“Innocence” Film a Premeditated Provocation for Islamic Terror?

By: James Simpson
Accuracy in Media

Exclusive to Accuracy in Media

With every new bit of information surfacing about the “Innocence of Muslims” movie trailer and its shady producer, it is looking more and more like the movie was part of an Islamist provocation, in which the film was produced to provide a pretext for widespread attacks against our embassies throughout the Middle East. It comes complete with cover story and perfect dupes. Let’s review.

On September 11, 2012, around 9:30 p.m. Libya time, the American consulate in Benghazi came under sustained attack from heavily armed Jihadists, ultimately resulting in the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, computer technician Sean Smith, and U.S. Navy SEALs Glenn Dougherty and Tyrone Woods, who attempted their rescue. Earlier that afternoon, Egyptian Muslims attacked the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, pulling down the American flag. Subsequent protests saw violence in Tunisia, Yemen and elsewhere throughout the Muslim world.

As details emerged it became clear that the Benghazi raid was a premeditated, carefully planned attack by heavily armed Jihadists, coordinated with radicals in Egypt and other Mideast countries, and timed for the anniversary of 9-11, 2001. Libyan leaders confirmed as much shortly thereafter. Meanwhile, until September 27th the Obama administration was implausibly still insisting that the attacks were inspired by the movie. Now, more than two weeks after the attack, they are finally admitting they knew the truth within 24 hours.

Why did they stick to their story for so long, when it was clear that this idiotic film had nothing to do with the attack?

Or did it?

Early news reports claimed that an anti-Muslim movie sparked the violence. This could not have legitimately been the cause of spontaneous riots. That evening, some 15 hours after the Egyptian protests began, the “Innocence of Muslims” YouTube trailer, posted way back in July, had garnered only 1,000 views. It should have been viral by then, but it is doubtful that many Muslims had even heard of the film. Furthermore, the quality and dialogue was so poor that it was laughable. Even imputing the lowest intelligence quotient to fanatic Islamist viewers, it is impossible to imagine anyone getting worked up over this joke of a film. The complete film debuted in June, according to the L.A. Times, at “a run-down theater on a seedy stretch of Hollywood Boulevard,” though fewer than 10 people were there to see it. Others question whether the full-length version actually exists. No copy has turned up since the story broke earlier this month.

At around 6 a.m. on September 11th, well before any protests were launched, the U.S. Embassy in Cairo issued the following statement, now disavowed by the State Department:

“The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims—as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”

They sent out supporting tweets at 5:53 and 6:10 a.m. stating, “Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy,” and “US Embassy condemns religious incitement.”

What religious incitement? No protests had yet occurred, so the Embassy clearly knew something was brewing. On September 9th, the Grand Mufti of Egypt, one the few people who had apparently heard of the film, denounced it as “Offensive to the Prophet.” He accused “extremist Copts” of producing it. How did he learn of it and why would he draw attention to such an insignificant production? How did he know it was “extremist Copts?” The filmmaker had not yet been exposed, he used an alias during the film’s production, and his cover story was that he was Jewish. Still, judging by the YouTube visits, few Muslims got the message.

On September 10th, Florida Reverend Terry Jones announced that he would air the trailer as part of an “International Judge Mohammad Day” on September 11. Jones claimed the film producer contacted him directly and appealed to him to help promote the film. Who better to incite a Muslim backlash than Jones, whose Koran burning exercise last year was cited for widespread protests and killings in Afghanistan, including 20 UN staffers? Still, no big YouTube hits.

So how did thousands of Muslim rioters in multiple countries come out to protest a film they never saw?

The film’s supposed one-time screening is a bizarre story itself. One of the film’s promoters, Stephen Klein, is a hardcore anti-Muslim activist, who claims he was recruited as a “script consultant.” They originally named the film “Innocence of Bin Laden.” Quoted in the L.A. Times, he said the film’s intent was to smoke out Muslim terrorists:

“We passed out fliers at mosques around California where we knew there was a small percentage of terrorists. And the idea was to locate … those folks who believed Osama bin Laden was a great guy and to try to get them to come to the movie.”

The producer didn’t attend the film’s premiere, but pensively observed the theater entrance from a nearby restaurant while the movie, or trailer, was being shown. Police were apparently aware of the film’s provocative intent as they showed up to monitor the scene. The Daily Beast interviewed a law enforcement source who was there:

“You are monitoring the people in the area for behavioral characteristics, and he was displaying them. Normal people don’t act like that. He was across the street, on the opposite side of the block, so he could view what was going on. He was sweating and focusing in on the entrance. He was watching what was going on around and who was going in,” the source said.

Police introduced themselves to the man, who informed them that he was the producer. Initial reports identified him as “Sam Bacile,” an Israeli Jew who claimed the film was financed by more than 100 Jewish donors. Shortly after, he was identified as Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, supposedly a Coptic Christian with family in Egypt. He then claimed his wife’s Egyptian relatives provided the money.

Court documents reveal that Nakoula is just one of many aliases. He has an extensive criminal history spanning decades, having been arrested for illicit drug manufacturing/trafficking and bank fraud. He served almost no time for his 1997 drug arrest, leading some to believe he avoided jail by informing for the government. The arrest may have been part of an investigation into a large Muslim drug ring that was financing the Muslim terrorist group Hezbollah. Daily Beast reported:

“The bust came around the time the feds were launching Operation Mountain Express, which would become a huge investigation into pseudoephedrine-dealing involving numerous people of a Middle Eastern background. The authorities initially insisted there were no links to terrorism, but suddenly switched and decided that a chunk of the money was going to Hizbullah [sic]…”

Asa Hutchinson, DEA Administrator at the time, stated: “I’m satisfied that portions of the drug sales have moved back to the Middle East and portions of that are going to support terrorist organizations.”

Nakoula’s most recent conviction was for extensive bank fraud and identity theft, with a fine of $795,000. He received a comparatively light 21 month sentence and five years’ probation. Claiming he wrote the script while in prison, Nakoula apparently violated the terms of his probation—which forbids him from using computers or accessing the Internet without permission—to make the film. He was arrested on September 27th on that charge, and will remain in custody, according to the judge.

Now we learn from court documents obtained by the website, the Smoking Gun, that Nakoula’s light sentence this time definitely was due to his informing on co-conspirators, particularly, one Eiad Salameh. Salameh was characterized in the article as “a notorious fraudster who has been tracked for more than a decade by state and federal investigators.”

In a provocative article posted September 25th, Palestinian Christian convert Walid Shoebat claims the film was made by Muslim terrorists. He claims to know Salameh, that the man is his first cousin and has terrorist ties. Shoebat first wrote of him in 2008:

“Eiad Salameh Shu’aybat, my first cousin… who is wanted by the United States for major financial fraud most likely linked to financial terrorism… In fact a litany of stories on embezzlement and fraud can be tracked on Eiad…

“My cousin hated Copts with a passion and is well-known in the Middle East as a master schemer, probably one of the best the Middle East has produced. He also has multiple contacts with terror networks.”

Shoebat goes on to say that Salameh and Nakoula worked together for 10 years and that both had been handled gingerly by the FBI. If Shoebat’s claims are true, it is difficult to believe Nakoula was an “extremist Copt.” Why would Nakoula have worked with Salameh or vice versa?

With his criminal background, it is difficult to believe Nakoula could have firm beliefs about anything. On September 14, Nakoula was interviewed on the U.S. government-funded Sawa Radio, an Arabic radio program. Shoebat claims Nakoula said he was neither Jewish nor Christian, but actually he made no claim whatever about his religion, if he has one. He also disassociated himself from Egyptian Copts. Translated:

Sawa: Dozens of the Coptic organization in Egypt have denounced the movie.

Filmmaker: They have the right to do so, and they have nothing to do with the movie and I have nothing to do with them. I want to say that I did not come up with any information other than what is written in the Islamic books. I added nothing of my own.

Sawa: Have you read the Quran?

Filmmaker: Of course I have read the Quran, the Hadiths and more that 3,000 Islamic books.

Sawa: Do you believe that that only Islam has negative sides? What are your views about Judaism and Christianity, for example?

Filmmaker: I am an average reader about other religions and I can write about Judaism and Christianity if I ever resume writing.

It must be difficult to juggle one’s time between a massive credit card fraud operation and reading 3,000 Islamic books!

The idea that Nakoula made this film to highlight the plight of Egyptian Copts or even to “teach” anyone about Islam strains credulity. His lifetime of crime suggests a personality of no integrity. The notion that the film was financed by his wife’s Egyptian relatives must also be questioned. Why would he endanger his own family? Egyptian Copts have enough trouble with the new Muslim Brotherhood government already. The last thing they need now is negative attention.

The “Christians” he recruited in this effort, Stephen Klein and Pastor Jones are perfect patsies for a false flag operation. Blinded by their own zealotry, they supported this mindless film, making them, and by extension all Christians, look like a bunch of idiots. At the same time, it has provided an excuse for radical Muslims worldwide to go on an anti-American, anti-Christian tirade.

Indeed, Morris Sadek, a Coptic Christian closely associated with Jones who helped promote the film, is considered a major headache by Egyptian Copts. “Every single thing he says is used by Islamists to justify terrorism against Copts,” said Cynthia Farahat, director of advocacy for Coptic Solidarity, a DC-based group. The group stated, “As his actions agitate more the Islamic extremists, some people wonder if he is not in fact working to fulfill their agenda.” According to Huffington Post, Sadek sent an email to journalists on September 6th promoting Jones’ upcoming “International Judge Mohammad Day,” along with a copy of the trailer which he translated into Arabic.

Finally, Nakoula was represented in court by James Henderson, Sr. Henderson is a prominent attorney and former Justice Department prosecutor who headed an organized crime task force from 1978 to 1987. How could Nakoula, who claimed in court to have engaged in criminal activity to support his family and earned little from it, hire such a high-powered attorney? Interestingly, in court he spoke through an interpreter, but the film was written and spoken in English—with New York accents no less. And despite his claims of penury, Nakoula lived well in a nice Cerritos, California home, complete with a late model Mercedes S430 parked in the driveway. Somebody was paying him.

Henderson is the right guy for the job. He “maintains working contacts with former U.S. Government attorneys and officials throughout the United States.” His specialties include business fraud, government contract investigations, gaming and “international legal matters.” In the 1980s, Henderson was accused by an informant of having organized crime ties. Although Henderson was cleared of this charge, the snitch making the allegation at one time shared a cell with 1993 WTC bomber Ramzi Yousef, and claimed Yousef told him, “Bin Laden will use your own planes to take down the W.T.C.”

None of this adds up, unless this film had the one specific purpose for which it has been used. Such a film need not be well done. It only needs to provide a pretext. In that regard it has performed admirably.

Despite his many aliases, Nakoula is obviously known to the feds. Did they know of his film production? The local police apparently did. Are the feds uncomfortable with exploring the possibility that this film was part of a premeditated provocation by Muslim terrorists? Were they taken for a ride by this “informant?” Why did the U.S. insist for weeks that the recent Middle East attacks were the result of this film when they knew better? Is this yet another effort by the Obama administration to find a pretext to suppress free speech? Islamic leaders in America are already calling for legislation limiting free speech. Why has the FBI still not departed for Libya? Are they afraid of what they might find, or is someone else afraid of what they might find?

This administration has much to answer for regarding this deadly attack and for that matter many other things. Despite its pledge to be the most “transparent” administration in history, if past is prologue, honest answers are not likely to be forthcoming soon.

James Simpson is a former Office of Management and Budget (White House budget office) economist and budget analyst. He is currently a businessman and freelance writer. Best known for his exposé on the Cloward Piven Strategy of manufactured crisis, his writings have been published in American Thinker, The New Media Journal, Washington Times, FrontPage Magazine, Whistleblower, DefenseWatch, Soldier of Fortune and others. His blog is Truth and Consequences. Email James.


Obama – What’s not to like?

By: T F Stern
T F Stern’s Rantings

We’re right at a month before the dead come alive and cast votes for the first black president’s second term in office… you have to ask yourself, “Obama – What’s not to like about him?” Shivers run up my leg just thinking about Obama’s articulation and charisma; and he must be civilized, you never see him wearing overalls or a bandana.

Rumors of Obama being a communist are just that, rumors. A man is known by the company he keeps; just look at the folks Obama has picked to be czars. Only 31 of his czars are linked to communism; perhaps that can be overlooked, after all, Obama delivers a prepared speech from a working teleprompter better than any undocumented president ever.

That Fast & Furious mess was supposed to have been swept under the rug long ago. Why can’t that unfortunate incident simply go away? Why can’t the public forget about it like they forgot about Mary Jo Kopechne so many years ago, water under the bridge? Teddy Kennedy may not have been able to occupy the Oval Office; but folks kept electing him to hold down a Senate seat.

It was bad enough contemplating whether or not Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered with a weapon linked to an operation originated by Obama and his underlings; but now there’s further evidence being brought to light that hundreds of innocent Mexican nationals were murdered with weapons from Fast & Furious. This close to election time it might look even worse if the drive-by media can’t suppress it from the evening news.

“A new report finds dozens of weapons recovered in Mexico have been connected with the ill-fated and ill-conceived anti-gunrunning program. While some Mexican authorities estimate 300 of their citizens have been injured or killed by Fast and Furious guns, little has been known about those weapons south of the U.S. border until now.”

Even after Obama invoked Executive Privilege to keep Congress from obtaining key evidence of this scandal, it won’t go away. What’s worse, some folks aren’t buying into the White House explanation that Fast & Furious was about catching gun runners or that it was only a continuation of a previous administration’s similar program. There’s a vicious rumor, and it’s only a rumor, that the original purpose for Fast & Furious was intended to destroy the 2nd Amendment, so Americans would equate gun violence in Mexico with gun ownership here. As Rush Limbaugh explained:

“Obama wants an assault weapons ban, he can’t politically get it because it’s not popular, so he tries to effect it anyway. It’s kind of like if you’re NBC and you want to illustrate that certain trucks are dangerous. You put an explosive in a gas tank, and then you turn on the truck and remotely drive it down the road. Then you trigger the explosive remotely, the truck blows up, and you claim the truck’s dangerous. Then you get the truck off the road. But it’s only dangerous ‘cause you at NBC blew it up. NBC did that for a TV show. They blew up a truck on purpose and made the viewer think it was spontaneous combustion. NBC did it.”

Obama doesn’t want anyone to figure out that he’s lied to the American public or let us think Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered because of a failed totalitarian attempt to strip us of our 2nd Amendment right to own ‘assault type’ weapons. Obama can’t afford for the voting public to wonder whether or not taxpayer money was used to support the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East with weapons which might have been used in orchestrated attacks on our embassies or the murder of more American citizens to include U.S. Ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens.

Obama certainly can’t afford to have voters in the Hispanic community concern themselves too long about 300 innocent victims in Juarez, Mexico murdered by drug cartels armed with weapons Obama authorized under Fast & Furious. Things like that put a sour taste in voters mouths when election time is so close. It wouldn’t surprise me to see Obama throw Eric Holder under the bus this late in the game, take one for the team. Obama covers his tracks well, what’s not to like about the guy?

Maybe that’s why recently Obama went to Mexico on a mission of mercy to extend an open invitation for illegal aliens, change that to undocumented future residents, to enjoy the benefits of free food stamps here in these United States of America. Come on over, our taxpayers will be happy to feed y’all. Pull the lever, have another free taco, that’s our way of getting out the vote.

“The Obama administration met with Mexican officials and held other events to discuss enrollment in food stamps and similar programs roughly 30 times since President Obama took office, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack revealed in a recent letter to Congress.”

What’s not to like about a president who not only promises free stuff, but delivers on those promises? I wonder, will the illegal aliens, sorry, I keep forgetting, will those future undocumented residents who speak Spanish get a free cell phone along with their free food stamp card?

When I was a patrol officer writing up burglary reports on night shift I’d often try to use humor to lighten up the mood after a home owner noticed his television, stereo and coin collections had been stolen. I’d say something like, “You should be ashamed of yourself; that thief only got this little bit. You should have had a lot more stuff for him to steal; now he’s going to have to break into one of your neighbor’s homes to make up the difference so he can get enough crack for a few hours of euphoria.”

As taxpayers and citizens we should be ashamed of ourselves. Obama’s trying to do what’s best for us, what’s not to like about him?

This article has been cross-posted to The Moral Liberal, a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government & The American Constitution.”


ICLA Expresses Concern Over The Repetitive Use Of Imprecise, Confusing And Ambiguous Concepts And Words in OSCE Forums And Working Materials

By: Aeneas Lavinium

International Civil Liberties Alliance recommendation for working session 11: Freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief. Warsaw 2012

In the name of the International Civil liberties Alliance, I would like to express a deep concern over the repetitive use of imprecise, confusing and ambiguous concepts and words in OSCE forums and working materials. For several years some State members, NGOs and experts have repeatedly used the word “Islamophobia” and the concept of”religious hatred” even though these expressions have no precise meaning nor internationally accepted definition.

The repetitive use of meaningless or ambiguous concepts, especially if they are used as tools in negotiations in the field ofHuman Rights and eventually lead to their curtailing, has proven to be very unproductive and in some cases clearly damaging for individual freedoms in several state member countries.

The word “Islamophobia” has been intensively used by the Organization ofIslamic Cooperation and its satellite organizations in the voluntary simultaneous dual meaning of hate and prejudice against Islam as a religion or doctrine and against Muslims as a group or as individuals.

“Religious hatred” has also been intensively used by OIC and satellite organizations to ambiguously describe an antagonistic feeling against a religion or doctrine and or against religious groups and often without any reliable way to know which meaning is used.

Expressions with dual meanings cannot be used as tools in rational thinking or discourse and therefore can have no place in an international assembly such as OSCE, where serious issues are discussed.

Recommendations to ODIHR:

To allow sincere and constructive dialogue and cooperation between state members, NGO’s and exterior participants, IClA ask ODIHR to systematically provide a precise definition of both the expressions “Islamophobia” and “religious hatred” each time they are used in a document and, in absence of precise definitions, to adopt a by-default non-receivability rule for all document containing one or both ofthose expressions.


ICLA Responds To European Muslim Initiative for Social Cohesion

By: Aeneas Lavinium

Answer to Mr. Quaraishy from working session 10 : Freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief. Warsaw 2012

The distinguished representative of European Muslim Initiative for Social Cohesion, Mr. Quaraishi, told us this morning that if what he calls “provocations” against Muslims are not stopped by states, this will jeopardize world peace.

This shocking declaration constitutes a thinly veiled threat of violence in the very heart of an organization dedicated to the preservation of security in the OSCE region. This declaration is in perfect alignment with the riots we have been seeing repeatedly and which aim to weaken the democracy countries’ resolve to defend the fundamental right of free speech.

ICLA strongly condemns such recourse of threats to free speech in the OSCE area and reminds all actors that this approach is contrary to OSCE principles as well as to the spirit of cooperation and sincerity of this assembly.


ICLA Recommends That OSCE Member States Demand The Abrogation Of The Cairo Declaration and Participate in the 2012 Brussels Process By Aeneas • on October 1, 2012

By: Aeneas Lavinium

Warsaw October 1st 2012

Working session 10: Freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief.

On behalf of of International Civil Liberties Alliance, I would like to ask the following question:

How can the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights appropriately help the Participating States to make sure that their legislation concerning freedom of religion and belief is in compliance with the commitments of the OSCE and other international standards.

It is in the nature of OSCE and ODIHR to assist, advise, educate and remind Participating States democratic rules and compliance with human rights. OSCE and ODIHR can at present help in the prevention of serious political and societal drifts that have multiplied in our societies over the past few years. The concept of Human Rights, which is the fundamental basis of the observance of freedom of religion and belief, has been constantly distorted and deprived of sense by many international participants, some of them acting from within the OSCE.

Since the Organization of Islamic Cooperation created the Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, commonly known as the Cairo Declaration, we have witnessed a distortion of the concepts of human rights and religious freedom. This declaration has created a new and secondary standard in human rights based on Sharia Law, which is entirely incompatible with OSCE’s human rights standards, inspired as they were by the declaration of 1948.

Sharia law is a system of religious and political regulations destructive of all the principles promoted through the OSCE, i.e. Democracy, Human Rights, Freedom of religion and belief etc… Sharia Law has been defined by the European Court of Human Rights on February 2003, as “incompatible with democratic principles…”

Therefore, OSCE’s commitments and works done by its various departments are devoid of sense if all the partners, state-members, NGOs or other contributors are not using the same definition of Human Rights. A definition is required that clearly rejects any interpretation originating in the Cairo Declaration.


The ODIHR could therefore greatly help participating States ensure that their legislation concerning freedom of religion and belief is and remains in compliance with their commitments by:

  • Inducing state members to demand the abrogation of the Cairo Declaration, or at least to reject it, so as to prevent the duplicity of language that has appeared in the international agreements and within the OSCE.
  • Inducing state members to join the Brussels Process launched by the International Civil Liberties Alliance on July 9, 2012 in the European Parliament. The Brussels Process aims to assist governments and civil society in protecting civil liberties and freedoms, and more specifically to defend the freedom of belief against attempts to implement Sharia regulations.
  • Helping to create bi- or multilateral partnerships among OSCE members in order to optimize the implementation of the Brussels Process, to contribute to its growth and evolution and to the expansion of its field of application.

Islamophobia, Occupation and Slander: A Submission To OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting by Act for America 5280 Coalition

By: Aeneas Lavinium

Photograph of an OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting Taken By ICLA In 2009

The following is the submission made by David M Petteys of the Act for America 5280 Coalition to the OSCE Human Dimension Meeting in Warsaw on 1 October 2012. Mr Petteys’ submission addresses the three key words that are used increasingly by the Islamic world in order to undermine freedom of expression in the West. He starts by looking at the issue of “Islamophobia” and how it is used as a political tool to stifle dissent and to demonise those who make critical observations. He then goes on to consider the issue of what the word “occupiers” means in Islamic discourse. Finally he considers the differing Shari’a and Western interpretations of the word “slander” and how this can is used to deceive the public in Western countries:


A sane perspective


David M Petteys

Act for America 5280 Coalition


“Islamophobia” sounds like “homophobia”, and is a word conjured by British Muslims in the 1980’s. Designed to cash in on the Post Modern political correctness, it implies that concern for Islam is irrational bigotry. But is this the case?

The Muslims themselves assert no difference between religion and politics, undoing and reversing the separation between church and state so painfully achieved and so cherished in the West. Yet, when Imams preach “Death to America and Death to the Jews” from their Mosque pulpits, they howl “religious persecution” if we object!

Islam, as a political ideology, viciously calls for the death or conversion (or enslavement if you are a “person of the book”) of all mankind! 1 The ideology demeans and brutalizes women2, has killed 270 millions of persons3 in Jihad over the centuries, and kills dozens presently on a daily basis! With this being true, it’s unreasonable to accept the premise that concern about Islam is only “irrational bigotry”.

To pass laws against “Islamophobia” is also unreasonable. It is virtually a criminalization of people’s instinct for self-preservation and renders telling the truth about Islamic Doctrine a crime! This is inappropriate in free societies, even in the face of hostility and pressure from Islamic countries.

Another view of “Islamophobia” is theological. From Q2:217, we find a definition of” fitna”: “..but a greater (transgression) with Allah is to prevent mankind from following the way of Allah, ..”4 In essence, “fitna” is the tumult and disturbance caused by unbelievers in resisting the Islamization process. Muslims see this as “Islamophobia”. This is a far cry from our perception of Islamophobia as irrational bigotry.

If it becomes illegal to discuss or criticize Islamic Doctrine in the West, our societies become defenseless in the market place of free ideas.


One always hears outrage at “Israeli occupation of Arab lands”. In the West we interpret the conflict, therefore, as geographical. Thus, the path to peace is to twist Israeli arms until they give up a little land, (termed a ‘risk for peace”) which would then pave the way to Middle East peace! Unfortunately, the premise is wrong: the conflict is theological, NOT geographical!

The Israeli pullback from Gaza in August 2005 is the most recent case in point. Rather than responding in kind as promised by the apologists, and ushering in peace, Hamas moved in their rocket teams and made public pronouncements of “Arab arms driving out the Jews with their tails between their legs”! Before long, rockets began to fall on Sderot and other southern Israeli cities.

Theologically, Islam divides the world in two, the Dar al-Islam, and the Dar al-Harb, the world of peace and the world of war. To say Islam is the “religion of peace” has an important qualifier: this only takes place once the entire world has submitted to Islam. Until then, Muslims are mandated to make war on Dar al-Harb.

Another aspect is the Muslim conviction that the world and everything in it belongs to Allah. Thus, conquest of non-Islamic lands is a “restoration” to Allah. Not only are the Israelis “occupiers”, but we in Europe and North America are as well! People in the West need to bare this in mind. “Throwing the Israelis (the only sane Democracy in the Middle East) under the bus” will not achieve peace with Islam: it will only means we are next. This is what is meant by the Muslim saying “First comes Saturday then comes Sunday”.


In the West, we think that “slandering Islam” means saying something unkind about Islam. But this is a tragic misunderstanding. To sort this out, we must look at the definitions of slander under from the Western perspective and from the Shari’a definition.

Shari’a Definition:

The Shari’a definition of slander is “saying something about Islam Muslims don’t like” or “revealing something about Islam the Muslims don’t want revealed”.5 The truth or falsity of what is said is irrelevant.

Western Definition:

Slander usually means saying something about someone that damages their reputation but is not true. Thus, if I say “William Clinton is a liar”, there are documents filed with the New York State Bar stating Mr. Clinton was disbarred for committing perjury. I am not subject to a liable lawsuit. But if I were to say that Mr Clinton prefers intimacy with farm animals, in the absence of affidavits and eye witnesses to prove my allegation, I would be a subject to such a lawsuit.

Thus, when the Muslims howl “Insult”6, it is not a question, usually, of anyone saying anything unkind about Islam. It is “saying something they don’t like” or “revealing something they don’t want revealed”. And what has been said is usually true.

For instance, If I say Q9:5, Q9:29 or 8:60 or many others tie violence and Islamic Doctrine together, Muslims accuse me of slandering Islam! And under the Shari’a definition, it’s true! But it is not so under the Western definition.

This puts a better perspective on Muslim accusations, and there is no reason for the West to continually tip toe around trying to keep from “offending” Muslims. The value of the truth is a Western concept for which we need not be ashamed or to apologize. But we should be ashamed if we make the truth illegal to accommodate Islam.

1 See Q9:5, Q9:29

2 See Q2:82, Q2:228, Q2: 223, Sahih Muslim 8,3467, Q4:34

3 “A Self-Study Course in Political Islam” CPSI, LLC , 2008 , page 3-95

4 Wikipedia.org

5 See “Reliance of the Traveller”, §r2.2 and 30.

6 “Insult”, “denigration” “demeaning”, all these terms fall under the rubric of the Shari’a definition of “slander”


Act for America 5280 Coalition Submissions on the OSCE site.