Zachery Chesser and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Zachery Chesser is a young man from Virginia serving a 25-year prison sentence for providing material support to an Islamic terrorist organization. The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs recently published this case study on his radicalization.

The committee began its report with a glossary of relevant terms in which it defined Jihad as follows: an Arabic word commonly translated as "struggle;" used in the Qur'an to mean either a struggle on the battlefield or an inner spiritual struggle.

How did the intelligent, highly-educated young Senate staffers conclude that the Qur'an describes Jihad as an "inner spiritual struggle"? Was it from their own study of Islam's sacred text and their analysis of its more than 150 "Jihad verses"? I don't think so;  if they would have, they would have known that more than 95% of these verses were written when Muhammad was conducting wars from Medina, and almost every reference is to the primary meaning of Jihad which is effort exerted to ensure the victory and supremacy of Islam.

Chances are they watched this movie, What a Billion Muslims Really Think, perhaps at a government-sponsored conference on how to avoid offending Muslims in the workplace, and listened to Dalia Mogahed explain that to her Jihad is a wonderful word that expresses her desire to draw close to God. The fact that this has nothing at all to do with the Qur'an would be lost on them, because it is information Dalia and her many associates do not want them to have.

The report's glossary next defined Kafir as an "Arabic term used in Islamic doctrine and often translated as "non-believer", "disbeliever", or "infidel". The reality is that a Kafir in the Qur'an is someone who did not accept Muhammad as a Prophet from Allah or the Qur'an as the word of Allah. In other words, a Kafir is simply a non-Muslim.

The glossary then defined Violent Islamist Extremism as "the ideology whose core goal is the establishment of a global state - or caliphate - by violent means in which the most radical interpretation of Shari'ah (Islamic religious law) will be enforced by the government." The question to be asked, with just a slight rewording of the text, is this: is this Violent Islamist Extremism or is this Islam as envisoned and practiced by Muhammad? Did the state established by Muhammad enforce "the most radical interpretation of Shari'iah", or did it simply enforce Qur'an-defined Shar'iah? Instead of calling this a definition of Violent Islamist Extremism, could it not simply be:

Islam as Envisoned and Practiced by Muhammad: The ideology whose core goal is the establishment of a global state - or caliphate - by violent and non-violent effort (Jihad) in which Shari'ah (including the Qur'anic Hudud of amputations, floggings, and capital punishment) will be enforced by the Caliph (God's representative on the earth).

The Senate report then establishes a timeline to describe "The Rapid Radicalization" of Chesser in 2008. What I find amazing is that the report says absolutely nothing about how he became radicalized. It devotes a single sentence to his conversion to Islam,  describes three sentences later his newly-developed conviction that voting in presidential elections is un-Islamic, and shortly afterwards notes his committment to violent Jihad.

Why would the report's authors not be interested in the process of Chesser's radicalization? Why would their report not include the verses from the Qur'an, the instructions of Muhammad in the Hadith, the examples from his life in the Sira, that caused Chesser to become in a short time someone who issued violent threats against the writers of South Park for showing Muhammad in a bear costume?
As government reports do, this one ends with "Findings and Recommendations". The Findings were that radicalization takes place over the Internet, is likely to increase, and Law Enforcement Agencies  are unable to counter it. The reason for the latter is that Law Enforcement is not allowed to interfere in the two basic American values of freedom of belief and freedom of speech. If I believe that Islam must rule, and if I openly proclaim that conviction, Law Enforcement is powerless to stop me until I engage in  criminal activity that puts my conviction into practice.

The recommendations were that "the U.S. Government needs a comprehensive Internet strategy to address online radicalization", and that the Government "should strengthen its ability to assist Muslim American communities seeking to address and counter radicalization online".
The problem is that the Government and Muslim American communities have nothing to counter the persuasive and powerful arguments of the Jihadists. Dalia Mogahed can tell us that Jihad is her effort to draw closer to God, but the Jihadist will recite hundreds of examples from the Qur'an and Hadith that Jihad is warfare in the way of Allah to spread and strengthen Islam. The moderate American Muslim can note with pride that Muslims serve in the U.S. military, but the Jihadist will challenge him to show a single verse in the Qur'an that allows a Muslim to serve in the armies of the Kuffar (non-Muslims) against the Mu'mineen (believing Muslims). The Muslim Colonel in the Marine Corps might be a good American, but he is not a good Muslim.

Zachery Adam Chesser is a 22-year old man, born three days before Christmas in 1989, now serving a 25-year sentence in a maximum security prison for attempting to follow the instructions of his Prophet to migrate from the land of the Kuffar and engage in Jihad among the Mu'mineen. In other words, he is just another young man whose life was tragically destroyed by Islam.

The Koran and the Basmala

The Arabic expression Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Raheem, in the name of God, the Compassionate and Merciful One, is one of the most famous in the entire language. It begins all but one of the Koran's 114 suras, and is commonly used among Arabic speakers when saying their prayers, before eating a meal, or giving a formal speech. It even has its own abbreviation and is known simply as "the Basmala".

Since the expression is the very first sentence of the Koran (surat Al-Fatiha, Koran 1:1) and is later repeated 113 times, Muslims believe it is an essential part of the revelation given by God to Muhammad. Is that true, or was the Basmala inserted into Islam and the Koran at a later date? That question was discussed on this Arabic TV program Daring Question, in which host Rashid presented the following evidence that this well-known expression was not a part of the original Koran.

1. The Basmala does not appear in the story of Muhammad's first revelation. According to Islam, an angel appeared to Muhammad and told him to recite. When Muhammad repeated several times he did not know what to recite, the angel squeezed him tightly and said in Surat Al-Alaq, "Recite 'In the name of your Creator who created humanity from a blood clot.' Recite 'Your Lord is generous, who with the pen taught men what they did not know." (Koran 96:1-5).

If the Basmala was part of the Koran, why did it not appear in the first revelation of Gabriel to Muhammad? Why did the angel not begin with, "In the name of God, the Compassionate and Merciful One, Recite..."?

2. Muhammad and his early successors did not pray using this expression. An authentic Hadith from Sahih Muslim recounts that Anas, a servant of Muhammad who was with him for many years, said, "I prayed with the Prophet, and with Caliph Abu-Bakr, and with Caliph Umar, and with Caliph Uthman (the first three leaders succeeding Muhammad). I never heard any of them say, "In the name of God, the Compassionate and Merciful One."

Muslims who perform the five daily prayers repeat the Basmala 17 times in one day. Why do they  repeat thousands of times throughout their lifetime an expression Muhammad and his companions never used once in their prayers?

3. Except for Surat Al-Fatiha, the Basmala always appears in the Koran as an introduction to the chapter and not as the first verse. If the Basmala was in each sura as originally revealed, why is it merely an introduction and not the first verse of the sura?

4. The 114 suras of the Koran do not represent 114 revelations given by God to Muhammad; Muslims believe their Prophet received thousands of revelations that were combined in these chapters long after Muhammad's death. If revelation ceased with Muhammad, how could each chapter begin with the Basmala as part of the original revelation?

5. Muslim claim not a single letter has been added to the Koran. The Basmala, however, contains 4 words in Arabic. If that expression was affixed to 113 suras, does that not mean a total of 452 words have been added to the Koran?

As could be expected, these arguments are not new to Muslim scholars and Rashid next played a video from a Saudi Shaykh who offered his explanation. The Shaykh said that when the Basmala came within the verse, as in the first ayah of Al-Fatiha (Koran 1:1), it was part of the inspired text. When it appeared outside the text, as in 112 other suras, it was not part of the inspired text but a Tabarruk, a blessing or working aid given to separate the suras from each other. 

Rashid noted in his response that even the Shaykh admitted that the Basmala was added to the Koran; who knows what else has been added? The problem with this explanation, continued Rashid, is the Shaykh's insistence that the Basmala in Koran 1:1 is the exception. Surat Al-Hijr (Koran 15:87) is interpreted by Muslim scholars to mean that the first chapter of the Koran, Surat Al-Fatiha, must contain seven verses. Since Al-Fatiha's first verse is the Basmala, was it not simply added to the sura to give it the required seven verses?

In another authentic Hadith, Anas continued, "I prayed behind the Prophet and his companions. They would always open their prayers with 'Praise God, the Lord of the Universe, but never mentioned the Basmala."

Why do Muslims not begin their prayers as Muhammad did? Was the Basmala added to Surat Al-Fatiha just to give it the required seven verses? When Muslims use it in their prayers today, are they repeating a phrase their Prophet never used in his prayers?

Apart from Koran 1:1, and appearing 113 times as a sura designator, the Basmala appears one other time in the Koran. This is in the chapter of the ant, Surat al-Naml (Koran 27:29, 30), in which the Queen of Sheba informs her cabinet, "Oh my ministers, I have received a letter from Solomon that begins, In the Name of God, the Compassionate and Merciful One."

Note that the Basmala in the above verse is not portrayed as revelation from God to Muhammad, but as simply the introduction of a letter from Solomon. Solomon was a Jewish king, and naturally began his  letter with a common Jewish greeting.

Surat Al-Anfal (Koran 8:31) states that the Quraysh often responded to Muhammad's alleged revelations by saying they had heard these expressions before, with Surat As-Saffat (Koran 37:36) adding they were not prepared to leave their gods to follow "a mad poet". To his own people, Muhammad simply repeated religious expressions with which they were already familiar and claimed they were inspiration from God.

Why is the chapter entitled Repentance (Surat At-Taubah, Koran 9) the only one in the Koran that does not begin with the Basmala? Mufassir (Koranic expositor) Uthman claims it is a continuation of the previous chapter, The Spoils of War (Surat Al-Anfal), and therefore does not need the Basmala to separate it from the previous sura. Al-Qurtubi, on the other hand, claims that the beginning of Surat At-Taubah with its attached Basmala has been lost to history.

Since surat At-Taubah contains the famous "Verses of the Sword", in which Muslim warriors are commanded to fight unbelievers wherever they find them, it is perhaps poetic justice that this chapter does not begin with the usual reference to the mercy and compassion of God.

Rashid then introduced an Arabic scholar to explain the linguistic origin of the four words of the Arabic Basmala. The first word bism or "in the name of" is a contraction of the preposition "b" (in) and the noun (ism) "the name of". The Arabic word for "name", however, begins with an "a" that was deleted in the contraction of the preposition and the noun. This contraction is a feature of Aramaic and Syriac, not Arabic, giving evidence that the Basmala was an Aramaic/Syriac expression. These two languages were spoken by the Christians and Jews of the era.

The second word of the Basmala, Allah, also finds its origin in the word "Elohim", which is a common word for God in the Syriac and Aramaic languages. The following word Rahman is from the Syriac active participle Rahma meaing the Lover, with the "n" added in Arabic to turn it into an adjective. The final word Rahim also comes from Syriac and is a passive participle meaning the Beloved. The Basmala, according to the linguist, was a common expression used by Jews and Christians in Arabia at the time of Muhammad and as a result found its way into the Koran.

As noted in previous postings, comparatively few Muslims will have the courage to present the Imam at their local mosque with the evidence given above that the Basmala was not revelation given by Allah to Muhammad, but simply an expression their Prophet adopted from the religious vocabulary of the Christians and Jews of his day. Some individual Muslims, however, might seriously think about it on their own, and thinking is always a good thing.

The Koran and the Year of the Elephant

Scriptural literalists believe every word of their sacred texts is true historically as well as in every other way. For Christians and Jews, this means believing the sun was created four days after the earth as described in Genesis 1. And for Muslims, it includes believing in the battle of the elephant.

Surat Al-Fil, the chapter of the elephant (Koran 105), is considered to be an early Meccan sura and is one of the shortest in the Koran. Its text reads simply, "Have you seen what your Lord did to the owners of the elephant? Did not he ruin their plot when he sent flocks of birds to attack them with pellets of baked clay? He made them like the stalks of an empty corn field after its ears were devoured by the cattle."

This short video gives the version of the story first recorded by Muhammad biographer Ibn Ishaq and taught to millions of young Muslim children around the world. In 570 AD, the year of Muhammad's birth, Abraha was the governor of Yemen which was part of the Ethiopian Kingdom ruled by the Negus. With the Negus' permission Abraha built in Sana "the greatest cathedral in the world at that time" (Al-Qullays in Arabic, the word is from the Greek word for church "ekklesia"). Abraha's reason for building the church, according to Ibn Ishaq, was not to establish a house of worship but to divert Arab pilgrims from going to the Kaaba in Mecca. When an infuriated  Arab visitor from Mecca took revenge by urinating and defecating inside the church, Abraha decided to invade Mecca and destory the Kaaba. With a huge army that included elephants (although Ibn Ishaq says it was one elephant named Mahmud, other accounts give numbers varying from 13 to 1000), Abraha headed towards Mecca defeating every Arab tribe he met along the way. As he approached the city, his army was  suddenly attacked by flocks of thousands of birds who hurled pellets of hardened clay that caused their flesh to explode and destroyed the entire army. "Such was the victory bestowed by Allah, the All-Majestic, All Powerful, to the people of Mecca and such was the protection provided by him for his house the Kabaa in Mecca," concludes early expositor Ibn Kathir.

Apart from bringing back memories of Alfred Hitchcock's movie The Birds, the story poses the more basic question, Is is True? That question was recently discussed here on the Arabic program Daring Question.

In addition to Islam's default position that anything in the Koran is true simply because the Koran says so, Muslim scholars have argued the story must be accurate because we have no evidence of Meccans contradicting Muhammad when he first recited it as revelation from God. But the fact is that no contradiction of Muhammad was allowed at all, with writers and poets such as Asma bint Marwan killed simply for challenging him. There is no way of knowing, 14 centuries later, how the Meccans responded to Surat Al-Fil when they first heard it, because the voice of Islam is the only voice that remains from that time.

The description of the birds who attacked the army in the story suggests legend rather than fact. According to Ibn Ishaq and other Muslim historians, they had shoulders of dogs and each one carried three pellets with the bird's name written on each one.  Many temples in Greek and Hindu mythology have similar stories of deities magically protecting them from attacks by their enemies.

The most famous Byzantine historian of this era was a scholar who lived in Palestine named Procopius. His volumes give many details of the rule of  Abraha, but make no mention of a journey across the desert with an army containing elephants. Elephants graze most of the day and consume as much as 600 pounds of food and 60 gallons of water per day. They are not desert animals, and an elephant marching across the Arabian desert would require even more water. Although the Ethiopians used elephants for battle in areas where water and food was readily available, they never used them in the desert. The distance from Sana to Mecca is over 500 miles,  and it would have been highly unlikely for an army of elephants to cross that distance.

Apart from the issue of whether Surat Al-Fil is accurate historically, another interesting question is when it was written. Muslim scholars have always claimed it was an early Meccan sura, but this was during the time when the Negus of Ethiopia welcomed Muslim refugees sent by Muhammad from Mecca because of the hardships they were experiencing there (described here). The relationship between Muhammad and the Negus was good, with the Muslims enjoying his hospitality. It is difficult to relate this hospitality with Islam's rendition of the Negus building a temple in Sana to detract from the Kaaba and then sending an army to destroy it. Had his entire army been destroyed by Muhammad's machine-gun firing birds, why would the Negus turn around and welcome the Muslims as guests to live in his country for years?

An additional point is that the Quraysh of Mecca sent emissaries to Ethiopia in an attempt to persuade the Negus to repatriate the Muslims who were living there. If the Koranic story of the elephant had been given by Muhammad before that time, it stands to reason the emissaries would have used it to inform the Negis of what Muhammad said about them. There is no evidence, however, that this story was used in their arguments to the Negus.

What makes more sense is that this sura was written later in Medina, perhaps when Muhammad was preparing to invade the Christians of Tabuk. It was during the Medinan period that Muhammad began to demonize regional Christians in his preparations to attack them. What better way to motivate his army than to create a story of a Christian general who wanted to destroy the Kaaba but whose army was destroyed by the miraculous power of Allah!

There are additional problems with the Islamic account of the story. According to Ibn Ishaq, the Christian Abraha built his church to divert Arab pilgrims from Mecca to Sana for economic reasons. When the Arab defecated in the church, Abraha determined to attack the Kaaba both for revenge and to destroy the competition to his church. The problem is that Muslims, from ancient historians to those alive today, view history and religion from an Islamic perspective. The idea of a Haj, or pilgrimage to a holy location where one's sins will be forgiven, is a Muslim and not a Christian concept. It is true that Christians visit revered sites, but not for the reasons Muslims do. Christians also do not try to entice non-Christians to visit their sites. The idea that Abraha would build a pilgrim site to attract non-Christian pilgrims is not a Christian concept and has never happened throughout Christian history. As noted above, it is more likely the story was created to increase antagonism against Christians attacked by the Muslims at the end of Muhammad's life and in the decades following.

Although Muslim scholars claim that all the Arabs made pilgrimages to Mecca and its Kaaba, which they believe was built by Adam and restored by Abraham, non-Muslim history tells a different story. At least 21 regional cities are recorded as having temples called kaabas where people came for pilgrimages and religious practices. A Greek historian named Diodorus and other pre-Islamic historians described one such location in present day Tabuk in northern Saudi Arabia as being where "all the Arabs came for pilgrimage". The idea that Mecca was a famous religious center and that Abraha would come from Yemen to destroy its Kaaba because it provided competition to his church in Sana is nothing more than Muslim fiction.

Here is a short review of how Surat Al-Fil contradicts historical records:

1. Historians of the era including Procopius detail in history the reign of Abraha in Yemen. These details include how he came to rule, accounts of his wars, and his death in about 535 AD. They make no mention of his crossing the desert with elephants to attack Mecca, or of his death after being blitzed by Muhammad's magical birds.

2. These historians state that Abraha died about 545 AD, 25 years before Muslims claim he died during the year of Muhammad's birth, and that following his death his sons took over his kingdom. When the Persians invaded about 570 AD and defeated them, these sons had already been ruling many years.

3. The Muslim claim that Abraha built a cathedral to divert pilgrims from Mecca has no historical basis apart from the Quran-based claim of Muslim historians. Engravings found at Yemen's Dam of Marab, one of the eight wonders of the ancient world, detail various events of Abraha's kingdom, but none of them mention his cathedral or any attack against Mecca.

4. The Himyar Kingdom was at enmity with Abraha, and assisted the Persians in defeating him in 570 AD. The Himyars left extensive engravings of their battles with Abraha. Had he been killed by a magical bird attack following his raid against Mecca it is highly improbable this would not have been noted in their historical engravings. As can be expected, there is no mention of such an event.

5. The Ethiopian Kings of the time also left records of their territories and rulers. There is no mention in ancient Ethiopian history of Abraha attacking Mecca and dying as a result.

6. Ibn Ishaq is the only reference for the story as believed by Muslims. Even later Muslim historians acknowledge that Ibn Ishaq often exaggerated in some of the accounts he created surrounding Muhammad's life. These same historians, however, have no other source to authenticate the events described in Surat Al-Fil.

And here is a short list of why Muslim historians deliberately distorted the historical records concerning Abraha:

1. Their claim that he died during the year of Muhammad's birth gave added importance to the birth of Islam's Prophet.
2. The story created animosity against Christians, in preparation for the attacks carried out against them by Muslims beginning near the end of Muhammad's life.
3. The Koran says so.

For believing Muslims, "The Koran says so" is the most important reason of all. Very few have the courage to publicly question the historical accuracy of the Koran.

The Koran and the Samaritans

Arabic last names often indicate where someone comes from. Yahya al-Libi is known to be from Libya, Hasan al-Masri from Egypt (Masr is Egypt in Arabic), Rashid al-Maghrabi from Morocco (al-Maghrab in Arabic), and Yunis al-Iskandarani from the city of Alexandria (al-Iskandariya).

It follows logically that for an individual to bear the laqab (last name) of a location, that location must have been there when the person was named. If Alexandria was formed by the Greek emperor Alexander the Great in the fourth century BC, it stands to reason that anyone with the name al-Iskandarani lived after that time and not before. If a folk tale claimed to be from the 10th century BC with a hero named al-Iskandarani, it would be easy to conclude the story was false.

Such self-evident fact was apparantly of no interest to the compilers of the Koran, as seen in the attention given to someone named "al-Samari" (the Samaritan) in the story of Moses and his brother Aaron. The city of Samaria, from which this person was named, was built in the 9th century BC. Moses, liberator of the Hebrews from Egypt, lived at least six centuries before. How does the Koran have a Samaritan speaking to Moses six centuries before the city was even created?

The story of Moses is found in surah Ta-Ha (Koran 20). On the trek across the Sinai desert from Egypt to what is now Palestine and Israel, Moses left his people and went to meditate for 40 days on Mount Sinai. The following conversations then took place (verses 83-97):

Allah: Why did you leave your people, Moses?
Moses: They are always bothering me, and I wanted to be close to you, Allah.
Allah: Well, we tempted them during your absense, and they failed the test.
Moses: (rushes back to his people): Why did you melt all your gold jewelry to make a golden calf?
People: It's not our fault. The Egyptians gave us all that gold just to get rid of us. The Samaritan put it in the fire, and out came this golden calf?
Moses to Aaron: Why did you allow them to do this?
Aaron: Don't blame me, it's not my fault. If I would have tried to stop them it would have started a riot. It's his fault (pointing to the Samaritan).
Moses to the Samaritan: Why did you do this, Samaritan?
The Samaritan: It's not my fault. I just threw some dust from the footprint of the angel Gabriel's horse into the fire after we threw in the gold and voila - out came this live golden calf!
Moses: Get the hell out of here - and go to hell, by the way! We're going to burn this golden calf and scatter its ashes in the sea.

Like many stories in the Koran, it's an interesting read. But is it true?

Early Koranic expositor Qatada explained that the Samaritan in this story was a Israelite from the tribe of Samaria who lost his faith in Allah during the long trek across the Sinai. The Samaritan pretended to accept the monotheism of Moses, but retained his desire to worship the cow as his people had done in Egypt.

To protect himself from accusations of wrongdoing (such as the rumors that swirled when he married his daughter-in-law as described here), Muhammad invented the concept that prophets could not commit major sins. According to the Bible, Aaron is the one who instigated the making of the golden calf. Since Aaron as a Prophet in Islam could not have done this evil deed, Muhammad created the fictitious Samaritan to be the culprit.

The book of I Kings in the Bible describes a king of northern Israel named Omri who "bought the hill of Samaria from Shemer for two talents of silver and built a city on the hill. He called it Samaria, after Shemer who was the former owner of the hill" (I Kings 16:24). This was in the 9th century BC, 600 years after Moses.

II Kings 17:1-6 describes the defeat of Samaria by the Assyrian emperor Shalmaneser V in 722 BC when he deported its residents to Assyria (present day Iraq) and brought people from Iraq to repopulate the city. This Biblical account was confirmed by an engraving discovered by French diplomat to Iraq and archeologist Paul Emil Botta in 1842 that reads, "In the first year of my reign I laid seige to the city of Samaria. I deported 27,290 of its citizens and replaced them with people from other areas."

The people Shalmaneser brought to Samaria from Iraq were not Jewish monotheists, but idol worshippers deported from areas conquered by the Assyrians. These Samaritans did not speak Hebrew, and never assimilated into the culture of their Jewish neighbors. They were hated even in the time of Jesus, and one of his most famous parables, The Good Samaritan, tells the story of a young man beaten and left to die by the side of the road. Religious rabbis passed by the young man without helping him, said Jesus, but a Samaritan outcast rescued him and nursed him back to recovery.

As early Koranic expositors such as Qatada realized that the Samaritan invented by Muhammad and described in the Koran did not even exist, they tried to cover his mistake by insisting this was the name of one of the ancient tribes of Israel. All the tribes of Israel are listed in the Bible, however, and there is no evidence that a tribe by that name ever existed.

Is there any historical figure to whom Muhammad could have referred when he described this Samaritan who pretended to be a follower of Moses but remained an idolater in his heart,  and who had the magical power to create a live calf from gold and dust thrown in a fire? The New Testament book of Acts, chapter 8, describes a first century AD Samaritan named Simon the Magician popular in Samaria. Jealous of the miracles committed by the Apostle Peter when he visited the city, Simon offered him money for the same power. When Peter refused, Simon pretended to follow him but later recanted of his Christian faith and founded a heresy known as Simonianism which contained a mixture of Christian belief and magical practice. Members of the Ebionite sect, discussed here as having a direct influence on Muhammad, describe in available writings from the 4th century AD the considerable influence of Simon. One text, entitled The Recognitions of Clement, even recounts that Simon claimed he could bring statues to life. This is exactly the same as the Koranic account of the Samaritan bringing life to the golden calf.

Could Muhammad's relative Waraqa bin Naufal, himself probably an Ebionite priest in Mecca, been the one who first told Muhammad about this Samaritan with his magical powers? And could Muhammad, never one to quibble about historical details as evidenced here when he confused tribes living soon after Noah with the Nabateans who lived milennia later, simply thrown al-Samari into his story of Moses and Aaron to prove his point that a real Prophet never commits great sins, thus distancing himself from any similar accusation?

Many Muslims who have read thus far will at this point simply grit their teeth and press their heels against the floor. There he goes again, attacking our Prophet and our Holy Book! Relatively few will seriously think the story through and try to find an answer that makes sense. It's much easier - and safer - to simply believe.

The above material was adapted from this Arabic TV show Daring Question

Hillary Clinton and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was quick to respond when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad suggested in a recent interview with Fareed Zakaria that Iran would be willing to train Iraqi troops after American forces leave.

We have bases and allies in the region, she blustered. Iran should think twice before it makes any plans to train Iraqi soldiers.

I thought it was the silliest statement I've heard a Secretary of State make since Condoleezza Rice stated that Sunnis and Shias needed to resolve their 1400 year old conflict by just "getting over it". Actually she was correct - they do - but to base American foreign policy on the hopes that they would was insane.

I understand that Secretaries of State are not allowed to think creatively and speak independently. If they want to keep their jobs they can only say things the Boss will approve. But the reality is that Iraq is now an independent Shia-majority nation and Iran is its closest ally. There is nothing America can do - except bluster - if it invites Iranian soldiers to train its own. America handed Iraq to Iran eight years ago on a silver platter and Iranian influence is now entrenched from Basrah to Beirut. Now is the time to experience the results.

The Machine Gun Preacher

I knew I was listening to something unusual when I heard my drive-to-work buddies The Broads speak favorably of someone who had "got saved" in a church in Pennsylvania. They were talking about the movie The Machine Gun Preacher, based on the book Another Man's War. It's the true story of a rough and tumble man whose life was turned around when he accepted the challenge to visit east Africa with a church construction team. That short-term trip turned into a life mission as author Sam Childers determined to build an orphanage and help rescue children in the south Sudan and northern Uganda. The movie tells the result of that decision.

I saw the movie this afternoon. The theater was almost empty, but I'm glad I went. The film probably won't win Oscars at next year's Academy Awards, but for me it was a gripping story that raised some uncomfortable questions. According to the movie and the author's own claims, he has killed soldiers in The Lord's Resistance Army to rescue children and stop others from being killed. To what extent does a Christian use violence to stop violence? How often does one kill to stop killing? Is the author correct when he says, "If your child is abducted by a brutal rapist and murderer and I bring her safely home, does it matter what I did to rescue your child?"

The words "evangelical" and "missionary" don't usually get good press in the American media, and it's easy to overlook activists like Sam Childers who really try to make a difference. I'm glad they made a movie of his life, and kudos to the Broads for promoting his movie.

Can We Call It Islamic Terrorism?

A debate is taking place across the political, academic, and religious spectrum about whether acts of terrorism committed by Muslims should be called Islamic Terrorism. I've recently attended conferences where I've heard alleged experts state that it should not be. If terrorism committed by the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka is not called Hindu Terrorism, they argue, and if the terrorism of Norwegian Anders Breivik is not Christian Terrorism, why are acts of terror committed by Muslims called Islamic Terrorism?

It is a good question deserving a thoughtful answer which was given, in my opinion, by Rashid and Middle East Forum director Magdi Khalil in this recent Arabic program. Rashid noted that terrorism could be described as religious terrorism if it fulfilled the following four criteria:

1. The individuals carrying out the operation were devoted to their religion.
2. These individuals used religious texts to justify their operation.
3. The individuals carried out their operation to achieve religious objectives.
4. Religious leaders supported the operation and praised those who carried it out.

Rashid and Magdi then applied these four criteria to the perpetrators of 9/11, the Oklahoma Bombing, and the Norwegian Massacre. In his final testament, suicide pilot Muhammad Atta mentioned three times in four short pages that he would soon be meeting the virgins of paradise promised him by his prophet Muhammad. In his justification for 9/11, Osama bin Ladin did not inform his fellow Muslims it was intended to punish an imperialistic, political enemy. He did say that it was a blow against the rayyis al-kuffar, a religious expression meaning the leader of the infidels. The writings of bin Ladin, as well as Ayman al-Zawahiri and other al-Qaeda Sharia or religious leaders are filled with references to the Koran, the Hadith, and early Islamic history to justify their strategy. The 1500 page manifesto of Anders Breivik, in contrast, does not mention the teachings of Jesus or the Bible a single time. His only reference to Christianity is a generic one in which he envisions a Christian Europe being changed to a Muslim one. And Timothy McVeigh, rather than fantasizing about virgins in paradise, acknowledged that if there was a hell he would probably be going there.

What were the objectives of McVeigh and Breivik, as compared to Muslim terrorists? Again, the first two had nothing to do with achieving the goals of Christianity. McVeigh was angry at his government, and Breivik was fearful for his culture. Muslim terrorists, on the other hand, state again and again that their goal is to establish Deen Allah, the religion of God, throughout the earth as Islam was practiced by Muhammad and his early followers.

It was in the response of Muslim religious Shaykhs to the death of Osama bin Ladin that the contrast is most clear. Rashid played a montage of Arabic-speaking Imams across the Middle East eulogizing the death. Without exception they attacked and blamed the United States but praised bin Ladin. He was a sincere Muslim, they reminded their viewers, and it is our responsibility to pray Salat al-Ghaib, the prayers for departed souls asking God to receive them into Fardous or Paradise. We might have had our differences with him, they added, but these differences were only minor points of disagreement. What I find interesting is that the "minor points of disagreement" were the practice of al-Qaeda of declaring Muslim governments Takfir or infidel. It would understandably be difficult for an Egyptian, Moroccan, or Saudi Shaykh who only holds his position with the blessing of his government to join Ayman al-Zawahiri in condemning that government as apostate.

I've noted before that the difference between the public stated positions of Muslims in the West and their counterparts in the Arab World is striking. I've also noted that most Western non-Muslim academics and politicians, very few of whom know Arabic, have as their sources English-speaking Muslims who tell them what they want them to believe. Even those non-Muslim experts who claim to know Arabic, in my opinion, don't really know it well enough to listen to the Osama bin Ladin eulogies played by Rashid and really know what is going on.

Magdi Khalil then divided Islamic history into five stages. The first, he said, was the Islamic conquest of the 7th and 8th centuries, followed by the Crusades in which Europe attempted to regain the territory it had lost to Islam. The third stage was the Ottoman Empire in which Islam again tried to reconquer Europe and famously reached "the Gates of Vienna" in 1683, followed by the European imperialism and colonization of the next two centuries. The last forty years, said Magdi, have seen the beginning of the fifth stage, the revival of political Islam which again strives to reign throughout the world.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the show was when Khalid called in from Jordan. "Hello Rashid," said Khalid. "I was a terrorist. I left Jordan to go to Iraq in 2003. I had been a university student and a moderate Muslim but left university to devote myself to Islam. I first went to Syria, where all the incoming Mujahideen and Jihadists stayed together. We were given food and everything we needed until it was time to depart to Iraq. We travelled to Abu Kamal, which is a town on the Syrian-Iraqi border, and entered with no difficulty because we had been given passports and all the necessary travel documents. We first went to Al Qaim, then to Ramadi, and finally arrived in Baghdad where we were divided up into different groups. There were young Jihadists from all parts of the Arab World including Tunisia, Syria, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. You name the country, they were there. We were all young extremists who had come for Jihad. We were not interested in politics, but based our beliefs upon the Asoul, the original texts of Islam. If the texts supported fighting and killing, we were prepared to fight and kill."

"But some Muslims argue," interrupted Rashid, "That you misinterpreted the texts of Islam."
"That is incorrect," replied Khalid, "We followed the exegesis of Ibn Taymiyah. He said that when Muslims were living in a state of weakness they should follow the peaceful suras of the Koran that were written in Mecca, but when they became powerful they should follow the suras of Medina."

"Why did you change your mind about Jihad?" asked Rashid.
"The reason I left Iraq and returned to Jordan was not for religious reasons or because I thought I had misinterpreted Islam," replied Khalid. "I returned because my family needed me. But after my return I began to ask myself why I was being told to hate and fight Christians and Jews. I discovered that the reasons were religious, not political."

When Rashid asked Khalid where he was now in his spiritual journey, Khalid replied he no longer believed in Muhammad but was beginning to investigate the teaching of Jesus.

I find stories like this very encouraging. When I say my goal is to convince Muslims that Muhammad was just a man and the Koran is just a book, I am often informed it will never happen. The experience of Khalid tells me that it can happen, although just one person at a time. I believe that is much more intellectually honest than trying to convince Khalid he merely misinterpreted the peaceful message of Muhammad and the Koran. And yes, I do believe it should be called Islamic terrorism.