Classical Islamic Law

Several days ago I sat in on a class here at Stanford entitled "Classical Islamic Law." Overall, the class was a fairly typical first class, in which the professor outlined what the course would be covering. However, he made one statement that particularly grabbed my attention: "this class is a class on classical Islamic law, not its modern relevance." This was somewhat shocking to me. Though the class was listed under the Religious Studies department and not the History department, for example, it still seems remarkable to me that absolutely no connections will be made with the modern world, filled as it is with rabid clerics and jihadists who routinely cite Islamic law as the motivation and justification for their conduct.

The professor then made another equally surprising statement: "Stanford does not offer a course on modern Islamic law." Why is this? Such a class would be invaluable in teaching people to understand the statements of bin Laden and others when they point to the Qur'an and Sunnah as their guiding light and inspiration. Hopefully Stanford will offer this class in the future, but until it does, it will be up to the individual to learn about the interplay between modern terrorism and the history and theological complexities of Islam.

(nothing follows)
Continue reading...

The truth about Islamism in a French newspaper

Please read (if you speak French) this absolutely amazing column in Le Monde, no less, about fundamentalist Islam, the silence in the Muslim world over decapitations and mutilations by the Taliban and others, and relations between America and the Muslim world. The Google Translate version is better than nothing if you don't speak French. We at SOS are in agreement that it is one of the best columns ever published on this issue.

Some highlights (our translation):

When Pope Benedict XVI glosses over the intrinsic antagonism in Islam between faith and reason, or when a caricaturist dares to mock a prophet frozen in fossilized sacredness, the entire Islamic world, from Cairo to Islamabad via Paris and London, reacts with defensive, vindictive hysteria. [...] But when a young girl of 17 in northwest Pakistan is whipped by the despicable Taliban in the name of the primitive and nauseating Shari'ah, the voice of Islam becomes inaudible and Islamic pride becomes minuscule. Everyone holds their tongue: the intelligentsia and world leaders join the fundamentalists in almost universal silence.

[...]

Yet, looking closer, which is more damaging to God and more degrading for Islam: Talibanesque barbarism, pouring all of its hate and sexual frustration onto the body of a defenseless young girl, or the drawing of a Danish caricaturist? Which is more shocking for a religion worthy to be called as such, the ink of an irreverent journalist or writer or the blood of innocents that are flogged, mutilated, and decapitated, not to mention the victims torn to pieces by suicide attacks?

There is much more along these lines, some of which is included (in translation) below. Send the link to all of your friends who speak French. It's very rare for something like this to come out in a mainstream publication, especially in France.

All mobilize to denounce western Islamophobia and the multiple crusades lead to discredit and disparage Islam. And with reason: supporting Islam, speaking out for the superiority of its doctrine over other religious and philosophical systems and for the excellence of its morals is a religious obligation.

Wherever he or she is, the duty of every Muslim - in addition to proselytism - is to take up the cause of their religion and their coreligionists against the enemies and plotters. "Support your brother in Islam, be he victim or perpetrator," stipulates a hadith attributed to the prophet. Undeniably, this obligation finds various theological justifications in the corpus of the Qur'an and Sunna. From there to misusing these same excuses for terrorist purposes is just one step that candidates for martyrdom have quickly taken.

[...]

Sending additional French and American troops to Afghanistan, as Obama desires, would contribute paradoxically to the acceleration of this process of "un-demonization" and normalization of fanaticism...Hillary Clinton is already invoking the necessity to have dialogue with the "moderate Taliban"! And a great French daily (Le Figaro) opens its columns to the former foreign minister of the Taliban government, a "fine and brilliant" diplomat, close advisor of Mullah Omar, to rehabilitate this Talibanism so poorly understood by the West.

[...]

Has the time not finally come to free Islam from the fundamentalist straightjacket, rather than accuse others of deliberately confusing Islam, Islamism and terrorism? But who is at the center of this mixture? Those who describe it or those who embody it with their fanaticism? Thus, the question that every Muslim should ask his- or herself is the following: the defenders of Islam, the fundamentalists and the terrorists, are they not in fine its worst gravediggers?

Continue reading...

Let Islam Prove It's a Religion of Peace

Great piece by Tawfik Hamid in the Wall Street Journal

Scholars in the most prestigious Islamic institutes and universities continue to teach things like Jews are "pigs and monkeys," that women and men must be stoned to death for adultery, or that Muslims must fight the world to spread their religion. Isn't, then, Mr. Wilders's criticism appropriate? Instead of blaming him, we must blame the leading Islamic scholars for having failed to produce an authoritative book on Islamic jurisprudence that is accepted in the Islamic world and unambiguously rejects these violent teachings.

Read it all. It's pretty short.

(nothing follows)
Continue reading...

Jihadists in their own words: How Islam will take over the UK

UK jihadist Anjem Choudary describes the ways in which the UK could become a Muslim country, and in doing so makes these ominous statements:

Who else has an ideology...that believes to overthrow any government? Nobody does. The Buddhists don't, the Hindus, Sikhs, nobody...Nobody has this agenda on them, to implement the shari'a and remove regimes. Only the Muslims.

[...]

There are three types of Muslims: those who are in prison, those on their way to prison, and those who are not practicing. Really. If you abide by the shari'a in your life, you are in one of those categories, one of the first two. Must be. Otherwise, you're doing something wrong.

Watch it all.



(nothing follows)
Continue reading...

Rick Santorum at Stanford

Former senator from Pennsylvania Rick Santorum spoke at Stanford today about the War on Terror and his views on the best way to proceed in the current conflict with what he called "aggressive, expansionist Islam." He was invited by the Stanford Review and Stanford College Republicans.

One highlight was when Senator Santorum took issue with those who say we are at war with terrorists who "just happen to be Muslims," exclaiming, "That's false! It has everything to do with Islam!" These are people who are trying to impose their values an their culture on us, which "is antithetical to Western culture," he explained.

Overall, it was an excellent speech. Senator Santorum has clearly done his research on this topic, and it's a shame more elected officials don't share his views on this.

A reporter from the Stanford Review was there, so expect a full-length article on the event about a week and a half from now.

There were a handful of protesters hanging around outside the entrance, apparently expecting the senator to speak about his "reprehensible" views on gay rights and abortion.

Hey, guys! The election was 4 months ago! Get over it!

There was actually an excellent turnout. About 150 people showed up.

Former Senator Rick Santorum

(nothing follows)

Continue reading...

Anne Bayefsky on Durban II

Anne Bayefsky, who we recently brought to speak at Stanford, has released an excellent piece on the Obama administration's decision to attend the Durban II conference in April.

"A Foreign Policy of Obsequiousness":

Yesterday in Geneva, President Obama unveiled the new look of America’s foreign policy — obsequiousness. It was Day One for his emissaries to the U.N. planning committee of the Durban II conference. This is the racist “anti-racism” bash to be held in Geneva in April. The U.S. and Israel walked out of the first go-round in Durban, South Africa in September 2001. Ever since, the U.S. government has refused to lend any credibility to the Declaration adopted after they left. That is, until yesterday.

U.S. representatives were addressing a human-rights negotiating committee with an executive consisting of a Libyan chair, an Iranian vice-chair, and a Cuban rapporteur. Russian Yuri Boychenko was presiding over Monday’s “human rights” get-together. Before them was a draft document which participants plan to adopt in finished form at the conference itself. The draft now contains mountains of offensive references to limits on free speech, anti-Israel and anti-Jewish provisions, and incendiary allegations of the victimization of Muslims at the hands of counter-terrorism racists.

Here is how the American delegates responded to a proposal they understood was incompatible with U.S. interests (“Brackets” denote withholding approval at any given moment in time.): “I hate to be the cause of unhappiness in the room . . . I have to suggest this phrase remains in brackets and I offer my sincere apologies.”

Read it all, at the link above.

(nothing follows)
Continue reading...

Europe in decline

Mark Steyn proves once again that he is the most insightful and valuable pundit out there on this issue.

The Children's Crusade:

In the next few years, Brussels, Antwerp, Amsterdam, Rotterdam will become majority Muslim. Let’s say you work in an office in those cities: One day they install a Muslim prayer room, and a few folks head off at the designated time, while the rest of you get on with what passes for work in the EU. A couple of years go by, and it’s now a few more folks scooting off to the prayer room. Then it’s a majority. And the ones who don’t are beginning to feel a bit awkward about being left behind.

What do you do? The future showed up a lot sooner than you thought. If you were a fundamentalist Christian like those wackjob Yanks, signing on to Islam might (pace Mr. Ferrigno) cause you some discomfort. But if you’re the average post-Christian Eurosecularist, what’s the big deal? Who wants to be the last guy sitting in the office sharpening his pencil during morning prayers?

(nothing follows)
Continue reading...

Judea Pearl in WSJ

Judea Pearl (father of Daniel Pearl) has a piece in today's Wall Street Journal on the terrible road the world has taken since the murder of his son in 2002.

Those around the world who mourned for Danny in 2002 genuinely hoped that Danny's murder would be a turning point in the history of man's inhumanity to man, and that the targeting of innocents to transmit political messages would quickly become, like slavery and human sacrifice, an embarrassing relic of a bygone era.

But somehow, barbarism, often cloaked in the language of "resistance," has gained acceptance in the most elite circles of our society. The words "war on terror" cannot be uttered today without fear of offense. Civilized society, so it seems, is so numbed by violence that it has lost its gift to be disgusted by evil.

I believe it all started with well-meaning analysts, who in their zeal to find creative solutions to terror decided that terror is not a real enemy, but a tactic. Thus the basic engine that propels acts of terrorism -- the ideological license to elevate one's grievances above the norms of civilized society -- was wished away in favor of seemingly more manageable "tactical" considerations.

Read it all.

(nothing follows)
Continue reading...

The Right of Return

In the latest issue of Commentary magazine, Michael J. Totten writes on "the mother of all quagmires" (i.e. the Arab-Israeli Conflict) including the so-called "right of return":

Fatah Party leader Mahmoud Abbas is clearly more moderate and reasonable than the leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, but even he can't compromise on the “right of return,” the so-far non-negotiable demand that all Palestinian refugees and their descendants from the 1948 war be allowed to return to settle in Israel. Israel would become an Arab-majority country if that were to happen, and most of the would-be arrivals have been radicalized in politically toxic refugee camps. The “right of return” would ignite a civil war worse than Lebanon’s.

Listen to Ran Cohen, Member of the Knesset for the left-wing Meretz Party and former leader of the Left Camp of Israel peace movement. “Even I refuse the right of return,” he said. “It's impossible. It's the opposite of a solution. Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas] and the others know our position on the right of return. Who are they going [to] negotiate this with? Not me, not Meretz, not Peace Now. Who? The Communist Party? Not even the radical left supports this."

(nothing follows)
Continue reading...

The Obama al-Arabiya interview

Victor Davis Hanson has an excellent analysis of Obama's first interview as president, at RealClearPolitics:

And nothing is offered here (other than our lack of a colonial past) about the actual impressive record: amazing American good will in saving Kuwait, objecting to the Kuwaiti deportations of thousands of Palestinians, speaking out against Russia on behalf of the Chechens, trying to save the Somalis, bombing a Christian European Serbia to save the Kosovar and Bosnian Muslims, helping the Afghans against the Soviets, removing the Taliban and Saddam Hussein and trying to invest a $1 trillion in fostering democracy in their places, billions in disease relief for black (and often Muslim) Africa, timely help to the Muslim victims of the tsunami, and liberal immigration laws that welcome in millions of Arabs and/or Muslims. I could go on but you get the picture left out that America, far better than China, Russia, or Europe, has been quite friendly to the Muslim world.

[...]

We should also remember that the Bush record was often quite good: we have not been hit in over seven years; Pakistan's nuclear proliferation was stopped; Libya gave up its nuclear program; Syria is out of Lebanon; Hamas and Hezbollah have suffered a great deal of damage as a result of their aggressions; there are constitutional governments at work in place of the Taliban and Saddam; the leadership of al Qaeda is scattered and depleted and its brand is diminished in Iraq. The fact that Middle East authoritarian governments might not like all of that; or that radical Muslims find this disturbing; or even that the spokesmen for the unfree populations of the Arab world object--simply does not change the truth. I wish President Obama better appreciated that simple fact, because he surely is a beneficiary of it.

Read it all.

Commentary Magazine focuses on one particularly worrisome line in the speech (hat tip: Jihad Watch):

"America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there’s no reason why we can’t restore that. And that I think is going to be an important task.”

So said our new president in his interview Tuesday with Al Arabiya, the Arabic-language satellite news channel. At first the words washed over me. Then I did some simple math. Let’s see… 20 or 30 years ago… that would be 1989 or 1979.

What was happening in relations between America and the Muslim world back then? Not relying on memory alone, I consulted Bernard Grun’s reference book, The Timetables of History.


It turns out that in 1989 U.S. fighters shot down two Libyan jets over the Gulf of Sidra. The last Soviet troops left Afghanistan, creating a vacuum that would eventually be filled by the Taliban. Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for Salman Rushdie’s death for “blasphemy.” Hundreds died in Lebanon’s long-running civil war while Hezbollah militants were torturing to death U.S. Marine Colonel William “Rich” Higgins, who had been kidnapped the previous year while serving as a UN peacekeeper in Lebanon.

And 1979? That was an even darker year-in many ways a turning point for the worse in the Middle East. That was, after all, the year that the shah of Iran was overthrown. He was replaced by the Ayatollah Khomeini, who launched a war against the West that is still unfolding. One of the first actions of this long struggle was the seizure of the US Embassy in Tehran and all of its personnel as hostages. The same year saw the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which led to the growth of the mujahideen, some of whom would later morph into Al Qaeda and the Taliban. This was also the year that Islamic militants temporarily seized control of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, an event that drove the Saudi royal family to become ever more fundamentalist.

In other news in 1979, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the former prime minister of Pakistan, was hanged by General Zia al-Hak, inaugurating a long period when Pakistan would be under the effective control of the army in alliance with Islamic militants. That year mobs also attacked U.S. embassies throughout the Muslim world from Kabul and Islamabad to Tripoli. The one bright spot in 1979 was the signing of the Camp David Accord between the US, Egypt, and Israel, which did not, unfortunately, auger a “new” Middle East as many optimists hoped.

So this is the sort of “partnership” between the U.S. and the Middle East that President Obama would like to see? If his predecessor had suggested any such thing he would by now be a subject of ridicule for late-night comedians and daytime talk show hosts, and rightly so.

This is actually a revealing slip. To wit, it reveals two things: First, Obama’s profound ignorance about most aspects of foreign policy, including the recent history of the Middle East. A second, and related point, is his tendency to blame the ills of the region on the previous administration-something that is only possible if you started following the Middle East around 2001 and have little idea of what came before. It is then all too easy to claim, as Obama did on the campaign trail, that it was George W. Bush’s “disengagement” from the peace process and his “disastrous” war with Iraq that messed up the Middle East. Only someone with a longer view would realize how profoundly messed up the region was long before Bush came into office....

Continue reading...

The most horrific Arab anti-Semitism ever

On Egypt's Rahma TV, a cleric shows footage from the Holocaust and states, "This Is What We Hope Will Happen But, Allah Willing, at the Hand of the Muslims." Warning: graphic footage.

Remember, Egypt has a peace treaty with Israel and receives billions in foreign aid from the United States every year.



(nothing follows)
Continue reading...

Stanford Gaza protest - Update

The latest issue of the Stanford Review has just been released, with coverage of the events of January 8 and 9.

From SOS' own Jonathan Gelbart:

The interminable Israeli-Palestinian conflict has entered its latest round, and with it have come the now-familiar demonstrations around the world generally condemning—but occasionally supporting—Israel’s decision to go to war in Gaza. Earlier this month, Stanford saw a combination of the two, first with a vigil the night of January 8 and then a protest the afternoon of January 9, both organized by Students Confronting Apartheid by Israel (SCAI). Emotions ran high at times, but as a whole, both events ran relatively smoothly.

(nothing follows)
Continue reading...

Brace yourselves

In the eyes of President Obama (and many on the Left as a whole), all of the Bush administration's tactics in the War on Terror were completely unjustified, illegal power-grabs whose ultimate goal was the annihilation of the civil rights of ordinary Americans.

The people with this mindset will get their rude awakening soon enough.

From The Washington Post (hat tip: LGF):

Key components of the secret structure developed under Bush are being swept away: The military's Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, facility, where the rights of habeas corpus and due process had been denied detainees, will close, and the CIA is now prohibited from maintaining its own overseas prisons. And in a broad swipe at the Bush administration's lawyers, Obama nullified every legal order and opinion on interrogations issued by any lawyer in the executive branch after Sept. 11, 2001.

(nothing follows)
Continue reading...

Geert Wilders charged for exercising right to free speech

It is by now already common knowledge that Geert Wilders, Dutch parliamentarian and leader of the stalwart anti-Islamist Party for Freedom, has been charged by Dutch authorities with "insulting groups of people" and "inciting hatred against people of a certain faith." The supposedly offensive material was in speeches Wilders had made as well as in his short film released last year, Fitna, which juxtaposes verses from the Qur'an with Islamist terrorist attacks. This blatant attack on freedom of speech does not bode well for the future of Europe.

One feature of this incident not as well-known, however, is that the prosecutor had initially declined to file charges, until nine people filed complaints with the Dutch Court of Appeal. Nine people.

Small groups can make a big difference. Remember that.

And watch Fitna, if you haven't already, and decide for yourself if the movie itself is "insulting" or "inciting," and not the quotes presented therein:



You can contribute to Geert Wilders' legal defense fund at geertwilders.nl.

(Hat tip: Jihad Watch)

(nothing follows)
Continue reading...

Debating political Islam in Qatar

Peter Townson of the Gulf Times reports on a debate held recently in Doha, Qatar on the motion "This house believes that political Islam is a threat to the West." More interesting than the fact that this debate was held, however, was one of the participants:

Speaking for the motion was former member [of] Hizb-ut-Tahrir and current director of the UK-based Quilliam Foundation which works to counter extremism, Maajid Nawaz.

[...]

Nawaz was first to speak and he emphasised the need to distinguish between “Muslims involved in politics,” and “political Islam.”

“We are not arguing that Muslims should not participate in the political process – far from it, as we are all Muslims who are politically involved, but we are arguing that Islamism, which has a fixed agenda and uses scripture to justify its political aims, is a threat to the West,” he said.

That last quote certainly got our attention. We've heard very few Muslims put things so bluntly. So we did a little research on this Quilliam Foundation.

According to their home page, the foundation "aims to generate creative thought paradigms through informed and inclusive discussion to counter the Islamist ideology behind terrorism." The group seemed to be a model moderate Muslim organization, until we discovered that they invited CAIR's former national legal director, Arsalan Iftikhar, to speak at their launch event last April. Nevertheless, the formation of the group is definitely a step in the right direction, and something to keep an eye on.

(nothing follows)
Continue reading...

ISI training women to be terrorists in Kashmir

Remember when Pervez Musharraf assured the audience during his speech at Stanford that ISI, the Pakistani intelligence service, was doing its best to fight terrorism? Here's more evidence he was sorely mistaken, from the Times of India. (Hat tip: Jihad Watch)

The revelation of a Pakistani woman, Asiya Bibi (23), who is in J&K [Jammu & Kashmir - ed.] police's custody, that ISI is training about 100 women for terror assignments in the state has sent the security establishment into a tizzy.

Asiya, arrested from Rajouri along the LoC in November last year, told her interrogators that the women fidayeen were undergoing arms training in various terror camps at Bimbar, Kotli and Sena in PoK. "In Bimbar, dozens of women are receiving arms training along with men,'' an interrogator quoted Asiya as saying. "Pakistan army soldiers are training women in Sensa and Kotli while ISI men are incharge at Bimbar.''...

(nothing follows)
Continue reading...

Ending the West's Proxy War Against Israel

Excellent article in the Wall Street Journal, by Gunnar Heinsohn, explaining the role of UNRWA, the United States, and the European Union in perpetuating the Gazan problem and setting the stage for another generation of war against Israel.

Most interesting quotes:

The reason for Gaza's endless youth bulge is that a large majority of its population does not have to provide for its offspring. Most babies are fed, clothed, vaccinated and educated by UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. Unlike the U.N. High Commission for Refugees, which deals with the rest of the world's refugees and aims to settle them in their respective host countries, UNRWA perpetuates the Palestinian problem by classifying as refugees not only those who originally fled their homes, but all of their descendents as well.

[...]

The West pays for food, schools, medicine and housing, while Muslim nations help out with the military hardware. Unrestrained by such necessities as having to earn a living, the young have plenty of time on their hands for digging tunnels, smuggling, assembling missiles and firing 4,500 of them at Israel since 2006. While this gruesome activity has slowed the Palestinian internecine slaughter, it forced some 250,000 Israelis into bomb shelters.

[...]

If we seriously want to avoid another generation of war in Gaza, we must have the courage to tell the Gazans that they will have to start looking after their children themselves, without UNRWA's help. This would force Palestinians to focus on building an economy instead of freeing them up to wage war.

(nothing follows)
Continue reading...

Stanford Gaza protest

Stanford got its own piece of the worldwide intifada last week. Here's SOS' report.


The festivities began on Thursday, January 9, with a "vigil" for the victims of the conflict. The picture above shows the size of the crowd. It was actually pretty substantial. Unfortunately, the vigil was little more than a parade of anti-Israel speakers, with the Raging Grannies thrown in for good measure.


The three speakers were Professor Hilton Zimmerman, Professor Khalil Barhoum, and local reporter Eduardo Cohen. The first and last speakers were actually Jewish, but that didn't stop them from decrying the "massacre" in Gaza and, in the case of the latter, spout conspiracy theories about how the entire situation was planned years ago by Ariel Sharon. The only non-Jewish speaker, Professor Khalil Barhoum, has become somewhat of a regular at pro-Palestinian events. Professor Barhoum introduced Palestinian Ambassador to the United States Afif Safiyeh when he spoke at Stanford last year, and was also the keynote speaker at an anti-Israel film screening at Foothill Community College last spring. He is pictured below standing with Fadi Quran, president of Students Confronting Apartheid by Israel (SCAI).


The following day was the actual protest against what is going on in Gaza. A fair number of protesters and a significant amount of counter-protesters showed up and...mostly stood around doing nothing. First, though, the two sides came together and shook hands, at the request of Fadi Quran, president of Students Confronting Apartheid by Israel. A video of this is included below. If only solving problems were really that easy...



After that, there were chants from both sides for several minutes, and scattered heated arguments, but nothing too crazy.

I thought it was ironic that the pro-Palestinian side was standing in front of the blood donation truck.

Pro-Israel demonstrators walk past the line of Palestine supporters.

Better view of the pro-Palestinian side's signs.

Leaders of the Stanford Israel Alliance being interviewed by local media.

The pro-Israel side.

Take a look at the Stanford Daily's article on the protest.
Check out Palo Alto Online's coverage (with video).
Check the Stanford Review Web site the week of January 25 for their article about the events.

Continue reading...

Pervez Musharraf speaks at Stanford

Pervez Musharraf, former president of Pakistan, spoke at Stanford's Memorial Auditorium today, thanks to the ASSU Speakers' Bureau and Stanford in Government.

The very first utterance Musharraf made, even before "Thank you for the introduction," was "Bismillahi al-rahmani al-rahimi." That is, "In the name of Allah, most gracious, most merciful." This is the first sentence of every chapter of the Qur'an (except Chapter 9) and is the first line of the constitutions of many Islamic countries. By beginning with this line, Musharraf wanted everyone present to know that he was not only making his statements as a Muslim, but as a pious Muslim. I have never personally heard any speaker begin with this phrase, and I have heard many Muslims speak at Stanford, including a past president of the Shariah Scholars’ Association of North America.


Given this beginning, it is not surprising that Musharraf, throughout his speech, consistently refused to link terrorism to Islam in any way. Instead he singled out "Islamophobia" as "very dangerous" in the fight against terrorism. He spoke of the need to "uproot" the "tree of terrorism" and not merely cut off the "branches and leaves." But what is the root cause of terrorism according to President Musharraf, former leader of one of the largest incubators of terrorism in the world? Illiteracy, desperation brought about by autocratic governments, and political grievances.

First of all, it is laughable that President Musharraf would condemn oppressive governments, having led one himself for nine years. Second, if illiteracy and desperation at heavy-handed government were truly the root causes of terrorism, we would be facing hundreds of millions of terrorists from Sub-Saharan Africa. Instead, we see Muslim doctors and medical students blow themselves up in order to kill innocent civilians around the world, from Scotland to Iraq. These people are far from illiterate or desperate. Now, to be fair, the illiterate masses in the Muslim world do provide fertile recruiting ground for radical groups. However, this is not a root cause of terrorism. This is merely a branch on Musharraf's figurative tree. The root cause lies with the people doing the recruiting. They are motivated by something else.

That brings us to Musharraf's third "root cause" of terrorism: political grievances. Musharraf singled out the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the dispute over Kashmir as particularly strong recruitment tools for Islamist terrorist organizations. If these conflicts were resolved (the first with a two-state solution, the second as the result of an unclear "peace process"), much, if not most, terrorism would end, according to Musharraf. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan have expressed similar views. That fact, however, does not make this outlook more correct. Does anyone truly believe that if, say, Israel did not exist, Iran would stop funding terrorist organizations, al-Qaeda would close up shop, and the hordes who cry "death to America" across the Middle East would magically disappear? Does anyone truly believe that, were but the Kashmir issue resolved, India's 154 million Muslims would suddenly live in perfect harmony with their Hindu neighbors and relations between India and Pakistan would normalize overnight? This belief is mere fantasy.

But I digress. Musharraf continued his speech by affirming that the Pakistani army and intelligence service (ISI) are completely trustworthy organizations doing their best to fight Islamist terrorism under the leadership of the Pakistani government. He also stated that anyone who believes otherwise is sorely mistaken, since it is "in the best interest of Pakistan" to fight terrorism; the people are tired of the constant bombings and death. ISI's history makes this statement hard to believe. Take a look at this backgrounder by the Council on Foreign Relations for a roundup of the accusations leveled at the group.

After his speech, Musharraf faced what could be termed an interrogation by political science professor Scott Sagan. Musharraf adroitly avoided answering every single question. The most notable question asked was regarding Lashkar-e-Taiba, the terrorist group that has been accused of carrying out the attacks in Mumbai last November and has suspected ties to ISI. Musharraf's answer was to bring up the bombing of the Samjhauta Express (a train that goes between India and Pakistan) in 2007, which was supposedly perpetrated by a radical Hindu colonel in the Indian Army. Even if this charge is true, it does not change the fact that Lashkar-e-Taiba (let alone the dozens of other terrorist groups based in Pakistan) has conducted numerous deadly attacks in recent years, including the 2005 Delhi bombings, the 2006 Varanasi bombings, the 2006 Mumbai train bombings, and the 2006 blasts at Malegaon. Musharraf made no mention of these attacks.

Professor Sagan then opened the floor for the audience to ask questions. Indian and Pakistani students rushed to the microphones to grill Musharraf on the toughest issues facing their respective countries and the region as a whole. Unsurprisingly, Musharraf repeatedly denied that Pakistan was responsible for any of the region's ills, stated that all of his actions as dictator were taken in accordance with the Pakistani constitution, and blamed India for the recent deterioration in relations between the two countries. He went so far as to state that India "wants war," claiming that a "war hysteria" had swept through the country. He added, ominously, that Pakistan "does not want war," but would not shy away from it if it was thrust upon it.

Two students asked questions about Islamist terrorism, the first asking why most terrorist acts around the world are perpetrated by Muslims, and the second asking how we can fight terrorism while remaining respectful towards Islam. After stating that the number of attacks carried out by Muslims "needs to decline," Musharraf once again brought up the Israeli-Palestinian issue, arguing that if that issue were resolved, "extremism" would see a sharp decline. He also brought up the Samjhauta Express bombing again as an example of non-Islamist terrorism.

Overall, Musharraf's presentation was disappointing, especially because of his refusal even to name Islamism as a vitally important factor in Pakistan's recent destabilization. He instead only referred to "terrorism" or "extremism" and made only one passing reference to Pakistan's 13,000 madrasas, or Qur'an schools, which are notorious for serving as incubators for radicalism and terrorism. Musharraf's insistence that most of the region's problems were the fault of India was also disheartening.

Nevertheless, it was enlightening to hear about these issues from someone so deeply involved in them, and it was encouraging that my fellow students had the courage to ask the tough questions that need to be asked. I wouldn't mind seeing more of that spirit on this campus.

The Associated Press has its own (much less detailed) coverage of the event.

Continue reading...

The birth of the SOS blog

Welcome to the official blog of Students for an Open Society at Stanford University. In the coming months (and hopefully years), this space will be regularly updated with information about newsworthy events going on at Stanford as well as helpful links for people concerned about the spread of radical Islam around the world.

(nothing follows)
Continue reading...