President George W Bush, there is no mention at all of Barack Obama or John McCain.

But does the message of Obsession subliminally affect the viewer? The DVD obviously engenders hostility toward the Islamic extremists, but does not that translate into a preference for a more "hardline" candidate (i.e. McCain) over one perceived to be less aggressive toward the enemies of America (i.e. Obama)?

This question could be answered definitively by setting up a number of focus groups, half of which would view Obsession before answering a political questionnaire. If the funders of the Clarion group did so, or concluded on their own that Obsession would make viewers more likely to vote Republican, then the suspicion voiced by Mr Awad in the quote above is justified.

One factor that must be considered is that Barack Obama's father was of Muslim ancestry (though the senior Obama did not practice any religion), as was his Indonesian stepfather. Raised in Indonesia for several years, Barack Obama is no doubt more knowledgeable about Islam than any other major party candidate, now or ever before. However, he accepted Christianity over twenty years ago (unfortunately, in Jeremiah Wright's church). He never changed his Arabic middle name, Hussein, which he shares with the late Sadam and the late King of Jordan. McCain, on the other hand, has no connection to Islam at all.

Unsophisticated voters may be swayed by Obsession into voting against Obama because of his very tenuous connection to the religion of his paternal grandparents or other relatives, but I suspect that most of these voters would not have voted for the Illinois senator anyways. In his campaign appearances, including the September 26 debate, Obama has taken just as hard a line against Al Qaida and the Taliban as McCain, resolving to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden even if it means violating Pakistani sovereignty. His positions on Iraq and Iran are distinctly less belligerent than McCain's, but Islamic radicalism is not really the issue in either case. (2)

I am glad that Obsession was distributed here in Wisconsin, because I want my fellow residents to be aware of the dangers of militant Islam today, especially in the Middle East. However, the latest poll does not indicate that the DVD has effectively shifted Wisconsin voters toward McCain; if the distributors expected it to have that effect, they wasted their money. In the midst of the current credit crisis, I do not believe that attitudes toward Islam will have an appreciable impact on the coming presidential election.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) "Jewish group denies link to DVD" by Meg Laughlin, St Petersburg Times, in Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Sept. 27, 2008, page 10A.

(2) Ironically, the invasion of Iraq, which Obama consistently opposed, strengthened the relative power of Iran in the Middle East, since Sadam's Iraq was a Sunni counterweight to Shiite Iran. Obama wants to negotiate with Iran over its enrichment of uranium, but McCain would not. Neither candidate advocates bombing Iran, as that would endanger US troops in Iraq and spark a painful spike in world oil prices.

Why We Were Attacked on Sept. 11

Charlie Gibson of ABC news interviewed Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin, and asked her this question: "We talk on the anniversary of 9/11. Why do you think those hijackers attacked? Why did they want to hurt us?"

The Alaska Governor responded, "You know, there is a very small percentage of Islamic believers who are extreme and they are violent, and they do not believe American ideals, and they attacked us......they see that the only option for them is to become a suicide bomber, to get caught up in this evil, this terror....."

Although Gov. Palin correctly noted that the hijackers were suicidal Islamic terrorists, she failed to identify the particular motivation for attacking the United States, rather than other countries. Neither Gibson nor Palin addressed the specific targets: The World Trade Center and the Pentagon. (The hijacked plane that crashed in Pennsylvania was probably intended for the US Capitol.)

Shortly after the attacks, President George W Bush opined that the terrorists hated our freedom. Maybe they did, but neither Bush nor Palin grasped the real motive for the crime.

From the perspective of Al Qaida Al-Jihad (The Base for Holy War), Islam is locked in an epic struggle against the forces of Christianity, Judaism and other non-Muslim ideologies. Al Qaida seeks the triumph of Islam over these forces through jihad. Although the ultimate goal is the victory of Islam in the entire world, jihadis are most determined to first rid the Arabian Peninsula of all non-Islamic power: Christian and Jewish. The idea of a sovereign Jewish state of any size whatsoever in the Gate of Islam (Dar-al-Islam), especially in Jerusalem (al-Quds), is particularly abhorrent.

Although the United States is barred by its Constitution from establishing a religion, the Islamic fanatics consider the US a Christian nation, and its soldiers are often characterized as Crusaders. The presence of these soldiers in Saudi Arabia (1) and Iraq, together with US support for Israel and non-Islamic Arab regimes in the Middle East are an affront to Islam. For these reasons, Sheik Osama bin Laden issued a fatwa (religious decree or psak) calling on all Muslims to attack Americans. After Bin Laden and his followers moved into Afghanistan in the 1990's, the US directed airstrikes at Al Qaida training camps in that country in co-ordination with the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance.

Just as the Pentagon is the center of American military power, the World Trade Center was a symbol of American financial power. Located in New York, the office complex also served as an icon for Jewish financial power within the United States economy. Another group of jihadists tried to blow it up in 1993. It remained an inviting target in 2001.

No, the Al Qaida terrorists did not "give a fig" about American freedom or democracy; many countries are just as free (take Sweden, for example), but do nothing to thwart the establishment of Islamic hegemony in the Middle East, and are not targets of Islamic terror.

We cannot effectively resist Islamic terror until we first understand that it is directed against our power, not our freedom.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) In 2001 there were US armed forces based in Saudi Arabia, but they were withdrawn in 2003 after Sadam Hussein was deposed.

Jordan Threatens Freedom

The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, known as the most moderate and pro-American Arab country in the world, has indicted Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders for slandering Muhamad and Islam in a documentary film called "Fitna", which ties certain passages of the Koran to Islamic terrorism. If he does not appear for trial in Amman, an international warrant for his arrest will be issued by the Royal Prosecutor General. (1)

Obviously, Mr Wilders will not be visiting Jordan any time soon. Just as obviously, neither the Netherlands nor any other western democracy will extradite Wilders to Amman. But there are about 55 predominantly Muslim countries in the world, most of which provide no legal protection for speech or writings critical of Islam. With the exception of Turkey, any of these states just might shanghai Wilders to Jordan for trial and certain punishment.

The list of Muslim lands includes Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Algeria, all of which might be of interest to a documentary film-maker. Thus, the Jordanian indictment has effectively deprived Mr Wilders of the opportunity to film many of the major political and military conflicts now underway in the world. International co-operation to enforce arrest warrants is a valuable tool against terrorists, genocidal tyrants, drug-smugglers and other criminals. It is appalling that this very tool could also now be used to silence those who dare to offend Islam!

If the Jordanian indictment were an isolated act, it could be dismissed as unimportant in the struggle for freedom of expression around the world. But in fact it is a part of a large pattern of suppression of speech that offends Islamists, including:
The Iranian threat to kill author Salman Rushdie
for writing The Satanic Verses (2)
The murder of Jewish journalist Daniel Pearl in Pakistan
The burning of the Danish embassy in Damascus to protest publication of cartoons about Muhamad in Denmark
The labeling of all criticism of Islam as "hate speech" on US campuses.

All of these efforts to control and limit expression of views contrary to Islam must be resisted, if freedom is to survive in this world. You might think that Jordan, which will receive nearly $193 million of US aid this year, would be responsive to American concerns on this question. But aside from having the amiable King Abdullah II on the throne (rather than having some Hamas-type dictator running the country), the US does not buy much influence for its money: Jordan votes against the US about 70% of the time at the UN, and President Johnson could not even keep the kingdom from joining Nasser in the 1967 Six Day War.

Freedom-loving Americans should demand that Secretary Rice raise this issue with the Jordanians anyway, even if she lacks the leverage to get this obnoxious indictment cancelled. In addition, we should individually boycott Jordan and any other country that agrees to honor its warrant against Geert Wilders. I guarantee you that the Glazer Family will not be vacationing in Amman this year, and I hope that none of my readers will.

If you want to see the magnificent carved stone walls of Petra, rent Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. You'll also see Sean Connery as an old man, to boot.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Jewish World Review, 7/11/08.

(2) This lyrical novel was written in the irreverent spirit of the Monty Python films, such as Life of Brian. The death-decree was revoked by the Government of Iran after the passing of Ayatollah Ruallah Khomeini.

Shoebat's Message

Ex-PLO terrorist Walid Shoebat brought his message to Milwaukee on the evening of December 4 at UWM

The Audience: About 750 people attended (1). There were many Jews and Muslims, but the vast majority of the audience were apparently white Christian Milwaukeeans. The goal of bringing a pro-Israel message to a non-Jewish audience in a major public university setting was achieved.

Security: If JFK had such security, LBJ would never have become president. We all had to go through airport-style metal detectors, and the room was crawling with cops.

The Moderator: UWM Political Science Professor Shale Horowitz introduced Mr Shoebat and conducted the Q&A session after the speech. The mild-mannered academic was far too accomodating to the often raucous and militant questioners. We needed a Fred Thompson in this role, and got Woody Allen.

The Speaker: Walid Shoebat has an unusual background. The son of a Muslim Arab father and Christian American mother, Shoebat was raised in a suburb of Bethlehem and later emigrated to the United States. Although raised as a Muslim, he converted to Protestant Christianity in 1993. While living in the West Bank, he bombed an Israeli bank and participated in other intifada activities. Later, he led the Palestinian Student Association at Loop College in downtown Chicago.

The Message: Shoebat sees the Middle East conflict as primarily a religious, rather than nationalistic clash. His speech was loaded with quotations from the Quran about hating and someday killing Jews . Although he was careful to point out that there are good and bad people in every racial and religious group, Shoebat emphasized that Islam itself was inherently hostile to Jews, and he considered this (not a dispute over land) to be the source of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Unlike a dispute between two nations over territory, a conflict of religious ideology cannot be settled through diplomacy.(2)
Walid Shoebat told us what it was like to grow up as an Arab under Israeli occupation, and the attitudes he was expected to adopt. This view, which American audiences hear very rarely, was the most valuable part of his message.
He made clear that he is not a politician or diplomat, and could not offer any solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict other than indefinite Israeli occupation of the West Bank. He also urged that Hamas be "crushed." Shoebat said his family was better off when Israel ruled all the West Bank than when the Palestinian Authority was given limited autonomy in the region, and that other Palestinians felt the same way, but were afraid to say so openly.
Shoebat is opposed to a Palestinian state, and so is out of step with the entire world, including the current government of Israel. A poker-player would describes Shoebat's position as a "weak hand."

Q&A Period: Although the audience was pretty quiet during the hour that Walid Shoebat spoke, noisy conflict soon began when anyone present was given the opportunity to ask the speaker a question from one of two microphones. (3) Most of the "questioners" were actually angry Muslims who used the opportunity to advertize a Muslim Student Association program about to start in the Union Ballroom or to condemn Shoebat and his message. Shoebat lambasted his critics with a booming voice; he seemed to relish the confrontations. Perhaps that is why members of the audience were permitted to ask questions out loud, rather than in writing

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Estimate by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

(2) Former Ambassador Dennis Ross made the same point at his talk on November 18. However, Ross believes that by empowering moderate Palestinian leaders like Mahmoud Abbas, a durable settlement can be made.

(3) When Nonie Darwish, another Arab-American who supports Israel, spoke at Cardinal Stritch University, only written questions were permitted, to prevent exactly the type of outbursts that Shoebat faced.
I think that format should have been used this time, but apparently the speaker preferred vocal confrontation.

His Name Will Be One

Bishop Muskens of the Netherlands urges Catholics to address G-d as "Allah" in their prayers.
Kathleen Parker in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, page 11A, Aug. 21, 2007

"And it is said that G-d will be king over all the world, and on that day G-d will be one, and his name will be one."
Zecharia, 14:9

Is Bishop Muskens taking a first step to fulfilling the prophecy of Zecharia by adopting the Muslim title of the Almighty? Ibrahim Cooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, We commented that " (using Allah for G-d) reinforces the fact that Muslims, Christians and Jews all worship the same G-d." But is he right?

We must begin by recognizing that differences in language can make differences in ideology seem greater than they really are. The original documents of the three religions cited by Mr Cooper were written in Arabic, Greek, and Hebrew, respectively.

The name "Allah" is the Arabic equivalent of the Hebrew "Eloha", which means "god" in a generic sense. (For example, on Rosh Hashonoh we say in the Shmono Esray "ain eloha mibadolecha", which means "there is no god besides You". The passage makes no sense if "eloha" is meant as the proper name of G-d.) "Elohim", on the other hand, refers to the One True G-d, both in Torah and later liturgy.

So, does the Arabic word "Allah" mean the same thing as the Greek "Theos", the Latin "Deus", the Dutch "Gott" or the English "God"? If so, then Bishop Muskens and Mr Cooper have a valid point, in that devotees of all three religions are actually praying to the same Being, just using different names.

Clearly, one man may be known by two names, such Samuel Clemens and Mark Twain. The same city may be called both Istanbul and Constantinople. Since these are physical beings and places, their essences are not determined by their names. But, when we are speaking of a Being that has no form or physical substance, the name used may express a belief about the nature of this Being, so that two different names may signify two different concepts of the Being. Even the same name, as used by two people with sharply different ideologies, may also refer to two different Beings.

On this point, Judaism and Islam are the same: both believe in one Creator of the universe, without any shape or form, who has always existed and will always exist, without change. (Muslims label Jews as "infidels" only in the sense that they do not accept Muhammad as a prophet and the Quran as a divine revelation) Islam accepts Jesus as a prophet, but not as a divine being.

A small minority of Protestant Christians, called Unitarians, (1) share the Muslims' views on G-d and Jesus, but reject Muhammad. But the vast majority of the world's Christians, including the Catholics, are Trinitarians: believers in the tripartite nature of the Almighty---the Father, the Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit (2). In the Trinitarian theology, the nature of G-d changed about two thousand years ago, when He transformed one aspect of Himself into human form .

Clearly, Trinitarian Christianity is basically incompatible with the common theology of Judaism and Islam. It is not coincidental that, of the three religions discussed here, only Christianity (3) is named after its founder! Although Christians consider themselves as "monotheists", the very concept of the Trinity is anathema to true monotheism.

Accordingly, when a Trinitarian Christian uses the term "God" (or its equivalent in another language) the speaker is referring to a different concept of the nature of divinity than when a Jew or Muslim or even a Christian Unitarian uses the same name, whatever the language. For this reason, Jews and Muslims (whatever their differences on the Middle East) should join hands to oppose Christian efforts to re-introduce common prayer into the public schools or other governmental activities.

Maybe Bishop Muskens will win some friends among Dutch Muslims for his dictum on using Allah in Catholic prayers, but it is intellectually dishonest to pretend that Catholics and Muslims are really praying to the same Deity. In a very important sense, they are not----and neither are we!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Noting the similarity in doctrine between the Unitarians and Reform Jews, the leaders of the latter group sought to merge the two religions in the 1920's. As part of the elite WASP establishment in the US, the Unitarians were not interested.

(2) Formerly known as the "Holy Ghost", which nowadays has inconvenient connotations.

(3) The name Christ is an Anglicized form of the Greek Christos, which means "anointed" in English and "moshiach" in Hebrew. Significantly, many groups seeking to convert Jews to Christianity call themselves "Messianic Jews" and use Hebrew terminology (such as "Yeshua Moshiach") to conceal the true "goyish" nature of their efforts.

Hamas: Zeal for Death

By time you read this, Hamas will have seized power in Gaza. The collapse of the Palestinian Authority (PA) predicted in the Feb. 4, 2007, Glazerbeam ("State of Chaos") is happening right now. It is possible that Hamas will sever Gaza from the West Bank, where Fatah and President Mahmoud Abbas still hold sway. Entities that are not geographically contiguous often split in this way. (1)

Hamas, which means "zeal" in Arabic, is the Arabic acronym of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Over the past 20 years the group has become well known for its tactic of suicide bombings, designed to maximize civilian casualties among Israelis. In January, 2006, Hamas won control of the Palestinian parliament, and subsequently formed a coalition government with President Abbas. The coalition fractured over control of the numerous security forces of the PA, and it now appears that Hamas militias are winning in Gaza.

But how did Hamas become so enamoured of martyrdom and killing? The story begins in Egypt back in 1928 when the Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Cairo by teacher Hassan al-Banna. (2) At that time Egypt was ruled officially by King Ahmed Fuad, but in reality the country was occupied and dominated by Great Britain. Al-Banna sought to fuse Islam with Arab nationalism in a movement that would eliminate foreign influence l and establish a true Arab Muslim nation. The Brotherhood, certain of the righteousness of its cause, engaged in assassination as well as political agitation to attain its goal. The Muslim Brotherhood established militant Islam as a serious political force In Egypt; from there the ideology spread to the Palestine Mandate as well as to Syria, Iran and India (which then included what is now Pakistan).

Al-Banna stressed the importance of death as a goal of jihad (holy war). He said, "The Quran has commanded people to love death more than life...Victory can only come with the mastery of the art of death (fann al-mawt)." (3)

The government of King Farouk (who succeeded his father King Fuad in 1936) tried to suppress the Brotherhood; in 1949 Hassan Al-Banna was murdered by the King's agents.

The suppression was not successful, and shortly after the death of Al-Banna a Muslim poet and intellectual named Sayyid Qutb joined the revolutionary movement. Qutb was influenced by Western Romantic poetry, which also glorified death. (Many 19th Century American Romantic poets, such as Edgar Allan Poe, were also obsessed with death, tombs, and the like.) Qutb soon became the ideological guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, and his writings inspired Arabs and other Muslims to be willing to die as well as kill for the victory of Islam in this world.

In 1952 the Egyptian Free Officers Movement, led by Col. Gamal Abdel Nasser, overthrew the Farouk monarchy. Although Nasser was a militant Arab nationalist himself, he regarded the Muslim Brotherhood as a threat to his regime and also attempted to suppress the movement. Leaders of the Brotherhood, including Sayyid Qutb, were thrown into prison and charged with plotting revolution. In 1966 Qutb attained martyrdom at the end of a rope in a Cairo prison.

Meanwhile the Palestinian branch of the Brotherhood was establishing a network of mosques, schools, and social service agencies. The group was particularly active in Gaza, which was under Egyptian administration from 1948 until the Israeli conquest in June, 1967. While Yasser Arafat was busy hijacking planes and plotting the destruction of Israel from Jordan, Lebanon and Tunis, the Gaza affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood, now known as Hamas, was winning over the allegiance of the Palestinian population, first in Gaza, then also in the West Bank. Unlike Arafat, who adopted a facade of benevolence before Western leaders, Hamas did not court them. While Arafat welcomed Christian Arabs into the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Hamas stood for nothing but Islam. While Arafat partied at the White House, Hamas recruited bombers.

While Arafat lived, Hamas accepted him as the iconic Palestinian leader. But after his death in 2004, the group challenged his successor Mahmoud Abbas (aka Abu Mazen), who had never been a terrorist himself. Hamas won with ballots in 2006, and now it looks like the group may also win with bullets.

On one hand, a Hamas take-over of the PA may mean that Israel will face continuous rocket attacks and terrorism for the foreseeable future. On the other hand, US (and other) international pressure for Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and make other concessions as part of a "peace process" will probably fade away in the face of Hamas' intractable hostility.Do not look for any Hamas leaders shaking hands with Ehud Olmert on the White House lawn any time soon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) For example, East Pakistan rebelled in 1971 and became Bangla Desh. Efforts to merge Egypt and Syria into a United Arab Republic also failed because Israel was between them.

(2)"Who's Afraid of Tariq Ramadan?" by Paul Berman in the June 4, 2007, New Republic.

(3"The Society of the Muslim Brotherhood" by Richard P Mitchell. The quotation is a paraphrase of several statements by Al-Banna.