February 14, 2005

Hariri's Assassination

We interrupt our brief blog hiatus to simply state that B.D. hopes that the young and relatively inexperienced Syrian President, Bashar Asad, would not have grotesquely miscalculated so as to allow his mukhabarat to be behind former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri's assassination today. One cannot discount, for instance, that the assassination may have been the handiwork of other interests shrewdly attempting to create a crisis for Damascus. Or that al-Qaeda, acting indepedently, saw fit to kill Hariri for whatever reason. Commenters are invited to chime in with any theories or viewpoints on who may have been behind the vicious car bombing. Suffice it to say, however, that if the evidence ends up leading to Damascus the entire (already difficult) relationship between the U.S. and Syria will be thrown into real crisis. And rightly so. After all, it would be a poor time indeed, to say the least, for Syria to have stoked such potential instability in Lebanon--given also the potential implications for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, Iraq, and, of course, throughout the Levant generally. Developing, as they say.

MORE: Here's a pretty good initial round-up from the FT's Roula Khalaf (there is mention of the potential Syrian angle). Note too I've seen some speculation that al-Qaeda types may have been behind the operation calculating that killing Hariri hurts the House of Saud (Hariri made his money in Saudi Arabia, had extensive contacts in the Kingdom and was worth some USD 4 Billion). Another possible motivation for an al-Qaeda type group? Ginning up more tension with Syria and general chaos in the region is likely a net positive for them. Also, the group that claimed responsiblity to al-Jazeera, heretofore unknown and called "Aid and Jihad in the Lands of Syria," sounds like a name specifically chosen to cause real discomfort in Damascus. The Syrian government, of course, would only have pursued such an action surreptitiously. Finally, and contra one of Juan Cole's theses, I think there is no chance "this assassination had an economic/ mafia-type background that we are not aware of." Disgruntled contractors and such don't set off 770 pound car bombs too routinely.

STILL MORE: Don't miss Rami Khouri's analysis. It seems like many parties are going to use this assassination to resuscitate and spearhead new efforts to get Syrian troops out of Lebanon. Part of the rationale will now also be that any supposed Syrian 'stabilization' role has fallen well short with this gruesome mega-bombing near the St. George hotel on Beirut's corniche. Still, however, we need to see where the evidence leads before getting too carried away. The demarche and temporary recall of our Ambassador were fine and, all told, measured and appropriate responses. An actual suspension in diplomatic relations or more permanent recall of our Ambassador are not yet warranted, in my view.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Here's another op-ed worth reading by an American who was on the ground. He relays that even somewhat removed hotels like the Phoenicia and Monroe had all their windows shattered. The Hotel Monroe, where I've had drinks, is a hip, funky hotel managed by young, Westernized entrepreneurial types. As much as the St. George was a symbol of Beirut's old pre-75 grandeur and intrigue; the Monroe pointed to a fresh, modernistic future for the city. It will be repaired, and life will go on, but I can only imagine how somber the mood is in Beirut today among so many. With steadfastness and international support, however, I am confident that Beirut's inhabitants, who have been through much worse, will persevere through this latest carnage too.

Posted by Gregory at February 14, 2005 11:29 PM | TrackBack (9)
Comments

I'm curious, have you come across any speculation on whether Iran, through its proxy agents Hezbollah, is suspect?

Whatever happened to Imad Mughniyeh, a "Palestinian Shiite with close ties to Iran" who is also linked to Al Qaeda?

If the assassination is pinned on Syria, attention is deflected from Iran's quest to bring their heavy water nuclear facility online. If Lebanon were to have succeeded in removing Syrian troops diplomatically, if in May 2005 after the parliamentary elections the Sunni Hariri returned to office as Prime Minister, who would it have threatened most?

Posted by: sonia at February 15, 2005 01:27 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

There's a good discussion of the assassination over at Jonathan Edelstein's blog.

Posted by: Guy at February 15, 2005 03:52 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

My money is on Syria. This is right up their alley and they control most of what goes on in Lebanon. Iraq and Hezbollah and Al Qaeda would not piss off Syria by going solo, so at the minimum they had to have Syrian permission to conduct the surveillance and so forth needed for such an effort.

What does Syria gain? Delay while they keep Lebanon as their client state.

Posted by: Jim Rockford at February 15, 2005 05:38 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I have seen several people advance the idea that Syria is an unlikely suspect because they have much to lose. From this, two thoughts arise.

First, as Mr. Rockford points out, Syria has a lot of control of what happens in Lebanon; I presume it would have been harder to do this without at least tacit Syrian approval. The natural hypothesis is that Syria looked the other way while someone else did the actual killing, so that Assad wouldn't be caught with the smoking gun. I cannot speak authoritatively on this, since I have insufficient knowledge of what the evidence (if any is found) is likely to consist of.

The second is the implicit acknowledgement by all analysts that Syria would care about American disapproval. In other words, that Bush's policy of words backed by deeds has restored American credibility in the less-civilized world. This bombing can be seen as a test of that credibility.

Posted by: sammler at February 15, 2005 09:05 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

An operation of this magnitude would involve at least the consent of the Syrians, more likely their active involvement. This assassination involved a nearly one thousand pound bomb buried in the road, ongoing surveillance of the target, complex logistics and communications. If this occured without their knowledge then they are far less competent than anyone suspected. However, the Syrian government is not monolothic.

This raises two serious questions: are parts of the Syrian regime acting without the knowledge of Assad and the nominal leadership in Damascus? Did the Iranians have any prior knowledge or involvement?

Posted by: Rant Wraith at February 15, 2005 01:52 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

This is not a cerebral analysis, just a gut feeling. The young and stupid "President" Assad, sensing his grip on Lebanon may be slipping from him, had knowledge of this attack before hand and did nothing about it. This makes him guilty. Pressure from the US makes terrorists make bad decisions. This is a classic example.

Posted by: Michael Kazmac at February 15, 2005 04:26 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

"Syria has a lot of control of what happens in Lebanon; I presume it would have been harder to do this without at least tacit Syrian approval."

Interesting thought! Similarly, the USA has a lot of control of what happens in iraq; so should we presume that each similar IED is done with at least tacit US approval?

Come on, guys. Use your heads.

Posted by: J Thomas at February 15, 2005 05:56 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

It's being reported that the US is withdrawing its ambassador to Syria. I still harbor suspicions that Iran set this up and that we know this but are using the occasion to persuade Syria to cough up a few items: close the Syria/Iraq border, close the safe houses, close the accounts funding the Iraqi insurgency, hand over a few of Saddam's cronies, return the funds looted by Saddam to the Iraqi treasury, give us the goods on Iraq's supposed WMD, withdraw Syrian troops out of Lebanon and feed us intelligence on Hezbollah and Iran. Once we've fully ascertained Iran commissioned the assassination, we'll turn our attention eastward. To avoid looking opportunistic in the face of a tremendous loss to Lebanon, we'll overplay the nutty neo-con card and keep hammering away at Syria.

Posted by: sonia at February 15, 2005 06:17 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Our money is on al Qaeda or some affiliated political Islamists:

Hariri Killing – Osama Bin Laden Manipulates Bush AGAIN

Posted by: JD at February 15, 2005 08:57 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I'm leaning towards Iran. Syria would have to be the most incompetent regional player to even partake in an attack like this. However, the implication of Syria does not come from the result of suspecting Syria was responsible, it comes from the accepted notion that Syria is the largest player in the spook network in Lebanon.

Is anyone stupid enough to think that Syria has little intelligence network operating within a 10 block radius of the western embassies?

The billion dollar Hariri wasn't exactly riding around Beirut in a $5 taxi cab. He was probably employing a vast security team capable of protecting the envoy even in place like Beirut.

Amateur terror jobs are evidenced in Saudi Arabia where martyrdom operations do not fully penetrate the facilities. They are stopped short and forced to detonate outside the intended target. Hariri's hit was impeccably executed.

Posted by: Brennan Stout at February 16, 2005 12:30 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Lee Smith has written an interesting analysis at Slate.

He writes, "For his part, however, Assad is gambling that for all its tough talk, the White House has neither the troops, the time, the energy, nor the domestic political credibility to back up its threats. The Syrians are probably not wrong. After all, what kind of meaningful action can the United States take? A missile strike against Damascus will add much to Syrian prestige in the region and little to that of Washington, unless the White House is willing to commit troops—and right now those troops are tied down in Iraq. In short, Assad has called Bush's bluff."

Posted by: sonia at February 16, 2005 01:53 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

IF the neojihadist group that claimed the hit is real, and IF it was a suicide bomber then I'd say it was IRAN (because they are more neojihadist than Syria which is actually run by non-Muslims/Alawites).

If the group is phony, and if the bomb was remotely detonated, than the hit was done by Syria.

Sure: Syria does have some contacts with neojihadists - like Hizb'allah, BUT Syria only uses Hizb'aalah for selfish geopolitical aims (contr-Israel); Iran uses Hizb'allah for international jihad.

IOW: forensic evidience which expose the means of the attack will point us in the direction of the perps.

Whoever did it should get whacked for a week with cruise missiles until their miltiary - and any/all suspected WMD sites - are GONZO.

Posted by: reliapundit at February 16, 2005 04:11 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

"If the group is phony, and if the bomb was remotely detonated, than the hit was done by Syria."

Why not israel?

Or the USA?

Why couldn't al qaeda etc use a remote-controlled bomb? Do they *have* to sacrifice a loyal jihadist every time? He could always wait and blow himself up when he's about to be captured.

Let's not stir the war fever until we're actually ready to go to war.

Posted by: J Thomas at February 16, 2005 04:27 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I know very little about the Syrian status quo, but while Syria may have a lot of control over what happens in Lebannon, I wonder precisely how much control Assad himself excercises in Syria? I have a lingering impression that his hold over the Baathists etc. may well not be absolute, which might affect the purported dynamics here, would it not?

In the same vein, if the perpetrators are not in fact Syria national(ist)s, but transnationals of some sort, could this -- along with the recall of the Syrian ambassador -- actually end up as a come-to-Jesus moment for an Assad in danger of losing control?

Just adding my 2¢, on a blind pig basis!

Posted by: JM Hanes at February 16, 2005 07:15 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Have you thought about this:

Al Qaeda needs a place to run to now. Iraq is becoming untenable, possibly Saudi and Syria as well. With a few well placed IEDs, Beirut could become chaotic enough to allow them sanctuary. Unfortunately, despite what some commentators say here, producing an IED and detonating it remotely has become common knowledge in Al Qaeda circles.

Posted by: Systolic at February 16, 2005 08:02 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Syria has 20,000 occupying troops in a country with a population of about 3.7 million, a ratio very close to that of the US occupation of Iraq. However, Lebanon has been under the Syrian boot for twenty years, which I think justifies my assertion that "Syria has a lot of control of what happens in Lebanon". Give us twenty years (and a blind eye from the UN if we decide to have a massacre or two) and I doubt there would be much of a problem with IEDs in Iraq.

Posted by: sammler at February 16, 2005 11:55 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Sammler, I disagree on both counts. We couldn't stop iraqi politicians from arranging an occasional IED even after 20 years. Particularly if we were letting iraq have an economy.
And the syrians can't either. They can keep lebanon from having a government they can't accept, but they can't stop terrorists who don't act very often.

How would they do it? Maybe 20,000 troops can *intimidate* 4 million people. But you're talking about a ratio of 1:185. That one soldier can't begin to *watch* 185 people.

Posted by: J Thomas at February 16, 2005 03:34 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

My money is on Syria, particularly a few of the irredentist Ba'ath Party officials who are trying to salvage what they can before the country collapses.

That said, the Syrian gov't does not have perfect knowledge of all that goes on in Lebanon--or Syria, for that matter.

A 500-kilo bomb is not necessarily a technologically difficult problem. Any engineering graduate could do it; many without degrees could manage it. The forensic evidence could, indeed, prove useful, not so much as to triggering device (Triggers can be signatures, of course.), but on the type of explosives involved. If the explosives were off-the-shelf materials, then it's harder to figure out; if they were materials--Semtex, RDX, etc.--that are usually handled by governments, then finger pointing becomes more directional.

Iran is certainly a possible instigator, but somewhat unlikely, I think. Were this to be traced back to them, international screws would tighten both immediately and measurably. I don't think they want to take that chance right now. They don't have any particular bones to pick with Hariri. At worst, he was a general annoyance, not a problem, since he left the PM-ship. They also have easier and more effective means to goad the Saudis, if that was their point.

Destabilizing Lebanon to create a haven for AQ is sort of interesting, but I think it fails. There are too many Lebanese parties--however much animus they feel toward each other--which will unify in condemnation of this assassination. Most of these parties, I think, would welcome a tactical cleansing of the Beqaa.

The US or Israel? Sure... anything's possible. But the real world requires somewhat stronger lines of logical thought.

Posted by: John at February 16, 2005 08:51 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Kind of strange, but AQ or somebody claiming to be them denied responsibility today. They also suggested that the perpetrators were either from the Mossad (standard operating procedure) or (more surprisingly) Syrian/Lebanese intelligence.

Posted by: Guy at February 16, 2005 10:28 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

John -- are you John Burgess, the saudi expert? I'd tend to defer to your judgement. But why wouldn't israel or the US do it? Does it not get results they want?

The sense that the lebanese are blaming it on syria regardless who did it seems like a key point. In a lot of ways that means it doesn't matter who did it. And also anyone who could have predicted that result, who wanted that result, might have done it.

Who's on that list?

Posted by: J Thomas at February 16, 2005 11:09 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

JENIN & ARAFAT; FALLUJAH & ZARQAWI; LEBANON & NASRALLAH...

BOTTOM-LINE:


WHO CARES IF IRAN OR SYRIA OR BOTH WERE INVOLVED IN THE HARIRI MURDER; IT'S TIME TO FLUSH OUT THE THUGS FROM LEBANON THE WAY ISRAEL DID IN JENIN, AND THE MARINES DID IN FALLUJAH.


(AND MAYBE IT'S TIME "JACK-ASS CH'IRAQ" - WHO CLIAMS HE WAS A LONGTIME FRIEND OF HARIRI - TO QUIT ENABLING HIZB'ALLAH, AND TREAT THEM LIKE THE TERRORISTS THEY REALLY ARE!)

Posted by: reliapundit at February 17, 2005 02:07 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Yes, the same John Burgess (there are a few others of us out there who are not all the same one as I).

Does a boneheaded move by some branch of the Syrian gov't offer potential benefits to the US & Israel? Sure... it usually does. That's why it's boneheaded.

The US gov't, contrary to what many might believe, does not have the habit of offing people it likes. The Israeli gov't, while not quite so scrupulous in terms of political assassinations, in my opinion, had no bone to pick with Hariri. He did well by them.

Either the US and Israel could have goaded Syria into a boneheaded move without killing Hariri.

The dinosaurs in the Syrian Ba'ath Party, though, are exactly short-sighted enough to move against Hariri for past actions, having no thought toward the consequences.

Still, I'd like to see the results of the forensic investigation of the bomb itself. My opinion could shift it that bomb is shown to be a fertilizer-fuel oil combo, and not a professional grade of explosive.

Posted by: John Burgess at February 17, 2005 04:33 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I keep having a nagging feeling this might have something to do with Iran, considering their recent announcement of joint cooperation between Syria and Iran. Like some other posters have said, maybe Iran did this to force Syria into their camp and we, the US, are going to play along. Maybe as a political smoke screen against Iran, similar to the way was we used Turkey and the 4th ID in the run up to the 2nd Gulf War.

Posted by: Exitus at February 17, 2005 06:37 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Note: Syrian control in Lebanon is not maintained only by the Syrian army, but by the Syrian Intell service, which apparently has penetrated Lebanese society top to bottom. Rather the opposite of our current situation in Iraq, Id say.

Posted by: liberalhawk at February 17, 2005 06:36 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Syria and Iran have been close for a long time -- they were allies against Saddam back in the day. The recent announcement of joint cooperation between them isn't necessarily anything new.

Posted by: Guy at February 17, 2005 08:35 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Did nobody see the long, background piece in the FT Magazine shortly before Monday's bomb? It was called 'The last fling' and was by David Gardner.
See here.

Posted by: DavidP at February 17, 2005 09:14 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

David,

Thanks for linking to that article -- it's excellent.

Posted by: Guy at February 18, 2005 03:13 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

The future of Iran has major strategic policy consequences for the US in this region. A majority of the Iranian people who consider themselves Persian and not Arabic, would overthrow this radical Islamic theocracy if given a chance.Iran,a known terrorist state is very close to having a nuclear weapon. We can worry about "Iranian democracy" later. First comes the safety of America,our allies and our interests. Destroy the mullahs...strike Iran now!

Experts say that Iran funds, arms and trains Hizballah, while Syria, the main powerbroker in Lebanon, lends logistical support.

Hizballah has been on the State Department's list of terrorist organizations for years. Hizballah was blamed for several suicide bombings in Beirut in 1983, in which 260 U.S. Marines and 60 French soldiers were killed.

"Unfortunately, time is proving, and the situation is proving, beyond any doubt that Iran has very obvious interference in our business - a lot of money

Posted by: N/A at February 18, 2005 10:16 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

This appeared today ( Sat 2/19) on debka.com, Israeli web site:

"French and Israeli intelligence have solid evidence that Syrian military intelligence orchestrated Hariri assassination. Earlier, Syrian president fired service chief Gen. Hassan Khalil, replaced him with own brother-in-law Gen. Asaf Shawkat."

This is going to be interesting.

Posted by: ex-FSO (R) at February 20, 2005 12:44 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I wonder if the french will reveal their solid evidence. That would be interesting.

Posted by: J Thomas at February 20, 2005 04:05 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

The contradictory signals coming out of Syria seem to indicate that Bashar is not fully in control. See....

Posted by: DavidP at February 21, 2005 04:16 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Interestingly, many in Lebanon are now looking to the example of Ukraine. See
here...

Posted by: DavidP at February 22, 2005 06:55 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

You're right, you have to think logically about who would do such a thing based on cui bono - who benefits?

Same with some of the inter-religious violence in Iraq. Here's a post that talks a little about what could be happening in Iraq:

http://bloogeyman.blogspot.com/2005/02/everything-is-ponteing-to-trouble.html

You have to think logically about it.

Posted by: Think Logically at February 22, 2005 07:28 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Syria and Hizbullah are basically a proxies of the Iranian govenment any ways. Syria couldn't have done the killing without Iranian orders.Iran is known sponsor of Islamic terrorism.

Posted by: N/A at February 22, 2005 08:00 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

How funny is it that arafat is gay? How big a sin is that for muslims?

Kinda explains his escape from Syria dressed as a woman, huh?

Just like Lou Gehrig, Arafat's disease will be given its own name. Arafat's Immuno Deficiency Syndrome. Of course, it will come to be known by the acronym!


"Arafat had a blood disease that was depressing his immune system. We know that he suddenly dropped considerable weight - possibly as much as one-third of all his body weight. We know that he is suffering intermittent mental dysfunction. What does this sound like?

Based on the symptoms Yasser Arafat was suffering from, as well as accounts of his rampantly homosexual past, political pundits and medical experts believe the blood-soaked Muslim terror chief is died from complications related to the AIDS virus.

Arafat was hospitalized outside of Paris for more than a week with blotchy skin, a low platelet count that was affecting his immune system, decreased mental capacity and a considerable loss of weight – all indicators of the presence of AIDS.

His homosexual tendencies have been attested to by numerous sources, including a now infamous set of surveillance videos taken by his former communist allies in Romania showing Arafat in perverted encounters with his bodyguards.


Intelligence analyst John Loftus told ABC News last month that the CIA had known for years Arafat was infected with AIDS.

Allegations regarding Arafat’s homosexuality have been fueled primarily by evidence provided by his former communist allies in Romania.

During the 1970’s and 1980’s, Arafat was a regular in Nicolae Ceausescu’s Bucharest, where Romanian intelligence and its KGB overlords were providing the PLO with the means to gain legitimacy in the West.

Little did Arafat know that Lt.-Gen. Ion Pacepa, the deputy chief of Romania's intelligence service, had rigged his guest suites with surveillance equipment.

In his book “Red Horizons”, Pacepa unveils Arafat as an insatiable homosexual by recalling a telephone conversation with Constantin Munteaunu, a general assigned to the PLO.

"I just called the microphone monitoring center to ask about the 'Fedayee,'" Arafat's code name, explained Munteaunu. "After the meeting with the Comrade, he went directly to the guest house and had dinner. At this very moment, the 'Fedayee' is in his bedroom making love to his bodyguard. The one I knew was his latest lover. He's playing tiger again. The officer monitoring his microphones connected me live with the bedroom, and the squawling almost broke my eardrums. Arafat was roaring like a tiger, and his lover yelping like a hyena."

Pacepa wrote that after reading the full intelligence reports, “I felt a compulsion to take a shower whenever I had been kissed by Arafat, or even just shaken his hand."

According to:

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/st...514%255E663,00.html

and other sources.

Posted by: Belgravia at February 22, 2005 08:13 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Belgravia, what value do you get from defaming the dead?

You could be right, or you could be parroting israeli propaganda. Bush like Clinton before him had forbidden Sharon to kill Arafat, and he'd recently rescinded that. All of a sudden Arafat shows up dead. Maybe there was no connection. Maybe Arafat had AIDS and the israelis didn't give it to him. I don't know. You don't know. What do you gain by spreading this?

Posted by: J Thomas at February 23, 2005 06:59 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

J Thomas,

I don't gain anything. Being a Doctor, I just thought
that article by Herald Sun re Arafat having Aids was an interesting one. I am not trying to spread anything. What are you a Dictator? Are you telling me I am not supposed to read articles and think?

what value do you get from forbidding people to read articles and share theie thoughts?

Posted by: Belgravia at February 23, 2005 08:13 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

'Europe Will Be Islamic by the End of the Century'

by Robert Spencer


How quickly is Europe being Islamized? So quickly that even historian Bernard Lewis, who has continued throughout his honor-laden career to be strangely disingenuous about certain realities of Islamic radicalism and terrorism, told the German newspaper Die Welt forthrightly that "Europe will be Islamic by the end of the century."

Or maybe sooner. Consider some indicators from Scandinavia this past week:


Sweden's third-largest city, Malmø, according to the Swedish Aftonbladet, has become an outpost of the Middle East in Scandinavia: "The police now publicly admit what many Scandinavians have known for a long time: They no longer control the situation in the nations's third largest city. It is effectively ruled by violent gangs of Muslim immigrants. Some of the Muslims have lived in the area of Rosengård, Malmø, for twenty years, and still don't know how to read or write Swedish. Ambulance personnel are attacked by stones or weapons, and refuse to help anybody in the area without police escort. The immigrants also spit at them when they come to help. Recently, an Albanian youth was stabbed by an Arab, and was left bleeding to death on the ground while the ambulance waited for the police to arrive. The police themselves hesitate to enter parts of their own city unless they have several patrols, and need to have guards to watch their cars, otherwise they will be vandalized."

The Nordgårdsskolen in Aarhus, Denmark, has become the first Dane-free Danish school. The students now come entirely from Denmark's fastest-growing constituency: Muslim immigrants.


Also in Denmark, the Qur'an is now required reading for all upper-secondary school students. There is nothing wrong with that in itself, but it is unlikely, given the current ascendancy of political correctness on the Continent, that critical perspectives will be included.


Pakistani Muslim leader Qazi Hussain Ahmed gave an address at the Islamic Cultural Center in Oslo. He was readily allowed into the country despite that fact that, according to Norway's Aftenposten, he "has earlier make flattering comments about Osama bin Laden, and his party, Jamaat-e-Islami, also has hailed al-Qaeda members as heroes." In Norway, he declined to answer questions about whether or not he thought homosexuals should be killed.

Elsewhere in Europe the jihad is taking a more violent form. Dutch officials have uncovered at least fifteen separate terrorist plots, all aimed at punishing the Netherlands for its 1,300 peacekeeping troops in Iraq. And in Spain, Moroccan Muslims, including several suspected participants in the March 11 bombings in Madrid, have taken control of a wing of a Spanish prison. From there they broadcast Muslim prayers at high volume, physically intimidated non-Muslim prisoners, hung portraits of Osama bin Laden, and boasted, "We are going to win the holy war." The guards' response? They asked the ringleaders please to lower the volume on the prayers.

What are European governments doing about all this? France is pressing forward with an appeasement campaign to free two French journalists held hostage by jihadists in Iraq. The Swedish state agency for foreign aid is sponsoring a "Palestinian Solidarity Conference," which aims, among other things, to pressure the European Union to remove the terrorist group Hamas from the EU's list of terrorist groups -- despite Hamas's long history of encouraging and glorifying the murder of civilians by suicide bombers.

What Europe has long sown it is now reaping. Bat Ye'or, the pioneering historian of dhimmitude, the institutionalized oppression of non-Muslims in Muslim societies, chronicles in her forthcoming book Eurabia how it has come to this. Europe, she explains, began thirty years ago to travel down a path of appeasement, accommodation, and cultural abdication before Islam in pursuit of short-sighted political and economic benefits. She observes that today "Europe has evolved from a Judeo-Christian civilization, with important post-Enlightenment/secular elements, to a 'civilization of dhimmitude,' i.e., Eurabia: a secular-Muslim transitional society with its traditional Judeo-Christian mores rapidly disappearing."

After the Beslan child massacres, however, there are signs from Eastern Europe that this may be changing. Last Sunday Poland turned away one hundred Chechen Muslims who were trying to enter the country from Belarus. This is the sort of measure that the countries west of Poland have been so far unwilling to take. But since one cannot by any means screen out the jihadists from the moderate Muslims, and the moderates are not helping identify the jihadists either, what choice did the Poles have?

It might not be too long before they will have to turn away entrants from Scandinavia and France as well.
Mr. Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and the author of Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West (Regnery Publishing -- a HUMAN EVENTS sister company) and Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith (Encounter Books).

Posted by: Potter at February 23, 2005 08:23 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Belgravia, I certainly did not forbid you to post whatever you want. I only wanted to ask you about your desires.

See, this is either medical evidence or it's israeli black propaganda. I don't see any way to tell which at this point, particularly since the link you provided doesn't work. But you seemed to enthusiastically present it as fact, and your attitude seems to vilify the dead Arafat. I naturally wondered both why you're so credulous and why you care so much about this dead man.

So I asked, and all Ive gotten in response so far is an accusation of censorship.

Posted by: J Thomas at February 23, 2005 10:15 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

is it just me, or is it kinda uncool of people to use the tag "belgravia" in comments when the author isn't me? crazy what happens when there's no time to monitor the blog!

Posted by: greg at February 24, 2005 12:53 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

ok greg. Whatever you say. Uncool for me to use the tag belgravia. Now I'm using."bel". For some kind of reason I liked Belgravia better.

To Thomas,

Some people are just suspicious of others. What desires? . I am just a Physician from India who was fascinated by that news. I read that article in Herald sun and I thought I might share that with the others. As for my opinion as a Physician I should say yes. I strongly believe Arafat. was infected with the aids virus , given his very suspicious sign and symptoms i,e weight loss; his depressed his immune system without any history of cancer , chrmotherapy, and lack of using corticosteroids, the only remaining differential would be HIV infection.

Posted by: bel at February 24, 2005 09:40 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Bel, did you actually see the medical records?

The Mossad would naturally spread black propaganda about Arafat. Or it could be true. No way to tell without actually seeing a medical record you can trust.

Are there any poisons that can give similar results quickly? Gamma radiation could give the intestinal problems and depressed immune system, for example. There's no proof that Mossad killed Arafat within a few months after Bush said it was OK, but that's a reasonable alternative hypothesis.

As a physician from india you may not have noticed the intensely political implications of all this. I'd say the choices are that Arafat died of AIDS or Arafat was poisoned by the Israelis who then spread the word he died of AIDS. I don't see a third choice, unless it's that he accidentally died of something unrelated and the israelis spread the word he died of AIDS just on general principle.

Posted by: J Thomas at February 24, 2005 10:15 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Many people are proned to be conspiracy theorists;
middle easterns in particular. I remember in the immidiate aftermath of 9/11 . Syria started the rumer that cia was involved in the destruction of twin towers.I even met some musilms in India that thought that way They even claimed that those jets were conducted by remote towers of cia. Is there a difference between you and for example the naive illiterateTaxi Cab Driver in Pakistan that may think the way you do?
What I came up with was scientific, based on many patienst that I have seen. However your type of thinking is more of a naive one.

Posted by: bel at February 25, 2005 12:34 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Bel, what evidence do you have that the data which fits your patients was real data?

Posted by: J Thomas at February 25, 2005 01:23 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Dear J Thomas,

I will give you an example.
A patient comes to you with shortness of breath, fever ; you Listen to the lungs you hear rales and crepitatins. You do cbc you see leukocytosis. What are the chances that your patient has pneumonia? I would say very likely; you have to start broad spectrum antibiotics. The only reason you do culture and sensitivity is to confirm ,;Find out what organism and sensitivity of the organism to different antibiotics.

I case of Arafat , his immune system was knocked out with considerable weight loss - possibly as much as one-third of all his body weight. We know that he is suffering intermittent mental dysfunction.
We know about his homosexual past(I had read about his homosexual tendencies years before).
So what is the most likely diagnosis? HIV/AIDS. Given the fact that all other differentials(except Aids) were ruled out.
Did the doctors need to confirm his HIV status with Elisa and Western blot? Yes , but they did not do that because you need a consent. Would that have made a big difference in the diagnosis? No.

Do I think Arafat has Aids for sure? I wouldn't say for sure, but I would say highly likely.

Regards.

Posted by: bel at February 25, 2005 07:58 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Bel, you keep using present tense as if he is still alive.

And you keep talking as if you believe everything you read.

It looks to me as if there are two main possibilities here, either he died of AIDS or everything you quote is israeli disinformation. I see no way to choose between those at the moment, except that it's rather a coincidence for him to die of AIDS so soon after Bush told Sharon it was OK to kill him.

You talk as if you think there's only one main possibility, as if you have some reason to think it isn't disinformation.

Posted by: J Thomas at February 25, 2005 08:14 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I agree.Everything is possible; Arafat may have die from anything As I said ,It is not for sure, but highly likely that he had Aids.

One comparison is the destruction twin towers.Is there a possiblity that bin laden was not invloved? Is there a possibility that cia had planted remote control in the jets(as Syrians claimed) and the towers were hit by the cia? I would say possible but not likely. You only have to be very naive to think cia was involved.

Posted by: bel at February 25, 2005 08:33 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Bel, we have a tape of bin Ladin saying he was involved. So to decide that he wasn't involved you have to think the tape was created by the CIA, and that bin Ladin then failed to renounce it -- perhaps because he was dead or in hiding and all the reports from him since are CIA reports? And at that point, whether or not the *old* bin Ladin was involved, the new one surely is.

About remote control, we have reports from passengers in the fourth plane saying that one wasn't remote control. Could that be faked? I expect the NSA could, but it's a whole lot of trouble to go to for a small reward. It seems unlikely. So if the fourth plane had real fanatics in it, why not the first three too? Why would "Syrians" even know? Unless they were CIA agents who knew the plan, they'd just be guessing like everybody else.

The slightly more reasonable view would be that bin Ladin and the CIA (or somebody) were cooperating. The various reports of FBI agents called off the case etc would seem to further that but there isn't enough evidence. They could get called off the case because somebody was watching carefully and there wasn't enough evidence yet to justify spooking them. Etc. And if the terrorists were being treated carefully before 9/11 that doesn't mean that 9/11 was expected or known. And of course it needn't be CIA that was following them, we have lots of more-or-less independent spy groups. CIA is only a convenient label.

So we have a hierarchy of conspiracy theories.

"CIA" did it and bin Ladin was a member.
"CIA" did it in cooperation with al qaeda.
"CIA" knew it was coming and Bush wanted it.
"CIA" knew it was coming but didn't tell anybody.
"CIA" knew a lot and didn't tell enough.
"CIA" knew a lot and told about it but got ignored.

Any of these would be enough of a scandal that we'd get a cover-up. Unfortunately the alternative,

"CIA" was clueless and it happened with no advance warning.

is just as much a scandal. That reminds me of an old joke, where a woman says "If I don't say anything people will think I'm stupid, but if I speak up they'll *know* it. Wottle I do?". And the response was "Keep quiet and leave them guessing." As much as possible that's what the Bush administration is doing. No matter how the details work out it's a scandal that it happened on their watch, and the best they can do is leave the details as blurry as possible.

With Arafat, either he had AIDS or the israelis poisoned him and lied about him after he was dead. Mostly nothing in between. No evidence to choose between them except the timing is extremely suspicious.

Posted by: J Thomas at February 26, 2005 12:52 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I would still tend more towards Arafat had Aids. Poisoning was ruled out by French physicians. Urine and blood toxicology were all negaitive. I wouldn't lean toward the hypothesis that French may have been involved in a cover up, since the French presiden Jack Schirak is a known friend of the Islamic thugs and Islamofascists such as Saddam who murdered hudreds of of thousands of Iraqi's , the Iranian moulahs such as Khomeneni who are famous in murdering Iranians who oppose them; and perhaps Jack Scirack was also in love with Arafat since he was a terrorist(at least before taking over the Palestinaisn aouthority was responsible for massacre of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics, a brutal deed that shocked the world.

Still fewer people may know that in March 1973, Arafat ordered a Black September attack on the Saudi embassy in Sudan, where Ambassador Cleo Noel, Deputy Chief of Mission George C. Moore and Belgian diplomat Guy Eid were taken hostage at a reception. They were brutally murdered.

From Israel to Jordan, Lebanon to Germany, the Sudan to Greece, the attacks and the murders by Arafat's PLO-connected factions are known. But by 1988, perhaps sensing the need for a change in tactics, Arafat did something unexpected: He publicly renounced terrorism as a means to achieving a Palestinian state ;but he still continued terrorizing the unsuspected innocents;whether by supporting suicide bombing attacks or what have you .

I personally am a Liberal and naturally not in favor of Bush' But I admire him for his efforts to eradicate Isamic terror which is the root of all misery in the world. The islamists have global aspiration as they say are trying to overcome the world and convert everyone to Islam. What you see today is not a sense of nationalism in these murderers but Islamism.

Do you know what the Islamists are doing today in India? Do you know how they murder the innocen just because they think non-muslims are Kafirs(Infidils). If you don't know let me know and Iwill update you.

Now whether he died of Aids or as you may suspect Bush ordered his assasination indirectly; Who gives a damn.

Posted by: bel at February 27, 2005 01:37 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

"Now whether he died of Aids or as you may suspect Bush ordered his assasination indirectly; Who gives a damn."

Bel, obviously you give a damn. You've been aguing about it largely without data for some days now.

Posted by: J Thomas at February 27, 2005 09:27 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

No, there was data that I talked about. Data was from the Arab and French physicians. They released data about Arafat and his depressed immune system. They talked about scoping Arafat's GI tract and not finding anything;They talked about his negative blood and Urine Toxicology. They talked about his weight loss and unstable mental status. that's why many came up withHIV/ AIDS.

Now , I do agree with you in that he either had AIDS or was killed . However I would suspect Aids more than anything else.

But the important thing is that aother terrorist is gone.

There are no good terrorists.The only good terrorists are the ones who are dead whether they got Aids and died or were killed.

Posted by: bel at February 28, 2005 02:57 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Bel, I'm not clear that there are no good terrorists. That's a lot like saying there are no good soldiers. Haganah did terrorist acts, though it didn't get the publicity for it that Irgun or the Stern gang did, and that gives us Shamir, Begin and Sharon. Were none of them good? OK, no, none of them were. But perhaps some other terrorists were. It isn't all black and white. Was Allawi bad to fund terrorists in iraq before the liberation? Maybe so, but just maybe he was doing the right thing. I think the terrorist Maquis in WWII who attacked nazis and french collaborators were doing right. They couldn't win but they pinned down german forces that would otherwise have been available at the front. They were terrorist heroes.

Posted by: J Thomas at February 28, 2005 04:01 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

We are talking about two very different things. The difference is between day and night.

I was merely talking about Islamic terrorists. I was talking about the type of terrorism that is global
in order to suvert or kill the non-musilm and creation of a pan-Islamic state the way Al-Qaeda, Hiezbala, Hamas, Islamic Jihad are dreaming. That is a totally different concept than usual assisinatons for purpuse of self defense or what have you. The Non Islamics and even many regular muslims care about life, self defense and prosperity of their countries. So no, I wouldn't exactly blame for example Indians, Philipinos, Israelis, Russians ,Americans who may assasinate Islamic fascists in their countries in order to defend their people from Islamofascists and terrorists. Of course in the course of action some innocent bystanders may also perish which is unfortunate. For example in the first attack against fallujah in retaliation for the killing of American humanatarian workers which were first burned and then mutilated by the Islamists, America killed over 800 people,some of whome were women and cHildren. This is unfortunate but this is war. You can not aleways perfor surgical attacks in which the only ones who are killed would be the actual Islamic terrorists. I wouldn't blame Russian anti Islamic terror operations in which many Chechnians have been killed . Civilian casualty is unavoidable.They (The islamic terrorists) care much about 72 virgins of paradise. They do not value life but they value death. Killing the Kafir(infidel) for them is "savab"(a good deed) to establish the religion of majestic Allah on Earth.


With Islamic terrorists , "enemy personnel" can be anyone from an English Hi humanitarian worker in Iraq, an Indian Kafir(Infidel who doesn't believe in Allah), a Russian,A communist, An Algerian muslim kid, a Dutch filmmaker(van Gough) or Jewish toddler. In short, the enemy is anyone not a Muslim(or sometimes a muslim) who does not believe the world is destined to be ruled by Islam.

You can not make peace with someone calls for the destruction of the world and it's "infidels" (non-Muslims) in general.) More blood has been shed in the name of religion than for any other cause.


Remember that is the dream of all Islamic terrorists. Remember, they have those 72 virgins waiting for them in paradise.

Posted by: bel at February 28, 2005 04:57 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Resposnse to bel at February 28, 2005 04:57 AM

Yeap. Muhammad was the very first Islamic terrorist.Islamic terrorism is based on Islam as revealed through the Qu’ran.There is no difference between Islam and Islamic fundamentalism, which is a totalitarian construct.
As you mentioned,in Islam All infidels are to be converted, enslaved or killed.As long as the Koran exists, Islam will continue to oppress, murder, enslave, threaten, lie and terrorize innocent people.
-----------------------

This is One of the most astoundingly hard hitting and truthful articles I've ever seen.Review this web site and you will acknowledge.

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Silas/terrorism.htm

"""MUHAMMAD'S EARLY TERRORIST ACTS""""

After moving to Medina, Muhammad began to have conflict with the Jews and "PAGANS" in the area. I'll focus on several incidents, not necessarily in chronological order, that illustrate Muhammad as a terrorist.

The first terrorist incident involves Muhammad's command to his followers to "kill any Jew who comes under your power".

From Guillaume, op cit, page 369:

"The apostle said, "Kill any Jew who falls into your power." Thereupon Muhayyisa b. Masud leapt upon Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish merchant with whom they had social and business relations, and killed him. Huwayyisa was not a Muslim at the time though he was the elder brother. When Muhayyisa killed him Huwayyisa began to beat him, saying, 'You enemy of God, did you kill him when much of the fat on your belly comes from his wealth?' Muhayyisa answered, 'Had the one who ordered me to kill him ordered me to kill you I would have cut your head off.'"

END OF QUOTE

This story is also supported in the Sunan of Abu Dawud, Book 13, Number 2996:

Narrated Muhayyisah: The Apostle of Allah said: If you gain a victory over the men of Jews, kill them. So Muhayyisah jumped over Shubaybah, a man of the Jewish merchants. He had close relations with them. He then killed him. At that time Huwayyisah (brother of Muhayyisah) had not embraced Islam. He was older than Muhayyisah. When he killed him, Huwayyisah beat him and said: O enemy of Allah, I swear by Allah, you have a good deal of fat in your belly from his property.

END OF QUOTE

This murder was committed upon Muhammad's command. Note that this Muslim murderer would have killed a family member at the drop of a hat. Muhammad was no better than a bigoted criminal boss, ordering his men to wantonly murder Jewish people. Hitler did this. And, this is what Serbs are doing to the Kosovan Muslims. Muhammad's command to murder Jews puts him in the same category as Milosovic, Hitler, and others who have persecuted Jews throughout history.

A quote from an Islamic scholar - Wensinck writes in his, "Muhammad and the Jews of Medina" [2], page 113:

"It is remarkable that tradition attributes Muhammad's most cruel acts to divine order, namely the siege of Qaynuqa, the murder of Kab, and he attack upon Qurayzah. Allah's conscience seems to be more elastic than that of his creatures."..... Ibn Ishaq and al-Waqidi report that the prophet said the morning after the murder (of Kab Ashraf), "Kill any Jew you can lay your hands on.".

This incident is also documented in Tabari's History [3], page 97 of volume 7.

This shows that Muhammad had unsuspecting people, those who even had good relations with Muslims, murdered in cold blood because they were Jewish. There was no justification to murder these Jews other than they were not Muhammad's followers. These actions were the work of Muhammad's terrorists committing murder.

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

The second terrorist incident involves another one of Muhammad's requests: this one for his men to murder an old Jewish man named Abu Afak. Abu Afak was 120 years. Abu Afak had urged his fellow Medinans to question Muhammad.

From Guillaume, op cit., page 675:

SALIM B. UMAYR'S EXPEDITION TO KILL ABU AFAK

Abu Afak was one of the B. Amr b. Auf of the B. Ubayda clan. He showed his disaffection when the apostle killed al-Harith b. Suwayd b. Samit and said:

"Long have I lived but never have I seen

An assembly or collection of people

More faithful to their undertaking

And their allies when called upon

Than the sons of Qayla when they assembled,

Men who overthrew mountains and never submitted,

A rider who came to them split them in two (saying)

"Permitted", "Forbidden", of all sorts of things.

Had you believed in glory or kingship

You would have followed Tubba

[NOTE: the Tubba was a ruler from Yemen who invaded that part of what is present Saudi Arabia: the Qaylites resisted him]

The apostle said, "Who will deal with this rascal for me?" Whereupon Salim b. Umayr, brother of B. Amr b. Auf, one of the "weepers", went forth and killed him. Umama b. Muzayriya said concerning that:

You gave the lie to God's religion and the man Ahmad! [Muhammad]

By him who was your father, evil is the son he produced!

A "hanif" gave you a thrust in the night saying

"Take that Abu Afak in spite of your age!"

Though I knew whether it was man or jinn

Who slew you in the dead of night (I would say naught).

END OF QUOTE

Additional information is found in the Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, (Book of the Major Classes) by Ibn Sa'd, Volume 2, [4], page 32:

Then occurred the "sariyyah" [raid] of Salim Ibn Umayr al-Amri against Abu Afak, the Jew, in [the month of] Shawwal in the beginning of the twentieth month from the hijrah [immigration from Mecca to Medina in 622 AD], of the Apostle of Allah. Abu Afak, was from Banu Amr Ibn Awf, and was an old man who had attained the age of one hundred and twenty years. He was a Jew, and used to instigate the people against the Apostle of Allah, and composed (satirical) verses [about Muhammad].

Salim Ibn Umayr who was one of the great weepers and who had participated in Badr, said, "I take a vow that I shall either kill Abu Afak or die before him. He waited for an opportunity until a hot night came, and Abu Afak slept in an open place. Salim Ibn Umayr knew it, so he placed the sword on his liver and pressed it till it reached his bed. The enemy of Allah screamed and the people who were his followers, rushed to him, took him to his house and interred him.

END OF QUOTE

From a contemporary Muslim scholar - Ali Dashti's "23 Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad", [5], page 100:

"Abu Afak, a man of great age (reputedly 120 years) was killed because he had lampooned Mohammad. The deed was done by Salem b. Omayr at the behest of the Prophet, who had asked, "Who will deal with this rascal for me?" The killing of such an old man moved a poetess, Asma b. Marwan, to compose disrespectful verses about the Prophet, and she too was assassinated."

Prior to listing all of the assassinations Muhammad had ordered, Ali Dashti writes on page 97:

"Thus Islam was gradually transformed from a purely spiritual mission into a militant and punitive organization whose progress depended on booty from raids and revenue from the zakat tax."

REVIEW

Here another man was murdered upon Muhammad's command. This man was 120 years old. He was no physical threat to Muhammad and he did not urge people to commit violent acts against Muhammad or the Muslims. There was no discussion with Jewish leaders, there was no dialogue with Abu Afak; it was just an outright murder of another one of Muhammad's critics. Abu Afak urged the people who lived in Medina to doubt and leave Muhammad. Abu Afak found that Muhammad's sayings were strange and dictatorial. He chided the Arabs who put their faith in Muhammad. Muhammad heard of this and viewed the 120 year old man as a threat to his credibility, not to his life. Nowhere does it say that Abu Afak urged his fellow Arabs to attack or harm Muhammad. Yet for speaking his mind, for the benefit of his friends, this man was murdered by Muhammad.

The last statement in Umama b. Muzayriya's verse reveals something though:

"Though I knew whether it was man or jinn

Who slew you in the dead of night (I would say naught)."

This statement displays that the Muslims knew exactly what they were doing. They knew it was cold-blooded murder that they were committing upon Muhammad's request. They wanted to keep it secret, they wanted to hide their evil deeds from the populace at large. That's why Umama said he wouldn't reveal who murdered Abu Afak.

When I think of what type of people order their followers to commit murder, I only can think of organized crime bosses or corrupt political figures. Saddam Hussein comes to mind. How would an Iraqi be treated if he spoke out about Saddam? Amnesty International just reported that over 1500 political prisoners were executed in Iraq last year.

Or take the Ayatollah Khomenni. His fundamentalist Islamic regime had other dissident Iranians murdered all over the world. These murderous Muslims represent exactly what Muhammad was all about. They follow Muhammad's methodology: kill those who are a threat to your credibility and power over others.

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

The third incident involves Muhammad's request for his men to murder a woman named Asma b. Marwan.

Quoting from Guillaume, pages 675, 676.

UMAYR B. ADIYY'S JOURNEY TO KILL ASMA D. MARWAN

"She was of B. Umayyya b. Zayd. When Abu Afak had been killed she displayed disaffection. Abdullah b. al-Harith b. Al-Fudayl from his father said that she was married to a man of B. Khatma called Yazid b. Zayd. Blaming Islam and its followers she said:

"I despise B. Malik and al-Nabit

and Auf and B. al-Khazraj.

You obey a stranger who is none of yours,

One not of Murad or Madhhij. {1}

Do you expect good from him after the killing of your chiefs

Like a hungry man waiting for a cook's broth?

Is there no man of pride who would attack him by surprise

And cut off the hopes of those who expect aught from him?"

Hassan b. Thabit answered her:

"Banu Wa'il and B. Waqif and Khatma

Are inferior to B. al-Khazraj.

When she called for folly woe to her in her weeping,

For death is coming.

She stirred up a man of glorious origin,

Noble in his going out and in his coming in.

Before midnight he dyed her in her blood

And incurred no guilt thereby."

When the apostle heard what she had said he said, "Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?" Umayr b. Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he [Muhammad] said, "You have helped God and His apostle, O Umayr!" When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, "Two goats won't butt their heads about her", so Umayr went back to his people.

Now there was a great commotion among B. Khatma that day about the affair of bint [girl] Marwan. She had five sons, and when Umayr went to them from the apostle he said, "I have killed bint Marwan, O sons of Khatma. Withstand me if you can; don't keep me waiting." That was the first day Islam became powerful among B. Khatma; before that those who were Muslims concealed the fact. The first of them to accept Islam was Umayr b. Adiy who was called the "Reader", and Abdullah b. Aus and Khuzayma b. Thabit. The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of B. Khatma became Muslims because they saw the power of Islam."

{1} The note reads "Two tribes of Yamani origin."

END OF QUOTE

And from Ibn Sa'd's, "Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir" [op cit] volume 2, page 31.

"SARIYYAH OF UMAYR IBN ADI"

Then (occurred) the sariyyah of Umayr ibn adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi against Asma Bint Marwan, of Banu Umayyah Ibn Zayd, when five nights had remained from the month of Ramadan, in the beginning of the nineteenth month from the hijrah of the apostle of Allah. Asma was the wife of Yazid Ibn Zayd Ibn Hisn al-Khatmi. She used to revile Islam, offend the prophet and instigate the (people) against him. She composed verses. Umayr Ibn Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling. He searched her with his hand because he was blind, and separated the child from her. He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced up to her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the prophet at al-Medina. The apostle of Allah said to him: "Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?" He said: "Yes. Is there something more for me to do?" He [Muhammad] said: "No two goats will butt together about her. This was the word that was first heard from the apostle of Allah. The apostle of Allah called him Umayr, "basir" (the seeing).

END OF QUOTE

Posted by: potter at February 28, 2005 07:33 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

we will never forget Mr hariri and i wish that Syria go out

Posted by: vanessa at March 3, 2005 07:30 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

vanessa at March 3, 2005 07:30 PM

Why so much violence? Why terror in the name of Islam? Why Hariri was murdered?

Some say Christians modernized; why can’t Muslims? There is a simple answer to that. The New Testament does not contain so much violence and terror as does the Quran. I don’t think the Bible is factual. It is mostly myths and legends. Nonetheless, the Jesus of the Bible, even though mythical, is a saintly figure. He is the embodiment of goodness. So if you don’t mind believing in fairytales, Christianity can make you a good person. Of course fanatics are everywhere but the message if Christ is not fanatical. Recall when the Pharisees brought a prostitute to him, asking him what to do with her! His response was: “Let the one who has not sinned throw the first stone.” If you really practice this teaching alone you will become a good human being. And isn't this the purported purpose of religions?

But Islam is different. The author of Islam was a vile man. He is not a mythological figure. He really existed and his acts are recorded. Many ludicrous miracles are attributed to him but once you put aside all those nonsense and study this man’s life, the portrait of a psychopath emerges. Muhammad was anything but saintly. There is not a single act of goodness in this man’s entire life. Even his kindness and generosity were manipulative and politically motivated. Take the example of his largesse to the Meccans. He raided the big tribe of Hawazin, killed many of them, took away all their belongings and captured their wives and children. Their elders came to him supplicating for mercy. They brought along Shima, his milk-sister, the daughter of Halima who had nursed him for five years when he was a child to tell him about his childhood among them and to soften his heart. She reminded him how she used to carry him on her back and how tenderly her people took care of him. He told them if they convert to Islam they can choose between their loved ones and their property. Is that a choice? They chose their loved ones. Then Muhammad gave all the booty stolen from these nomads to the potentates of Mecca . Those higher in rank received more. Other tribes who had taken part in the war and had helped him win, protested. They asked for their share and were about to start a mutiny. He made a “moving” speech and said "I want to soften the hearts of the Meccans towards Islam” and told those who had received nothing; “You take the Prophet of God with you instead. Which you prefer? The wealth of this world or the messenger of Allah?”

This cunning man was a master of deceptions and manipulations. He ruined the lives of thousands of Hawazin, killed them and stole all their herds, camels, and properties and gave them to the wealthy Meccans to “soften their hearts towards Islam”. There is not a single episode in this man’s life that was done out of the goodness of his heart. Every act he performed was calculated and manipulative. He was a psychopath narcissist much worse than Hitler.

The difference between Christianity and Islam is in Jesus and Muhammad. This is the difference between day and night. Jesus was the symbol of goodness and Muhammad was the incarnation of everything that is abhorrent and evil.

“Can Islam be reformed”? No it can’t! To reform Islam you have to first get rid of Muhammad and second get rid of the Quran. You have to take out a great portion of that book. But this you can’t because you have no authority to do such thing. Muhammad said that he has perfected his religion. 5:3 How can you improve something that is perfect? You can’t change the Quran. You can’t reform it. All you can do is to reinterpret and pretend “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them” means something else.

Or you can say these parts of the Quran are no more applicable. The problem is that who can decide which parts of the Quran are applicable and which parts are obsolete? Who has such authority to make this decision? If you rely on your own conscience and say the verses that call for murder are outdated, someone else like Khomeni could protest and say “Why do you Mullahs only go after the ordinances of prayer and fasting? Why do you only read the Quranic verses of mercy and do not read the verses of killing? Quran says; kill, imprison! Why are you only clinging to the part that talks about mercy? Mercy is against God. ”

Posted by: potter at March 3, 2005 07:57 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink
Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch
"Awake"
--New York Times
"Must-read list"
--Washington Times
"Pompous Ass"
--an anonymous blogospheric commenter
Recent Entries
Search
English Language Media
Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Non-English Language Press
U.S. Blogs
Columnists
Think Tanks
Law & Finance
Security
Books
The City
Western Europe
France
United Kingdom
Germany
Italy
Netherlands
Spain
Central and Eastern Europe
CIS/FSU
Russia
Armenia
East Asia
China
Japan
South Korea
Middle East
Egypt
Israel
Lebanon
Syria
B.D. In the Press
Archives
Categories
Syndicate this site:
XML RSS RDF

G2E

Powered by