Islam   --   Facts and Fiction

-- Why July 4 is significant to Islamists - 7/3/02
-- Converting the entire world to Islam is an immutable fixture of the Muslim worldview: - 6/18/02
The Balkans Quagmire - 4/26/02
Muslims try to bar terror expert - 4/12/02
-- The professional 'Arab-Americans'; - 4/9/02
-- New evidence Arafat killed U.S. diplomats; - 3/18/02
-- American Islamic lobby gets out the vote - 2/21/02
-- An Arab plea for reforming Muslim schools; - 1/29/02

 Why July 4 is significant to Islamists

Posted: July 3, 2002     By Mark Robinson     2002

On Sunday, one of the "experts" in the endless parade of experts on cable news stated the obvious: "I am unaware of any special significance of the date Sept. 11." His implication was that there is no reason to anticipate a terror attack on July 4 because bin Laden didn't use date significance as a basis for selecting 9-11. Although he was technically accurate, he was pretty far from correct.

Bin Laden is trying to raise the entire Muslim world to Jihad. Creating the mystique of the Chosen is central to his goal, and symbolism is the greatest weapon in his arsenal (thus far). Consider what he said (twice) in his post-Sept. 11 video: "… after 80 years, the sword has come to America …" He was clearly referring to the resolution passed by the U.S. Congress endorsing the partition of Palestine (creation of a Zionist homeland) on Sept. 11, 1922.

Experts on American news networks continually warn us that al-Qaida may be encoding secret messages to sleeper cells in their videos and communiqués, but bin Laden speaks openly, relying on us not knowing even our own history, let alone Islamic history. Which brings us to July 4. We, in our narcissism, assume that July 4 is all about us. But to Muslims it is a day of ultimate triumph.

On July 4, 1197, Saladin (Salah al-Din) completely annihilated the 20,000-man Crusader army at the battle of the Horns of Hattin, driving the "Christians" from the Holy Land until the 20th century. And we can be sure it is not lost on bin Laden that Saladin won this battle in spite of the fact that the Crusaders carried with them the "True Cross" (the True Cross was a relic designated by Constantine's mother during the initial phase of the paganization of Christianity).

Consequently, July 4 is a very likely candidate for a terrorist strike, albeit only if the Islamists feel they have the means to achieve a final victory over the U.S.

The first question is, do they? Recently, al-Qaida spokesman Abu Ghaith promised to kill 4,000,000 of us, referring to America as "Hubal." Hubal was the last and the largest of the 364 pagan gods in the Kaaba to be toppled by Muhammad (al-ilah, the predecessor to Allah, was left standing). The image of Hubal was so large that Ali (Muhammad's son and the first Imam) had to stand on the Prophet's shoulders to push it over.

The second question is, clearly, is bin Laden ready to stand on the Prophet's shoulders now? That really should be a role of the 12th Imam (Al Mahdi – the long-awaited Muslim chosen one who will convert the whole world by the sword). Maybe bin Laden has been hanging around a guy in really old clothes for a reason: Mullah Omar wears the Cloak of Muhammad (which he stole from a museum in Kandahar). We all know neither clothes nor symbols make the man, but in an eschatologically-based war, image and deeds together can be larger than life. Remember, most of Europe capitulated before Tiger tanks bearing swastikas and the mere idea of blitzkrieg.

It is reported that Bin Laden writes poetry in the style of Saladin. For bin Laden, defeating the Crusader army and knocking over Hubal on July 4 would be the stuff of which epic poems are made.

Mark Robinson is a scientist and author.

 Converting the entire world to Islam is an immutable fixture of the Muslim worldview

Published June 18, 2002     By Uwe Siemon-Netto UPI Religion Correspondent     From the Life and Mind Desk  - 

A leader of the small worldwide Muslim reform movement warned the West Tuesday against wishful thinking as the U.S. government promotes an intensive dialogue with Islam.

"The dialogue is not proceeding well because of the two-facedness of most Muslim interlocutors on the one hand and the gullibility of well-meaning Western idealists on the other," said Bassam Tibi, in an interview with United Press International.

Syrian-born Tibi, who claims to be a direct descendant of the prophet Mohammed and teaches political science at Goettingen University in Germany, appealed for intellectual honesty between both parties in these exchanges.

"First, both sides should acknowledge candidly that although they might use identical terms these mean different things to each of them. The word 'peace,' for example, implies to a Muslim the extension of the Dar al-Islam -- or 'House of Islam' -- to the entire world," explained Tibi, who is also a research scholar at Harvard University.

"This is completely different from the Enlightenment concept of eternal peace that dominates Western thought, a concept developed by (18th-century philosopher) Immanuel Kant."

"Similarly, when Muslims and the Western heirs of the Enlightenment speak of tolerance they have different things in mind. In Islamic terminology, this term implies abiding non-Islamic monotheists, such as Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians, as second-class believers. They are 'dhimmi,' a protected but politically immature minority."

According to Tibi, the quest of converting the entire world to Islam is an immutable fixture of the Muslim worldview. Only if this task is accomplished -- if the world has become a "Dar al-Islam" -- will it also be a "Dar a-Salam," or a house of peace.

Tibi appealed to his co-religionists to "revise their understanding of peace and tolerance by accepting pluralism." Furthermore, he said, Muslim leaders should give up the notion of Jihad in the sense of conquest -- as opposed to Jihad as an internal struggle of the individual.

Tibi's advice comes at a time when the U.S. government is urging American Muslim leaders to promote understanding for the United States in the Islamic world. To Tibi, this is more of a diplomatic endeavor than the promotion of a more profound theological understanding between Islam and the Judeo-Christian worldview prevalent in the West.

But Muzammil Siddiqi, one senior Islamic scholar the State Department consults with, told UPI he found that his efforts in furthering contacts between Muslim, Christian and Jewish theologians were having some success.

Indian-born Siddiqi is the director of the large Islamic Center of Orange County in California. In consultation with the State Department and in cooperation with the University of Kentucky, he traveled back and forth between the United States and the Middle East trying to convince Muslim theologians and jurists there to meet with American church leaders.

"I have found that many -- though not all -- were ready to welcome visitors from America and also to come here to explore with Christians and Jews what we have in common," Siddiqi said.

Though Siddiqi's center is heavily engaged in interfaith activities, he made it clear that to him, as indeed for conservative Christians, syncretism -- the mixing of religions -- was anathema.

Common values should be sought out, he explained, and the equality of all believers respected, be they Muslims, Christians, Hindus or Buddhists. But the purity of the faith must not be compromised.

In an article in the prestigious Hamburg weekly, Die Zeit, Tibi, gave anecdotal evidence of how daunting a task this dialogue with Islam can be.

The bishop of Hildesheim in Germany paid an imam a courtesy visit in his mosque. The imam handed the Catholic prelate a Koran, which he joyfully accepted. But when the bishop tried to present the imam with a Bible, the Muslim cleric just stared at him in horror and refused to even touch Christianity's holy book.

"The bishop was irritated because he perceived this behavior as a gross discourtesy," wrote Tibi, "but the imam had only acted according to his faith. For if an imam gives a bishop a Koran, he considers this a Da'Wa, or call to Islam."

This, explained Tibi, must be borne in mind when one engages in a dialogue with Muslim scholars, for it corresponds to a verse in the Koran: "And say ... to those who are unlearned: 'Do ye submit yourselves?'" (Surah 3:20).

Copyright © 2002 United Press International

 The Balkans Quagmire

Bosnia: 'Lawless black hole'?  Demand growing on peninsula for formation of 'Greater Albania'
April 26, 2002   By Toby Westerman   © 2002

The international community fears that the former Yugoslav republic of Bosnia, which is located near the center of the Balkan Peninsula – a region close to the heart of Western Europe – could become a "lawless black hole" of conflicting ethnic rivalries, according to a report from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

"A similar case may be made for Kosovo and possibly Macedonia," stated Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, referring to areas that have also sustained years of ethnic struggle.

At nearly the same time as the radio service issued its report, a small ultra-right wing Albanian nationalist party, calling itself the Party for National Unity, openly demanded the creation of "Greater Albania," which it named "Chemeria," comprising all Albanians in the Balkan region. The claim was first noted by Athenian Radio, relayed by the Macedonian Information Agency and cited by Reality Macedonia.

Observers have long claimed that the formation of a "Greater Albania" was a driving force behind Albanian ethnic struggles throughout the Balkans and have noted that ethnic Albanian politicians have consistently objected to the borders imposed on ethnic Albanians by a 1912 agreement, brokered by the major European powers of the time.

A "Greater Albania" or "Chemeria" would include all of Kosovo, nominally a part of Serbia, half of the nation of Macedonia, the western region of Greece and nearly half of Montenegro. The national capitals of Macedonia and Montenegro, Skopje and Podgorica respectively, would also fall under Albanian control.

The pro-Albanian site includes a map entitled "Historical Ethnic Albania," although the site claims that it does not advocate a change in present Balkan borders.

The ethnic Albanian struggles throughout the Balkans have received support from Muslim nations including Iran and Saudi Arabia, as well as from the al-Qaida terrorist network.

In a recent development, the former Bosnian interior minister, Bakia Alisahic, was indicted on charges of running an Iranian supported "terrorist training center" in Bosnia in 1995, according to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

In an attempt to halt inter-ethnic conflict in Bosnia, and to prevent the eruption of a "lawless black hole," U.N. High Representative for Bosnia Wolfgang Petritsch issued a new constitution that lessens the power of the ethnic-oriented parties in Bosnia.

Petritsch issued the new governing document because the Serb and Croatian/Muslim governing entities did not agree upon a new method of government within the specified time limit, according to a report from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

Denying that the new form of government was forced on Bosnia by the international community, Petritsch stated, "This is not an outright imposition. … This is clearly … a partnership," reported Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

In issuing his new constitution, Petritsch offended each of the major ethnic groups in Bosnia – the Croats, Muslims and Serbs.

Among the three ethnic groups, the Serbs feel particularly snubbed by the West, believing that the West has consistently favored Muslim forces in the region. The recent release of a 7,000-page Dutch report, which, in part, documents U.S. assistance to Muslim forces in Bosnia during the 1992-95 Bosnian civil war, has added to Serb bitterness.

A large Serb population is in Bosnia, which borders on Serbia proper. Kosovo was at one time 10 percent Serbian, but many fled during the NATO air war in 1999. Serbs revere Kosovo, considered the "cradle" of Serb culture. According to U.N. Resolution 1244, the area remains technically part of Serbia, although administered by the U.N. through a Muslim-controlled government.

A mood of defiance among the Serbs toward the West and the international community is palpable.

Radovan Karadzic, the former president of the Serb entity in Bosnia known as the Republic of Srpska, is an indicted war criminal and the man most wanted by The Hague War Crimes Tribunal.

The support for Karadzic remains firm, despite great pressure from the U.S., NATO and the U.N. for his arrest.

"I have made thousands of new friends, about whom my pursuers do not know," boasted Karadzic, according to a British Broadcasting Corporation report.

Although he has a $5 million price on his head, posters have appeared with Karadzic's image throughout the Serb cities of Belgrade and Novi Sad, stating that "every Serb is Radovan," according to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

In response to demands that he surrender to The Hague Tribunal, Karadzic defiantly sent a letter to a Serbian law professor offering his "regrets" that he could not attend the war crimes trials, the BBC stated.

Karadzic has also published, through his friends and supporters, a book entitled "The Situation, A Light Comedy."

The plot contains five characters, according to a Reuters report: a waiter, an aspiring leader, an "image maker," a representative of the "international community" and the voice off stage of a Muslim who advises the international community representative.

 Muslims try to bar terror expert

University appearance draws ire of Islamic community

Posted: April 12, 2002     By Art Moore     2002

SEATTLE – Who is the enemy in the war on terrorism? Seattle-area Muslims fought hard to
block the appearance this week of a leading terror expert whose answer to that question,
some believe, strikes too close to home.
Former Harvard professor Daniel Pipes, who has been in high demand by the mainstream
media since Sept. 11, says he experienced unprecedented opposition prior to his lecture at
the University of Washington Wednesday night.

Calling Pipes a "rabid Muslim/Arab-hater," Jeff Siddiqui of the American Muslims of Puget
Sound distributed a letter expressing "profound shock" that Pipes had been invited and
urging organizers to cancel the event, sponsored by the Jewish Federation of Greater
Seattle and the university's school of international studies.

Pipes, who speaks Arabic, has a Ph.D. in history from Harvard and served in the U.S.
Departments of State and Defense. The author of 10 books, he was director of the Foreign
Policy Research Institute and currently heads a Philadelphia-based think tank, the Middle
East Forum.

"Indeed, it is not unlike having a Nazi speak about the security of the U.S.A., or a KKK
member speak about crime," Siddiqui wrote to event organizer Edward Alexander, an English
professor at the university.

The Muslim leader suggested that if Alexander did not cancel the speech he should at least
send out a letter of contrition for inviting Pipes and allow a 10-minute response by a

"I am sure there will be many items from his speech that will need correction because truth
and accuracy are not his strong points where Islam, Arabs or Muslims are concerned,"
Siddiqui wrote.

Police escort

On Wednesday a crowd that included many Muslims and Jews, crammed into the lecture
hall after having their bags inspected, leaving hundreds outside unable to enter. Pipes was
escorted into the auditorium by police, who were notified in advance of possible trouble,
along with the U.S. Department of Justice.

"I can't think of any precedent, my own or anyone else's, where the attempt to suppress
freedom of speech by militant Islam in the United States has been quite so blatant," Pipes
told WorldNetDaily prior to the event.

In his response to Siddiqui, Alexander said: "I hope you won't be shocked to learn that I
can't comply with your request that I cancel Mr. Pipes' lecture or that I express public
contrition for arranging it or that I allow you or one of your acolytes to preside as grand
inquisitor and judge of his remarks.

"Apparently you are not aware of the age-old conventions regarding public lectures (and
free speech) in this part of the country," Alexander said. "There is no requirement that a
lecture touching on radical Islam must be 'answered' by an Islamic radical, any more than a
lecturer on fundamentalist Christianity must submit to a harangue at the end of his talk by
a Christian fundamentalist."

Pipes' address, "The War on Terror and Militant Islam," drew loud applause at several points
during which he called on the U.S. to make its Middle East policy consistent with its stated
principles in the war on terrorism. Pipes said afterward he had never before been
interrupted by applause in a speech.

"We should be grateful to the Israelis, that they are willing to deal with their local
terrorists," he said to a thunderous ovation.

Already a number of Muslims had walked out in disgust. At the mention of Yasser Arafat's
name, a man at the back yelled, "He is my hero!"

Another got up in the middle of the lecture, angrily spewing invectives at Pipes and exiting
with, "You are a racist."

Pipes received another ovation when he stated that the U.S. should tell the Saudis, the
country of 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers, "either you are with us or against us."

In a reference to the interruptions by Muslims, Pipes said the suppressive tactics of militant
Islam of which he spoke were at work even as he spoke.

Militants and traditionalists

Outside the hall before the lecture, Humza Chaudhry, president of the school's Muslim
Student Association, handed out literature denouncing Pipes and called him a liar and a

Chaudhry told WorldNetDaily he supported Pipes' right to speak but questioned the
judgment of those who invited him.

"He is very careful to make the (distinction) between what he calls traditional Islam and
militant Islam; the problem is that a majority of (Muslims) fit into his category of radicals,"
Chaudhry said. "What he constitutes as radicals are people who follow the traditional
Islamic faith, and what he would like to see is Muslims who have a compromised version of
their faith, which is compromised to the state of Israel."

Pipes insisted that he does not hate Islam or Muslims. Moderate Muslims are the biggest
victims of militant Islam, he pointed out, referring to countries such as Algeria where
thousands have died in a militant insurgency. There is a battle over the soul of Islam, he
maintains, between moderates and militants.

In his introduction of the speech, Alexander noted that Pipes' warnings last May about the
dangers of al-Qaida to the U.S. – several months before Sept. 11 – were reviled as racist
by some Muslims. Columbia University professor Edward Said scoffed at "highly exaggerated
racial stereotyping" that talked of hijacking jetliners and blowing up buildings.

Siddiqui charged in his letter that "Daniel Pipes has in the past, suggested getting rid of
Muslims in America, he has declared that Muslims and Islam are incompatible with the
'civilized west.' He has on many occasions, warned America of the 'Islamic threat' and
suggested that Muslims should be stopped from coming to this country.

"If he goes any further he will be in the same company as Hitler when he told Mussolini the
Jews were like 'TB baccillii (sic)' and must be eradicated."

Much of the campaign in Seattle against him was "purely fabricated," Pipes said. "It just
puts words in my mouth that are completely anathema, throwing Muslims out of the
country, and things like that. Total fabrication."

Several Muslims who attended the event referred to the Council on American-Islamic
Relations, a Washington, D.C., lobby group, as a source of information on Pipes. The group,
which casts itself as a promoter of civil rights, has published condemnation of Pipes on its
website, referring to him as an "Islamophobic pundit."

Pipes told WorldNetDaily that CAIR and related groups have tried to discourage forums for
his ideas from inviting him or following through with an invitation.

"They shadow me all the time," Pipes said. "I'm happy to report, so far as I know, I have
not been disinvited, so it's not worked. But, nonetheless, it tends to intimidate and shut
down the free discussion of Islam, militant Islam and Muslims. If they don't like it, they
don't want it discussed."

Pipes claims his critics are not interested in discourse.

"They do not discuss the issues I discuss," he said. "They take things out of context. Most
of the time they take one quote of mine from 1990 in a National Review article where I was
characterizing the European view of immigrant Muslims. Admittedly it wasn't as clear as it
should have been, but I wasn't writing with the expectation of being misquoted."

Moderate Islam

Pipes says CAIR, which has had representatives invited to the White House, is one of the
groups in this country that defines itself as moderate but instead practices and associates
with a militant brand of Islam.

CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad once worked for the Islamic Association of Palestine,
considered by U.S. intelligence officials to be a front group for Hamas operating in the
United States. CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper denies any connection between CAIR and
IAP. Nevertheless, CAIR defended the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development – a
U.S.-based group accused of channeling funds to Hamas – when President Bush decided to
freeze its assets. CAIR charged that the move could give the impression that "there has
been a shift from a war on terrorism to an attack on Islam."

While Pipes stresses that the vast majority of Muslims are not militant, during the question
and answer time after his Wednesday speech he said 80 percent of mosques, websites and
organizations in the United States are dominated by militant Islam. The 13 Muslim chaplains
in the U.S. military all have been "handpicked by militant Islamic groups," he said.

Moderate Muslims are silenced by militants at this "radicalized moment," according to Pipes.
Those Muslims who are against militant Islam are "weak, fractured and hapless," he said.

The goal of the U.S. government should be to help moderate Muslims "modernize Islam" and
thereby weaken the militants.

Amin Odeh, who represents a local group called Voices of Palestine, told WorldNetDaily
after the speech that "it wasn't as bad as I expected."

"At least he made it clear that he wasn't against Islam," said Odeh, who left the Middle
East 11 years ago but still has family in the Palestinian territories. "He made a clear
difference between Islam and militant Muslims. But it wasn't positive. We are in a time of
crisis and we shouldn't be scaring people. He was encouraging this theme of let's go get
them. Even though he was focusing on militant Muslims … this didn't give us any hope. It
was just scaring people; the same thing that Bush is doing, the same thing Sharon is doing
to his people, so that any measure they take will be justified."

Odeh, who holds public debates and lectures at schools, said the group was launched after
the second Intifada began last fall, "to educate people about the facts, because we
believe the media is biased."

 The professional 'Arab-Americans'

April 9, 2002   By Joseph Farah  © 2002

WASHINGTON – I, for one, am sick of seeing on television these self-proclaimed Arab-American "leaders" serving as apologists for tyranny and terrorism, while condemning the United States and the one self-governing free people in the Middle East – Israel.

I tell you this as an "Arab-American" myself – but one who chooses to identify himself as a hyphenated American only to counteract the notion that all Americans of Arabic heritage think like the James Zogbys of the world.

Let me tell you something: I am an Arab-American. I have an Arabic surname. I look Middle Eastern. I travel extensively. I meet lots of people. Not once before or since Sept. 11 have I ever been the target of any discrimination whatsoever from any American.

Could I possibly be such a rare exception? I have lived on this planet for 47 years. Could I be missing something? I don't think so.  So, why do we need an Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee anyway?  Why do we need an American Muslim Alliance?  Why do we need an American Muslim Council?  Why do we need a Council on American-Islamic Relations?

We don't. But those groups need America.  They need the freedom we have in this country to operate their nonprofit, tax-exempt corporations.  They need the face time they get on television to spew their propaganda.  Just imagine someone trying to make a living criticizing the government back in the Arab world – or the broader Muslim world.

I've got to tell you that I'm more than a little surprised at the reaction of Americans since Sept. 11.  I fully expected that I would see more resentment against Arabs and Muslims expressed in visible ways.  I even expected to witness some of this understandable rage first hand.  I haven't. Not once.  It's a testament to the American people.  They are big-hearted, fair and open-minded people – almost to a fault.  In many ways, they've been conned by the professional "Arab-Americans" and "Muslim Americans."

Ten days after the Sept. 11 disaster, I wrote these words: "Arab-Americans need to understand the suspicions they are bound to encounter as a result of the heinous attack. We have a special obligation to make clear where we stand and to do what is necessary to help our country – the United States of America – deal with our common enemy."  But it never came to that. There never have been those suspicions.  Incredibly, Americans have not blamed Arabs – or even Muslims – for the attack on their country.  Not at all.

Meanwhile, I've been repulsed by the arrogant, condemning attitudes expressed by the professional "Arab-Americans" and "Muslim Americans."  They attacked President Bush when he froze the assets of terrorist front groups posing as charities in the U.S.  They threatened to sue me and WorldNetDaily when we exposed those groups.  They intimidate.   They harass.  They bully.  They coerce.

On Fox News Channel the other day, the host asked me whether American Muslims should have second thoughts "ratting out" their neighbors and friends who might have terrorist connections.  I say any Arab-American or Muslim-American who has divided loyalties is no American at all.  He or she should get the hell out of my country.  If I'm the only Arab-American proudly standing up tall for America, I will continue to do so.  But I would like to see more Arab-Americans – particularly Muslims – do that, too, without any qualifiers, without any ifs, ands or buts.

Let me tell you a little story. Many years ago, when I began traveling to the Middle East, I noticed I received unusual security attention from El Al personnel.  It became quite clear to me that this was no coincidence, but a natural result of my Arabic surname.  Did I become upset about this?  No.  Were my rights violated?  No.  This was a sensible security precaution taken by a nation under siege – a nation that understood the threat of Arab airline hijackings 25 years before Sept. 11.

Despite all the cry-baby belly-aching by the professional "Arab-Americans," this quite understandable form of racial profiling still has not occurred in America.  I wish other Arab-Americans would see just how blessed they are to live in a country like this.  What a time it would be for Arab-Americans to decide they are Americans first and by choice, and Arabs only by ethnic background.

It's a simple choice: Where is our allegiance?

Joseph Farah is editor and chief executive officer of and writes a daily column.
Get an autographed, first-edition copy of Joseph Farah's 1996 book, "This Land Is Our Land," published by St. Martin's Press.

 New evidence Arafat killed U.S. diplomats

Nixon historian finds CIA report on Fatah link to 1973 murders
March 18, 2002   By Joseph Farah   © 2002

A long-buried Central Intelligence Agency report, found in the National Archives by a historian chronicling President Nixon's career, shows the agency, former Secretary of State William Rogers and many other officials were aware of Yasser Arafat's involvement in the 1973 murders of two U.S. diplomats by Arab terrorists.

The files were discovered by Russ Braley, author of "Bad News: The Foreign Policy of The New York Times" and a Nixon researcher who has plumbed the National Archives "Nixon Project," created when Congress took control of the late president's papers, for bits of information about the administration not released to the general public and press.

Braley recently found several boxes of documents related to the 1973 kidnap-murders in Khartoum, Sudan, of U.S. Ambassador Cleo Noel and Charges d'Affaires George Curtis Moore, along with Belgian diplomat Guy Eid by Arab terrorists. Though the files had been, according to Braley, thoroughly purged of information regarding intercepts of Arafat giving the explicit order for the machine-gun murders of the diplomats, one surviving CIA report, found in NSA box 666 and enclosed in a message from Rogers to some 40 U.S. embassies, shows Arafat's complicity in the terrorist crimes.

The embassies were instructed to convey the information to foreign governments "orally only," due to its sensitivity:

"Begin text. The Black September Organization (BSO) is a cover term for Fatah's terrorist operations executed by Fatah's intelligence organization, Jihaz al-Rasd. The collapse of Fatah's guerrilla efforts led Fatah to clandestine terrorism against Israel and countries friendly to it. Fatah's funds, facilities and personnel are used in these operations. There is evidence that the 'BSO' operation in Khartoum was carried out with substantial help from Fatah's Khartoum office and applauded by Fatah radio stations in Cairo and Beirut. In addition, Fatah Deputy Chief Salah Khalaf, chief of the 'BSO,' gets an independent subsidy from the Libyan government.

"For all intents and purposes no significant distinction now can be made between the BSO and Fatah. Four of Fatah's 10-man command, including Khalaf, the planner and director of the Munich and Khartoum operations, are idenitified as 'BSO' leaders. Fatah leader Yasser Arafat has now been described in recent intelligence reports as having given approval to the Khartoum operation prior to its inception.

"Arafat continues to disavow publicly any connection between Fatah and terrorist operations. Similarly, Fatah maintains its pretense of moderation vis-à-vis the Arab governments, a pose which most of these governments find convenient for their public position toward the Palestinian cause. It seems certain also that some elements within Fatah are opposed to terrorism, and the chaotic state of the whole fedayeen movement assures factionalism, power struggles, and unclear lines of command. Nonetheless, the Fatah leadership including Arafat now seem clearly committed to terrorism. End text."

There is nothing in the new documents specifically or directly referring to telephone intercepts made of Arafat giving the orders for the execution of the diplomats.

Greg Sullivan, a State Department spokesman on Middle East affairs, agreed to look at the latest documents but said his understanding of the 1973 incident was that links to Arafat were not conclusive.

"My understanding is that there was never conclusive evidence," he said. "I'm unaware of any proof, so I would not want to speculate on how it would affect policy."

Asked if proof was made available to the State Department of Arafat's complicity in the murder of U.S. diplomats in 1973, how Middle East policy might be affected, Sullivan declined again to speculate.

Calls to the White House press office went unreturned.

Last year, WorldNetDaily broke the story of the former National Security Agency operative, James J. Welsh, who claims to be a witness to such a communication intercept.  Welsh was the NSA's Palestinian analyst at the time.

On Feb. 28, 1973, Welsh says he was summoned by a colleague about a communication intercepted from Arafat involving an imminent Black September operation in Khartoum.

Within minutes, Welsh recalls, the director of the NSA was notified and the decision was made to send a rare "FLASH" message – the highest priority – to the U.S. Embassy in Khartoum via the State Department.

But the message didn't reach the embassy in time. Somewhere between the NSA and the State Department, someone decided the warning was too vague. The alert was downgraded in urgency.

The next day, eight members of Black September, part of Arafat's Fatah organization, stormed the Saudi embassy in Khartoum, took Noel, Moore and others hostage. A day later, on March 2, 1973, Noel, Moore and Eid were machine-gunned to death – all, Welsh charges, on the direct orders of Arafat.

Welsh, who left the Navy and NSA in 1974, speaking publicly for the first time to WorldNetDaily, accused the U.S. government of a 29-year-old cover-up of Arafat's role in the planning and execution of the attack.

"Over the years I have kept my silence about what I know about this tragic episode," Welsh told WorldNetDaily. "But recently I began to wonder how recent administrations could overlook something as terrible as this in our dealings with Yasser Arafat."

When President Clinton invited Arafat to the White House for direct negotiations on the Middle East, Welsh says, that was the last straw. He has been on a personal one-man mission to uncover the tape recordings and transcripts of those intercepts between Arafat and Khalaf, also known as Abu-Iyad, in Beirut and Khalil al-Wazir in Khartoum.

Welsh cannot fathom how and why the U.S. has continued to promote Arafat as a partner for peace while knowing of his involvement in these murders. Further, he has been stymied in efforts, using the Freedom of Information Act, to secure copies of the recordings or transcripts of them.

"No one wants to touch this thing," Welsh says. "It's a hot potato. No one wants to be responsible for derailing the Mideast peace process."

But Welsh thinks the American people, who are footing much of the bill for Arafat's current activities, have a right to know about his personal responsibility for the murder of two Americans. And he is the first American involved directly in the affair to charge publicly what has long been rumored – that Arafat ordered the embassy takeover and the murders of the American diplomats.

"I have decided that my oaths of secrecy must give way to my sense of right and wrong," he told WorldNetDaily.

Welsh believes the initial cover-up of the communications breakdown and the role of Arafat was launched to prevent embarrassment to the State Department and White House. President Nixon, he points out, was in the death throes of the Watergate scandal at the time. The last thing he needed, Welsh speculates, was an international scandal to deal with on the front page of the Washington Post.

Later, after Nixon was gone, Welsh believes the whole matter of the Arafat tapes was kept quiet to protect the future viability of signals intelligence intercepts of this kind. And, finally, he says, the cover-up persists to foster Arafat's role as a "peacemaker" and leader of the Palestinian cause.

"Yet, there is no statute of limitations on murder," Welsh says. "Obviously the United States cannot go after Yasser Arafat and put him on trial. But the American people deserve to know the truth about a man and his associates to whom we now give millions, if not billions of taxpayer dollars."

In fact, in 1985 and 1986, Congress requested then-Attorney General Ed Meese to investigate Arafat's complicity in the murders of the diplomats.

On Feb. 12, 1986, some 47 U.S. senators, including Al Gore, who later became vice president, petitioned Meese "to assign the highest priority to completing this review, and to issue an indictment of Yasser Arafat if the evidence so warrants."

However, the one critical piece of evidence needed to warrant an indictment – the tape recordings – was not produced by the NSA, the CIA or the State Department.

"These tapes do exist," claims Welsh. "I participated in their production. But no one has ever been willing to come forward and acknowledge their existence."

Back in 1973, Welsh had received spontaneous transcripts of the dialogue between Arafat and his subordinates. But, under NSA protocol, he was not permitted to keep copies. Under normal procedure, he expected copies of the final transcripts and tapes to arrive on his desk for further analysis. They never came.

Over the years, there have been reports that the Israelis also had tapes of Arafat ordering the executions of the U.S. diplomats and that Jerusalem provided copies to Nixon. Gen. Ariel Sharon said in 1995 that Israeli intelligence gave tapes proving Arafat's culpability in the murders to the U.S. State Department and White House in March 1973.

Arafat reportedly ordered the eight gunmen to surrender peacefully to the Sudanese authorities. Two were released for "lack of evidence." Later, in June 1973, the other six were found guilty of murdering the three diplomats. They were sentenced to life imprisonment and released 24 hours later to the Palestine Liberation Organization.

During their trial, commander Salim Rizak, also known as Abu Ghassan, told the court: "We carried out this operation on the orders of the Palestine Liberation Organization and should only be questioned by that organization."

Sudanese Vice President Mohammed Bakir said, after questioning the six: "They relied on radio messages from Beirut Fatah headquarters, both for the order to kill the three diplomats and for their own surrender Sunday morning."

Before surrendering, the Khartoum terrorists demanded the release of Sirhan Bishara Sirhan, the convicted assassin of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, as well as others being held in Israeli and European prisons. Nixon refused to negotiate.

"I know Yasser Arafat was a direct player in the murder of our diplomats and so has every U.S. administration since Richard Nixon's," says Welsh.

Joseph Farah is editor and chief executive officer of

 American Islamic lobby gets out the vote

Expert: 'Ultimately they want to make the U.S. a Muslim country'

Posted: February 21, 2002      By Art Moore

A controversial American Islamic advocacy group has planned a voter registration drive to
coincide with the upcoming Muslim holiday at the end of the pilgrimage to Mecca.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, alleged to have ties to terrorist groups such as
Hamas, says "our goal, insha'Allah (if Allah wills), is to register more than 100,000 new
Muslim voters over the next eight months."

CAIR is urging Islamic communities to sign up Muslim voters at festivals that follow Eid
ul-Adha prayers, held on Feb. 22 or 23, depending on the new moon. The holiday
commemorates what Muslims believe was the prophet Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his
son Ishmael at God's command.

Some observers of CAIR and similar organizations insist that while these groups have a
right to lobby just as any other public interest, their aims are suspect.

"They may not admit it, but ultimately they want to make the U.S. a Muslim country,"
Steven Emerson, a leading anti-terrorism specialist, told WorldNetDaily.

"In the interim they want to acquire as much political power as possible to push their
agenda, to be afforded legitimacy by political officials," Emerson said. "So this (voter drive)
is part and parcel of their campaign."

CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper indicated in a 1993 interview with the Minneapolis Star
Tribune that he wants to see the United States become a Muslim country.

"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United
States to be Islamic sometime in the future," Hooper told the Star Tribune. "But I'm not
going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education."

Hooper noted in the interview that Muslims aren't allowed to take over the U.S. and other
governments. "What we fight for here and in the remainder of the world is to practice our
beliefs," he said.

Calls to CAIR and Hooper's office by WorldNetDaily were not returned.

Emerson notes that Abdulrahman Alamoudi, then-executive director of the American Muslim
Council, said at a conference by the Islamic Association for Palestine in December 1996
that the United States will become a Muslim country, even if it takes 100 years.

Emerson was a staff member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and a journalist
for U.S. News & World Report and CNN. In a CAIR editorial published on its website, Hooper
called Emerson "the attack dog of the extremist wing of America's pro-Israel lobby."

CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad said in a statement on the voter drive that "recent
events and new government policies have served to spur already growing political
participation by American Muslims."

"We have an obligation, because of the Islamic duty of 'enjoining good and prohibiting evil,'
to make our voices heard on a number of important issues," Awad said. "Voting, at both
the local and national level, is the best way to accomplish that goal."

Awad once worked for the Islamic Association of Palestine, considered by U.S. intelligence
officials to be a front group for Hamas operating in the United States. While acknowledging
Awad's former affiliation, Hooper has denied any connection between CAIR and IAP.

But CAIR recently rallied to the defense of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and
Development – a U.S.-based group accused of channeling funds to Hamas – arguing that
President Bush's decision to freeze their assets could give the impression that "there has
been a shift from a war on terrorism to an attack on Islam."

Emerson cites as evidence of CAIR's affinity for Hamas "their co-sponsorship of
conferences calling for the death of Jews, statements on behalf of Hamas leaders,
statements defending Iran and the Sudan and sponsorship of hate rallies where attacks on
America are made."

Alamoudi, the former AMC director, was quoted at a Washington, D.C. rally, Oct. 28, 2000,
saying: "I have been labeled by the media in New York to be a supporter of Hamas. We are
all supporters of Hamas. I wish they added that I am also a supporter of Hezbollah."

CAIR seeks to underscore its political clout by citing a figure of about 7 million Muslims in
the United States, but recent counts have come up with a much lower total. An evaluation
of current estimates, conducted by Howard Fienberg and Iain Murray of the nonprofit,
nonpartisan Statistical Assessment Service, concluded there are about 2 million U.S.
Muslims. A recent study commissioned by the American Jewish Committee puts the number
between 1.9 million and 2.8 million.

CAIR and other groups such as the AMC, American Muslim Alliance and Muslim Public Affairs
Council, helped get out the vote during the 2000 election. Their top issues included
opposition to racial profiling and the use of secret evidence against people suspected of
terrorist activity.

The groups claimed their support of Bush put him in office, but an exit poll by the Detroit
News showed 66 percent of Muslims in Michigan voted for Al Gore. Muslims are heavily
concentrated in Detroit and other major metropolitan areas including New York, Chicago
and Southern California.

Arab-American pollster John Zogby estimates that U.S. Muslims are about 30 percent
African-American, 20 percent Pakistani, 15 percent Arab American and 13 percent Indian.
About 20 percent come from Iran, Turkey, Africa and Asia.

While most Muslims in the U.S. might not share CAIR's views or even know about the
organization, adding 100,000 Muslim voters would give the group more clout to carry out
its political agenda, Emerson said.

"I think we've already seen some of that in terms of what has happened over the last few
years," he said, "when Hollywood studios change the scripts to take out any references to
militant Islamic terrorists, or when school boards actually excise books from the curriculum
because CAIR says they are deemed harmful to 'Islam,' or if counterterrorism laws are not
enforced because of the fear that this is going to be anti-Muslim."

Emerson said that before Sept. 11 there was a strong move in Congress to stop the use of
classified evidence in deportations of terrorists.

"They had been gaining a lot of momentum abetted by the naivete of the media," Emerson

 An Arab plea for reforming Muslim schools

© 2002   January 29, 2002

Dean of Qatar University wants to remove 'all seeds of hatred'

Are Muslim schools indoctrinating students in hatred?

Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari, the dean of Sharia and Law at Qatar University, believes so. The prominent academician wrote a series of articles for the Qatari and Arab press calling for reform that has set off a firestorm of controversy in the Islamic world.

In an interview in the Qatari daily Al-Raya, translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute, Al-Ansari counted himself among those who want to remove "all seeds of hatred, repulsion and fanaticism toward the other, toward women, toward those whose religion is different than ours, or toward those belonging to a different school of (Islamic) thought."
Al-Ansari says curricula should play a "tolerant role, as tolerance is a supreme value in Islam." He condemned the teaching that "Muslims have the right to attack others who are non-Muslims. These things exist in several religious law books, but they are wrong. The concept of jihad in Islam must be clarified. ... It expresses human beings' right of choice. The Koran states that anyone who wants can be a believer and anyone who does not want can be an unbeliever. Some Koranic verses clearly emphasize freedom of belief. ..."

"I, too, am opposed to the type of Islam that breeds terrorists," he said. "This [kind of] Islam is a crime against the true Islam and against the Muslims themselves. [I oppose] these Islamic religious schools, which have produced extremist groups that can't deal with modern reality."

He also condemned such teaching in the mosques.

"I am among those who maintain that some of the preachers in the mosques incite hatred towards those of a different religion," he said. "It is they who caused the Afghan-Arab phenomenon; it is they who portrayed the war in Afghanistan as a crusader war between Islam and Christianity. This is a lie that many youth fell for and fell victim to. Questions must be addressed to the inciters, because they are partners to the same crimes. Incitement, radicalization [and] calling for the destruction of the Christian enemies of Islam have become mandatory for some preachers. If Allah had destroyed the Christians, the Muslim preacher would not have a microphone to preach with, or the air conditioner or the car he so enjoys. ..."

Al-Ansari disagrees with those in the Islamic world who equate the U.S. war in Afghanistan with terrorism.

"It is unfair to name the American response [to Sept. 11] 'terrorism,' because by so doing we are confusing the concepts of terrorism and self-defense or response to aggression – and at a time when we are demanding that the international community not confuse 'terrorism' with 'legitimate resistance,'" he said. "What happened in America is terrorism; the American response is a response to that aggression, and there is a worldwide consensus on this."

Al-Ansari said America tried other means to respond to the terrorist attacks before launching a war. He called for Muslims to combat terrorism with equal fervor.

"... Terrorism must be fought by any and all means," he said. "All Muslims must support the struggle against terror. Terrorism has claimed more victims in many Islamic countries than in the West. Any country or group protecting and defending terrorists must be fought, and the world must be saved from their evil. ... The time has come to call them to account and punish them. We must all support the efforts to repress and bring to an end the damage they do."

He said the Islamic world "must have the courage to admit that what happened in Afghanistan was the liberation of our Muslim brothers – even if, unfortunately, it was by non-Muslim hands. ..."

Al-Ansari says the popularity of Osama bin Laden in the Islamic world is understandable through history.

"Attraction to a rescuing or liberating hero is historically grounded in the Arab and Islamic mentality – from Antara through Saladin to Abd Al-Nasser and Saddam Hussein. ..." he said. "Now it's bin Laden. ... It doesn't matter whether the hero is a liar, adventurer, tyrant or terrorist, because the Arab mentality will ascribe to him a sanctity that covers his sins. ..."

Additional reasons for bin Laden's popularity are, he said, "frustration; political, social, and ideological repression; backwardness and inability to change; as well as incitement to hatred of the 'colonialist West' and 'American hegemony.'"

Al-Ansari also cited problems with the Arab media.

"The masses' political behavior is not motivated only by facts," he said. "There are many influencing factors, such as incitement on television. Al-Jazeera TV Channel plays a prominent role by repeatedly broadcasting the ideas of bin Laden and his aides, making them stars. Al-Jazeera's claims that this is a journalistic scoop, and [reflects] professionalism ... is only half the truth, because in the final analysis the media convey a message and bear responsibility. ... There is a difference between giving different opinions an opportunity [to be heard] and leaving the screen open to armed murderers to spread their ideas. ..."

Home  -  Back  -  Top