The Worldwide Jihad: The Truth About Islamic Terrorism (10 page)

BOOK: The Worldwide Jihad: The Truth About Islamic Terrorism
2.12Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
ads

As the court date draws near, the mystery remains: why would a renowned and respected journalist resort to a juvenile act of vandalism and persist even when confronted? Here’s a clue: reading this
ABC News report
 on the arrest, these lines leapt out at me:

“This is non-violent protest, see this America” Eltahawy said in the video as police officers were arresting her. “I’m an Egyptian-American and I refuse hate.”

She refuses “hate.” Now, on the surface, it isn’t at all surprising that a journalist who is regularly featured on the likes of CNN would identify support for Israel against the relentless and bloody Palestinian jihad with “hate.” But for a time, and not all that long ago, it looked as if Mona Eltahawy was breaking out of the ideological lockstep in which Leftist and Islamic supremacist mainstream media journalists invariably march.

For example,
her article
 in the May/June issue of Foreign Policy criticized a series of practices that are justified in Islamic law, including child marriage, wife-beating, and female genital mutilation. Counter-jihadist activists and writers have been calling attention to these human rights abuses for years, but Eltahawy’s piece was singular in that she is a Muslim journalist. Muslims for the most part don’t criticize Muslim practices, particularly those that are rooted in Islam, and mainstream media journalists do so even less often.

However, the reaction to Eltahawy’s article among her fellow Muslim women is even more striking than her article itself. If the mainstream media narrative about “extremists” making up only a tiny minority of Muslims, the vast majority of which are “moderate,” were true, Eltahawy’s article should have won applause from Muslim spokesmen in the U.S., and particularly Muslim women. But instead, Harvard
Leila Ahmed confronted Eltahawy on MSNBC
:

Mona, I appreciate what you do. I would love it if—I understand if you want to get your message across. It’s an important message. But if possible [you should not] give fuel, fodder to people who simply hate Arabs and Muslims in this climate of our day.

Eltahawy, you see, told unwelcome truths about Islam and was accused of spreading “hate”—which is exactly what the Left and the Islamic supremacists do to those of us who have been telling those truths for years. But this was something new for Eltahaway, who had reliably been on the Left’s media reservation throughout her career. Now she was suddenly being criticized by her old friends, probably not invited to the best parties, etc.

So instead of having the courage of her convictions, Eltahawy folded, and cast about for a way to distance herself from counter-jihad freedom activists and prove that she was on the right (Left) side and would not make waves again. What better way than to vandalize our pro-freedom message, all the while accusing Pamela Geller and her allies of the “hate” she was accused of when she told the truth about Islam?

The arrest, even if she didn’t expect it or plan it, was icing on the cake: because of it, she was immediately lionized as a hero and martyr by the very people who were shunning her for her Foreign Policy piece: the hate-filled Leftist totalitarians who despise free speech anyway, such as Hamas-linked CAIR’s Cyrus McGoldrick and Islamic Republic of Iran apologist Reza Aslan.

Mona Eltahawy could have been a journalist of integrity, and almost was, for a brief moment. Instead, she is a fascist brownshirt. She coulda been a contender, instead of a bum, which is what she is.

Domestic Jihad Victims Deserve Purple Heart

The Purple Heart, a United States military honor awarded for military merit, is specifically to be given, according to U.S. Army regulations, for “wounds received as a result of hostile action,” including fatal wounds. It can be awarded in peacetime “to military personnel wounded by terrorists or while members of a peacekeeping force.” Yet the twelve U.S. military personnel (plus one civilian) murdered by Islamic jihadist Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan at Fort Hood in Texas on November 5, 2009 have not been awarded the Purple Heart, and neither has Army Private William Long, who was murdered by Islamic jihadist Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad in Little Rock, Arkansas on June 1, 2009.

The reason for this is obvious: the Obama administration has not recognized either the Fort Hood or the Little Rock jihad attack as an act of terrorism. Thus the military personnel killed at Fort Hood and Private Long were not “wounded by terrorists”; hence no Purple Heart. Thus they become casualties not only of the global and domestic jihad, but of the politically correct refusal of official Washington to call that jihad what it is, and to recognize its full dimensions.

Of the facts of each case there is no question. Obama has ignored the Little Rock shooting, and, in one of the most egregious white-washings of jihad in a field thick with competition, termed the Fort Hood shooting “workplace violence.” Any objective examination of either, however, leaves no doubt that Nidal Malik Hasan and Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad were Islamic terrorists performing a terrorist action in the name of Islam, and thus their victims were precisely “military personnel wounded by terrorists.”

In April 2011, Muhammad, an American convert to Islam, explained that he had killed Long in a “jihad operation.” He was not a soldier fighting against Americans on a battlefield, or even apparently an al-Qaeda operative acting on behalf of a recognized terror organization. He was a Muslim who was acting in accord with the teachings of his religion as he understood them—that is, as giving him a responsibility before Allah to wage war against and subjugate unbelievers. He was acting in imitation of his prophet, who said: “I have been made victorious through terror.” And in his terror operation, he killed Private Long.

The Defense Department has taken no notice of Long’s killing; it doesn’t fit their paradigm of what terrorism is and what jihad is, and so apparently they think it is best ignored. But they could not ignore Fort Hood. In January 2010, the Defense Department released its report on the jihad massacre at Fort Hood, and it is hard to imagine a document more full of denial and deception. The Pentagon seemed intent on ignoring and obfuscating the reasons why Hasan committed his murders.

Hasan had passed out Qur’ans on the morning of the shooting, and shouted “Allahu akbar” as he shot. He had raised alarm among his fellow Army psychiatrists by preaching jihad and hatred from the Qur’an when he was supposed to be giving a lecture about psychiatry. Yet despite these and other indications that Hasan was an Islamic jihadist who believed it part of his religious responsibility as a Muslim to wage war against Infidels, the words “jihad,” “Muslim,” “Islam” and even “Islamist” never appear in the Defense Department’s 86-page mélange of droning bureaucratese.

And how does the report propose to make sure that the military is prepared for “similar incidents in the future”? Not by learning anything about Islamic jihad and preparing accordingly. Rather, the report recommends action upon a series of empty, platitudinous recommendations: “identifying and monitoring potential threats;” “providing time-critical information to the right people;” “employing force protection measures;” and “planning for and responding to incidents.” That’s right: the Pentagon recommended that the military could be more prepared for the next terror attack by “planning for” it.

And the irony was thick when the report recommended that the military improve its ability to identify and monitor “potential threats”—this from a report that steadfastly refused to acknowledge the existence of the Islamic jihad doctrine that motivated Nidal Hasan to murder in the first place.

Political correctness was responsible for the murders of thirteen people at Fort Hood and the murder of Private William Long in Little Rock. And if political correctness had not held the political and military establishments in a stranglehold, the victims of these jihads would already have received Purple Hearts. That they have not received this honor is yet another monument to the cowardice and myopia that holds sway at the highest levels in Washington during the Obama administration.

Become a Hyperink reader. Get a
special surprise
.

Like the book? Support our author and leave a
comment
!

VI.

  The Battle for Free Speech  

Battling Censorship

One of the most potent weapons that global jihadists have to advance their cause is one of the least-remarked: censorship. And Rachel Ehrenfeld, founder and director of the American Center for Democracy, stands today as one of the primary targets of this tactic—and, by her ongoing resistance, one of the foremost defenders of the freedom of speech against encroaching attempts at legal intimidation that, if successful, will effectively silence the anti-jihad resistance.

Billionaire Saudi financier Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz sued Miss. Ehrenfeld in the U.K. for libel: in her book, "Funding Evil," she wrote that he was involved in funding Hamas and al Qaeda. Mr. bin Mahfouz denied that he had knowingly given any money to either. Taking advantage of British libel laws that place the burden of proof on the defendant, rather than the plaintiff, Mr. bin Mahfouz sued not in the United States, where Miss. Ehrenfeld lives and published her book, but in Britain, where neither he nor Miss. Ehrenfeld live and where his entire case depended upon a handful of copies sold in that country mostly through special orders from Amazon.com, and the appearance of one chapter of the book on the Internet, where it may have been read by British readers.

Britain's libel laws have given rise to the phenomenon of wealthy "libel tourists," who sue there on the slimmest British connection in order to ensure a favorable ruling. Mr. bin Mahfouz had the good fortune of having the case heard by Judge David Eady, who has a long history of strange rulings in libel cases—rulings that generally ran in favor of censorship and against free speech. In connection with another of these rulings in May 2007, British journalist Stephen Glover wrote: "Mr. Justice Eady is beginning to worry me. Is he a friend of a free Press? There are good reasons to believe that he isn't."

In May 2005 Justice Eady ruled that Miss. Ehrenfeld must apologize to Mr. bin Mahfouz and pay over $225,000. This fine remains uncollected, and Miss. Ehrenfeld sees no reason to apologize. Now she cannot travel to Britain, and her writing and research work has of course been banned there—thus preventing important information from reaching the public.

Miss. Ehrenfeld countersued in New York, asking the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals for a declaration that the British judgment was contrary to the First Amendment and hence unenforceable on an American citizen. And on June 8, the appellate court handed down a landmark decision, ruling that Miss. Ehrenfeld's case was valid, and that she could appeal for relief from American courts in order to keep the British court order from being carried out in this country. Said Circuit Court Judge Wilfred Feinberg: "The issue may implicate the First Amendment rights of many New Yorkers, and thus concerns important public policy of the state." He also declared that the case had implications for all writers—since they, like Miss. Ehrenfeld, could be subjected to harassment. This decision could also have great impact on the September 11 victims lawsuits, in which Mr. bin Mahfouz is also a defendant.

Lost, meanwhile, amid the legal wrangling surrounding Miss. Ehrenfeld's case has been the release of a September 13, 2001, note from France's foreign intelligence agency, the General Directorate of External Security (DGSE). The French news site Geopolitique.com obtained the note in late June 2007, and has revealed that already in 1996 Mr. bin Mahfouz was known as one of the architects of a banking scheme constructed for the benefit of Osama bin Laden. Moreover, the report claims that both U.S. and British intelligence services knew this. This is just the latest addition to the mountain of evidence from which Miss Ehrenfeld constructed her case in "Funding Evil." Even if this evidence is all mistaken, the British libel judgment against Miss. Ehrenfeld appears all the more fantastic and unjustifiable in light of the fact that French intelligence agents had documents allowing them to came to the same conclusion she did.

This calls for open and thorough investigation, unhindered by legal intimidation. If Saudis or others who have indeed supported the global jihad are able cover their tracks using British libel laws to silence investigators, the only winners are the jihadists. "The British legal and political leadership's constant appeasement of the jihadists," says Miss. Ehrenfeld, "facilitated the rise of terrorism." She sees consequences for both the United States and Britain in her legal struggle: "My fight against bin Mahfouz is not only to prevent the extension of that influence here—to defend our First Amendment from British laws. My success here would deter other jihadists from using the British courts to silence U.S. writers and publishers especially since it would—in similar situations—render U.K. court decisions useless."

For that reason, all who wish to remain free and resist the encroachments of global jihadism and Islamic supremacism should hope and pray that she prevails.

BOOK: The Worldwide Jihad: The Truth About Islamic Terrorism
2.12Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
ads

Other books

Ghost Light by Hautala, Rick
Fairy in Danger by Titania Woods
Graveminder by Melissa Marr
Craft by Lynnie Purcell
Nothing But Trouble by Bettye Griffin
Sylvia Andrew by Francesca
Babylon's Ark by Lawrence Anthony