Can we trust Muslims living in America?



Traditional Muslim Dress (Female)



Traditional Muslim Dress (Men)

  There are more than 8 million Muslim believers who live in America. Some seem obvious because of dress or facial features. Most blend into the everyday American scene. There is no question that a devout Muslim believer sees life through a different lens than does a European Caucasian who has been raised in one of the versions of American Christianity. A small group of Americans and muslim Americans are attempting to use aspects of the Muslim faith to create political panic. Their fear message may be well intended over concern for the safety and well being of our nation, or it may be deeply sinister. They speak and write with great certainty.

The message is straightforward. Muslims are attempting to take control of America through the establishment of Sharia law in our court system. To understand what is going on, we need to ask what is Sharia law?

The word” sharia” is a great expression. In Arabic it means “the path to a watering hole.” In more explicit words, sharia is the Muslim’s code for living. The details are spelled out in the holy book of Islam, the Quran.

Muhammad recieving the Quran from Gabriel

 By tradition, the Quran was given to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel in the seventh century CE. In many ways the Quran is similar to the Torah of Jews and the Christian’s New Testament. They all cover a wide range of topics and they all at times become very particular in their instructions about the way people should live. All have instructions that are kind, loving and compassionate. All have passages that are brutal, bloody and morally offensive. Those who are shouting about the imminent dangers of Sharia law make the case that Sharia law is especially brutal and morally offensive.

But Sharia law is more than words from the Quran. As a holy book written in an ancient time, in an ancient place and in an ancient culture it demands interpretation in every new circumstance. It is these "new circumstances" where interpretations can and often do become askewed. The history of Islam reveals the phenomenon of changing interpretations of Sharia. Islamic people have been vicious warriors and they have been peaceful neighbors. The social customs of some Muslims have been rigid and uncompromising. Other Muslims have been very accommodating to changing cultures and customs. Today there are an incredible number of Muslim groups and tribes. Each has its own way of interpreting Sharia law.

They all claim to live by Sharia law. Today, Sharia law has became a system of governance. Sharia law has expanded into matters of family life, weather it be social, judicial, political and religious, which Muhammad never dreamed and the Quran never anticipated.

Are there Muslims who want Sharia law to be the law of their nation? Certainly. The biggest threat to all civilizations is Islamic liberalism because Islamic liberals fully understand Islamic history but like the deceivers they are; they still desire to Islamize but by Islamic dawah, stealth jihad, and Islamic kitman.

Osama bin Laden supported killing apostates, Islamic jihad, Islamic Sharia law, killing homosexuals, child marriage, stoning women to death for adultery, enslaving non-Muslims during jihad, and he believed that Muslim men would go to heaven and meet virgins after killing infidels.

The Virgin Welcoming Party


The Islam of Osama bin Laden was based on Mohammed, the quran, Hadiths and Islamic Sharia law. All the above in the previous paragraph was sanctioned by Mohammed and Mohammed himself married a child and ordered the killings of non-Muslims in the name of Allah.

Islamic liberal organizations like Muslim Bridges (http://muslimbridges.org) in America are openly spreading Islam despite claiming to build bridges. You only have to check their website to note that they visit Christian churches and teach people how to pray to Allah and how Islam is based on love and peace.

Of course, these liberal kitman Muslims know full well that apostates are killed in Islamic nations based on Sharia Islamic law. Therefore, Muslim converts to other religions face the death penalty in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, the Maldives, and Yemen.

However, the kitman liberal Muslims will state that Mohammed means peace and that Islam means love and humility. Somehow killing apostates, stoning to death, cross amputation, child marriage (child rape is still sanctioned in Saudi Arabia), stoning to death for adultery, enslaving during jihad and so on; all this means "peace" in the minds of kitman loving liberal Muslims who love to spread Islamic dawah by stating complete lies.


The beheading of American Nickolas Berge Iraq 2003

 Muslim Bridges also plays the race card and states how ethnicity is not important in Islam and so forth. This organization praises the fact that mixed marriages can be seen openly in Mecca and all because of the greatness of Allah.

Strange because slavery was not abolished until the 1960s in the lands of Mecca and Medina and this only happened because of external pressure by non-Muslim nations. Also, in modern day Mauritania and Sudan it is clear that black Africans are treated with disdain and that slavery is a constant threat.

Another point which Islamic liberals gloss over is the fact that non- Muslim men face the death penalty in Saudi Arabia for marrying a Muslim female. Yes, for an act of love the reality of Islam in accordance to Islamic Sharia law means death in the lands of Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, the Maldives, Yemen and a few other nations.

Of course the liberal media machine, the United Nations and political leaders in the West desire to ignore this reality. After all, the non-Muslim world must show its fairness while Islamists kill Buddhists in southern Thailand and marry non-Muslims freely and without any hindrance.

It seems that Islamic fanatics and Islamic liberals can't lose because either way it is a win-win situation. Therefore, the Muslim population keeps on growing in India and the United Kingdom and at the same time the Hindu population faces complete annihilation in Pakistan and the same fate awaits the Christian community in Iraq.

If you magnify organizations and individuals like Muslim Bridges then it is abundantly clear that liberal Islam is the real threat to non- Muslim nations. Also, liberals in the West and India are bending over backwards in order to allow this lie to spread despite Islamic sources in the quran and the Hadiths which state the opposite.

Therefore, for every non-Muslim who is converted to radical Islam in mainly non-Muslim nations, you will have another 99 who are converted to liberal Islamic kitman, whereby Islamic dawah openly enabled lies to be told in order to spread the faith.

The madness of these Islamic liberals is much worse than individuals like Osama bin Laden who fully understood the reality of Islam.

After all, if you look at Afghanistan then firstly liberal Islam was spread along with the Sufi deceivers who are dangerous because they first went out and converted in the name of deceit and lies.

Once the faith spread and Islam grew in power then Buddhism, Hinduism and all non-Muslim faiths in Afghanistan were doomed to slavery and the Islamic inquisition.

In time Islamization would take place in Afghanistan and all Buddhists and Hindus faced the sword of Islam. After this, the various thought patterns in Islam were seen to be problematic because past culture remained therefore the Sunni Islamic Taliban emerged and now it was the turn of Shia Muslims and other non-Sunni branches to face the wrath of pure Sunni Islamization.

Liberal Muslims are the real threat because Islamic armies can no longer invade the majority of non-Muslim nations. Therefore, Saudi Arabia and others are spreading Islam via Islamic dawah, deceit and open lies in order to Islamize.

So, armed with these facts, can you truely trust Islam with it's totle controling dogma?

Jihad Miami Style

Hafiz and sons

The FBI has arrested two South Florida imams and a third family member, charging them with supporting the Pakistani Taliban. Three relatives of the arrested men are also indicted on the same charges in Pakistan. While the officials stress that the arrests are not linked to the killing of Osama bin Laden, the leaders of American Muslims express concerns that the case may heighten anti-Islamic prejudices in society. In the wake of bin Laden’s eradication, the American authorities are facing a challenging task – to adequately respond to the growing threat of a terrorist retaliation and, at the same time, to avoid spreading panic and hysteria in society.



Hafiz Khan

 Hafiz Khan, the imam at the Flagler Mosque in Miami and his son Izhar Khan, an imam at the Jamaat Al-Mu'mineen Mosque in Margate, were arrested by FBI agents in Florida on Sunday. One other son of Hafiz Khan, Irfan Khan, was arrested in Los Angeles. Meanwhile three more Khan’s family members, including his daughter and grandson, are wanted in Pakistan.

The defendants are accused of providing material support to a conspiracy to kill, injure and kidnap people abroad. FBI officials also claim that all six were connected to the Pakistani Taliban. The officials drew special attention t the fact that the arrests were not linked to the killing of Osama bin Laden. Instead, the charges relate to criminal activity carried out by the defendants between 2008 and 2010. The attention of the federal authorities was drawn by a large number of financial transactions between the imams and Pakistan. 

"Despite being an imam, or spiritual leader, Hafiz Khan was by no means a man of peace. Instead, as today's charges show, he acted with others to support terrorists to further acts of murder, kidnapping and maiming," said U.S. Attorney Wilfredo A. Ferrer. "But for law enforcement intervention, these defendants would have continued to transfer funds to Pakistan to finance the Pakistani Taliban, including its purchase of guns."

According to the court documents, the three-and-a-half-year investigation saw the authorities collect numerous pieces of evidence of the defendants’ criminal activity, including several conversations between Hafiz Khan and his relatives, concerning possible attacks against the Pakistani government and the ways to deliver funds to the Pakistani Taliban.

"Khan solicited and distributed funds for the Pakistani Taliban, both personally and on behalf of others, and worked with the co-defendants and others to support the Pakistani Taliban's jihad," the indictment states.

The federal agents also claim that the investigation is still continuing as the authorities are aware of several unindicted co-conspirators located in the United States and in Pakistan.

The news about charges against the imams has already fueled the escalation tension both within the Muslim community and with the rest of the local population. The religious leaders of the Florida Muslims express concerns that the arrest of the Khans may heighten prejudices against the whole community.

"I would like everyone to know that Masjid Jamaat Al-Mu'mineen does not support terrorism, for this is forbidden in Islam. The Koran clearly tells us do not spread corruption on Earth," said Yazid Ali, president of the Jamaat Al-Mu'mineen Mosque in Margate, Florida.

His concerns couldn’t be described as totally groundless. The mosque has already started to receive threats, so the police had to provide additional security to the site.

At the same time, the Florida Muslims who used to attend Khan’s mosque express their surprise at the arrest, saying they’ve never heard any hate propaganda from their spiritual leader.

Despite the hopes of many, the death of bin Laden doesn’t mean the end of the war on terror. The problem goes beyond promises of retaliation from al-Qaeda. The case of the US imams, as well as the recent arrest of New York Islamists who had been planning an attack on a synagogue, demonstrates that the threat of American home-grown terrorism keeps rising. The American authorities now have to find a solution to a difficult problem – how to provide national security and, at the same time, avoid the stirring social unrest and escalating hostility between religious communities.

FACT: One unwary phone call led U.S. to bin Laden

When one of Osama bin Laden's most trusted aides picked up the phone last year, he unknowingly led U.S. pursuers to the doorstep of his boss, the world's most wanted terrorist.

That phone call, recounted Monday by U.S. official, ended a years-long search for bin Laden's personal courier, the key break in a worldwide manhunt. The courier, in turn, led U.S. intelligence to a walled compound in northeast Pakistan, where a team of Navy SEALS shot bin Laden to death.

The violent final minutes were the culmination of years of intelligence work. Inside the CIA team hunting bin Laden, it always was clear that bin Laden's vulnerability was his couriers. He was too smart to let al-Qaida foot soldiers, or even his senior commanders, know his hideout. But if he wanted to get his messages out, somebody had to carry them, someone bin Laden trusted with his life.


Khalid Sheikh Mohammed



In a secret CIA prison in Eastern Europe years ago, al-Qaida's No. 3 leader, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, gave authorities the nicknames of several of bin Laden's couriers, four former U.S. intelligence officials said. Those names were among thousands of leads the CIA was pursuing.

One man became a particular interest for the agency when another detainee, Abu Faraj al-Libi, told interrogators that when he was promoted to succeed Mohammed as al-Qaida's operational leader he received the word through a courier. Only bin Laden would have given al-Libi that promotion, CIA officials believed.


Abu Faraj al-Libi



If they could find that courier, they'd find bin Laden.

The revelation that intelligence gleaned from the CIA's so-called black sites helped kill bin Laden was seen as vindication for many intelligence officials who have been repeatedly investigated and criticized for their involvement in a program that involved the harshest interrogation methods in U.S. history.

"We got beat up for it, but those efforts led to this great day," said Marty Martin, a retired CIA officer who for years led the hunt for bin Laden.

It took years of work for intelligence agencies to identify the courier's real name, which officials are not disclosing. When they did identify him, he was nowhere to be found. The CIA's sources didn't know where he was hiding. Bin Laden was famously insistent that no phones or computers be used near him, so the eavesdroppers at the National Security Agency kept coming up cold.

Then in the middle of last year, the courier had a telephone conversation with someone who was being monitored by U.S. intelligence, according to an American official, who like others interviewed for this story spoke only on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive operation. The courier was located somewhere away from bin Laden's hideout when he had the discussion, but it was enough to help intelligence officials locate and watch him.

In August 2010, the courier unknowingly led authorities to a compound in the northeast Pakistani town of Abbottabad. The walls surrounding the property were as high as 18 feet and topped with barbed wire. No telephone or Internet lines ran from the compound. It had all the hallmarks of a hideout built especially for bin Laden. But since bin Laden never traveled and nobody could get onto the compound without passing through two security gates, there was no way to be sure.

Despite that uncertainty, intelligence officials realized this could represent the best chance ever to get to bin Laden. They decided not to share the information with anyone, including staunch counterterrorism allies such as Britain, Canada and Australia.

Barack Obama



By mid-February, the officials were convinced a "high-value target" was hiding in the compound. President Barack Obama wanted to take action.

"They were confident and their confidence was growing: 'This is different. This intelligence case is different. What we see in this compound is different than anything we've ever seen before,'" John Brennan, the president's top counterterrorism adviser, said Monday. "I was confident that we had the basis to take action."

Options were limited. The compound was in a residential neighborhood in a sovereign country. If Obama ordered an airstrike and bin Laden was not in the compound, it would be a huge diplomatic problem. Even if Obama was right, obliterating the compound might make it nearly impossible to confirm bin Laden's death.

Said Brennan: "The president had to evaluate the strength of that information, and then made what I believe was one of the most gutsiest calls of any president in recent memory."

Obama tapped two dozen members of the Navy's elite SEAL Team Six to carry out a raid with surgical accuracy.

Before dawn Monday morning, a pair of helicopters left Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan. The choppers entered Pakistani airspace using sophisticated technology intended to evade that country's radar systems, a U.S. official said.

Officially, it was a kill-or-capture mission, since the U.S. doesn't kill unarmed people trying to surrender. But it was clear from the beginning that whoever was behind those walls had no intention of surrendering, two U.S. officials said.

The helicopters lowered into the compound, dropping the SEALs behind the walls. No shots were fired, but shortly after the team hit the ground, one of the helicopters came crashing down and rolled onto its side for reasons the government has yet to explain. None of the SEALs was injured, however, and the mission continued uninterrupted.

With the CIA and White House monitoring the situation in real time — presumably by live satellite feed or video carried by the SEALs — the team stormed the compound and entered the room where bin Laden was hiding. In the ensuing firefight, Brennan said, bin Laden used a woman as a human shield and returned fire. The SEALs killed bin Laden with a bullet to the head.

Bin Laden's body was immediately identifiable, but the U.S. also conducted DNA testing that identified him with near 100 percent certainty, senior administration officials said. Photo analysis by the CIA, confirmation by a woman believed to be bin Laden's wife on site, and matching physical features such as bin Laden's height all helped confirm the identification. At the White House, there was no doubt.

"I think the accomplishment that very brave personnel from the United States government were able to realize yesterday is a defining moment in the war against al-Qaida, the war on terrorism, by decapitating the head of the snake known as al-Qaida," Brennan said.

Said the president: "I think we can all agree this is a good day for America."

Islamist Penetration of U.S. Government Investigated

In a letter sent yesterday to congressional leaders, the authors of a groundbreaking report entitled Shariah: The Threat to America called on the legislative branch to do something the executive branch seems determined not to undertake: A rigorous investigation of the extent to which the Muslim Brotherhood’s stealthy “civilization jihad” has gained access to and influence over the United States government, with grave implications for the national security.

The group known as “Team B II” includes experienced defense, intelligence and law enforcement practitioners – notably, former Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey; Lieutenant Generals Harry E. Soyster and William G. Boykin, the former Defense Intelligence Agency Director and former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, respectively; former Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Fleet Admiral James A. Lyons; and former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy.

Their letter provides a powerful rejoinder to the public address given by Attorney General Eric Holder. While General Holder insisted that his department, and presumably other government agencies, will continue their “outreach to all communities,” Team B II warned leaders on Capitol Hill:

There is evidence that, thanks to misbegotten official “outreach” efforts to self-appointed “leaders” of the Muslim community, Brotherhood influence operations have been highly successful in penetrating and interfering with our law enforcement, homeland defense, military and intelligence communities’ performance of their vital missions. If that is the case, the implications could not be more serious, and the need for corrective action could not be more acute.

Team B II’s letter cited recent revelations by one of its members, counterterrorism expert Patrick Poole, who published over the past fortnight a series of explosive quotes provided by an unnamed senior Justice Department official in the course of a six-hour interview. Particularly worrying is the allegation that a federal criminal prosecution of Muslim Brotherhood-associated individuals and organizations was “scuttled last year at the direction of top-level political appointees within the Department of Justice – and possibly even the White House.”

At issue is the intended second phase of prosecutions arising from the evidence introduced in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial – the largest terrorism funding trial in U.S. history. The first phase resulted in five convictions based substantially on Muslim Brotherhood documents that established the Brotherhood is explicitly engaged in a “civilization jihad” in the United States, a conspiracy to “destroy the Western civilization from within.” These documents also identified 29 prominent Muslim-American groups as “our organizations and organizations of our friends.” The planned second part of the Holy Land Foundation prosecution would have resulted in the indictment of some of those listed as unindicted co-conspirators in the first phase.

In a letter sent to General Holder last week, Rep. Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, confirmed the charges made by Mr. Poole’s source:

I have been reliably informed that the decision not to seek indictments of the Council on American Islamic Relations (“CAIR”) and its co-founder Omar Ahmad, the Islamic Society of North America (“ISNA”), and the North American Islamic Trust (“NAIT”), was usurped by high-ranking officials at Department of Justice headquarters over the vehement and stated objections of special agents and supervisors of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as the prosecutors at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Dallas, who had investigated and successfully prosecuted the Holy Land Foundation case. Their opposition to this decision raises serious doubt that the decision not to prosecute was a valid exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

On the occasion of the release of the Team B II letter, co-author Frank J. Gaffney Jr., whose Center for Security Policy sponsored Shariah: The Threat to America, remarked:

The Attorney General’s efforts to deflect attention from apparently well-founded charges of official misconduct must not prevent Congress from engaging in an aggressive investigation of those charges and the larger context of Muslim Brotherhood activity in Washington and across America. It was heartening to hear Rep. Pete King declare last Sunday on Fox News that the House Homeland Security Committee and House Judiciary Committee may have to take further action to find out why the Justice Department dropped the terror finance prosecutions. We call on those and other congressional panels – on both sides of Capitol Hill – to take up as well and as a matter of the utmost urgency investigations of the nature and extent of the Brotherhood’s “civilization jihad” against our government, civil society and Constitution.

"Islamist role rising" in post-Mubarak Egypt, Muslim Brotherhood has role on committee redrafting constitution

Post Mubarak Egypt

The Muslim Brotherhood begins its own post-Mubarak transition, after deliberately downplaying its religious message during the uprising, waiting to make its move.

They know they have the support of so much of a population that is already highly receptive to a Sharia regime: a poll published just over two weeks ago showed Egyptians at once largely think democracy is the most preferable form of government (59% of participants), but also want to see stonings (82%) and a death penalty for apostasy (84%).

There will be a rude awakening for the many in the West who have come to assume democracy and human rights by any standard they would recognize are a package deal. "Islamist role rising as Egyptians plan victory march," by Sherine Madany and Patrick Werr for Reuters, February 17:

Egyptian youth leaders moved to set up a new political party on Thursday as the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood played an increasingly important role in preparing for post-Mubarak elections promised within six months.

The Brotherhood has a member on the committee redrafting the constitution, is on a council set up by activists to protect the revolution and has said it will set up as a political party as soon as laws are changed to let it and others do so.

The Brotherhood's spokesman appeared on state television a few days ago, a first for a movement banned in the Mubarak era. Having been timid in the early days of the revolt, it clearly thinks it is safe to come out.

And on February 2, it saw its shadow, and there will be six more weeks of stealth jihad the world over.

The Brotherhood is viewed with suspicion by Washington but is seen as the only truly organized bloc in Egypt and reckons it could win up to 30 percent of votes in a free election.

In another sign of the transformation of Egyptian politics, al-Gama'a al-Islamiya (Islamic Group), which took up arms against Mubarak's administration in the 1990s and was crushed by security forces, held its first public meeting in 15 years.

"Our position is to turn a new page with the new regime," said Assem Abdel-Maged, a group member who spent years in jail for his role in the 1981 assassination of President Anwar Sadat. "We will perform any positive role we can to help society."...

We are Witnessing the Collapse of the Middle East

If Egypt should fall, it will mark the beginning of the end for what little remaining stability there is in the Middle East. Jordan is facing similar unrest, as is Algeria and Yemen. Lebanon and Tunisia fell in January. It is highly unlikely that these events are unrelated. A combination of leftist and Islamist forces provoked the protests, and we are likely looking at a ring of radical Islamic states rising up to surround Israel.

Once their power is solidified, they will combine forces to attack Israel. In fact, the Muslim Brotherhood has already said that Egypt should prepare for war with Israel. If Israel falls, the United States will stand alone in a sea of virulent enemies and impotent allies.

So who does Obama support, Mubarak or his enemies?

Obama wasted no time in telling us. He supports Mubarak’s opponents, and probably has been all along. The Los Angeles Times reported on Sunday that the Obama administration favors a role for the Muslim Brotherhood in a new Egyptian government.

The Muslim Brotherhood, the oldest extremist Muslim organization, is behind practically every Muslim terrorist organization ever formed. And while they may have publicly renounced violence as the LA Times article claims, internal documents tell a completely different picture.

And if that weren’t bad enough, Obama’s latest comment to Egypt’s leader is that “…an orderly transition …must begin now.”

Must begin. Now.

Simply stunning.

Juxtapose Obama’s statements toward our allies with his reaction to the genuine uprising that occurred last year in Iran. Tunisia: “Reform or be overthrown.” Egypt: “…an orderly transition …must begin now.” Iran: “It is not productive… to be seen as meddling." Meanwhile, candidate Obama claimed the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah have “legitimate claims,” and we all remember his mindless Counterterrorism Czar, John Brennan, out to “moderate” Hezbollah members last spring. Hezbollah moderates?

The seeming inconsistency is astonishing. Unfortunately, there is a consistency. Obama uniformly sides with our enemies, but rarely, if ever our friends and allies. His administration is packed with far left radicals and vicious anti-Semites. And therein lies the rub, because what we are witnessing in reality is this President’s un-American, anti-American, treasonous ideology in full play.

Perhaps this is the real reason for Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Code Pink’s Medea Benjamin and Jody Evans’ trips to Egypt in 2009. Following those trips, these same people made visits to the White House.

Obama’s breathlessly arrogant answer? Not the same Ayers, Dohrn, Benjamin and Evans. Sure.

A few years back it was quoted by Lynn Stewart, the Guild attorney jailed for helping blind Sheikh, Omar Adel Raman, foment terror from his New York jail cell. One thinks that atheistic radical leftists would be foursquare against a political movement that tramples women’s rights, murders homosexuals and enforces strict theocratic mandates. No such luck Stewart said:

They [radical Islamic movements] are basically forces of national liberation. And I think that we, as persons who are committed to the liberation of oppressed people, should fasten on the need for self-determination…My own sense is that, were the Islamists to be empowered, there would be movements within their own countries…to liberate.

“…movements within their own countries… to liberate.” Given recent developments, her statement was prescient. But I think it had a special meaning. The words “liberate” and “national liberation” hit the sweet spot for leftists everywhere. Because when movement leftists like Stewart talk about “liberation,” they are really talking about communism.

It has been my longstanding assertion that Muslim terrorism is simply a false flag operation, managed in the background by our main enemies, Russia and Red China. This is in no way intended to suggest that radical Muslim movements are not a threat. They are. But almost since the beginning, these organizations have been supported and nurtured by the Soviet Union or their Middle Eastern surrogates. They remain behind the scenes, plausibly deniable, yet are the puppet masters pulling the strings, a fact of which even many of the terrorists are unaware.

Yasser Arafat’s PLO is a prime example. Created by the KGB, the PLO was always about providing a Soviet counterweight to Israel in the Middle East. They were uninterested in the Palestinian cause, and said so! Rather, the Palestinian fight for “statehood” was a PLO invention, created to provide an excuse for aggression against Israel. They said so! Alexander Litvinenko, the KGB defector poisoned by Polonium 210 in what was assumed to be a KGB hit, claimed in his book, Allegations, that al Qaeda’s number two man, Ayman Al Zawahiri, was a Soviet agent. And while today Hezbollah is the defacto ruler of Lebanon, the real power is Ba’athist Syria.

David Horowitz wrote of the alliance between Leftists and Muslim terrorists in his seminal book: Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left. He describes in detail how the Left and Muslim radicals work together to achieve their mutual ends: the destruction of America.

It is incomprehensible that President Obama does not recognize the strategic significance of what is happening, and if he does, then his support of Egypt’s sham “democracy movement” is a naked betrayal of our Middle Eastern allies, and by extension, our own country.

Unfortunately, his view is shared by republicans who are so in love with the idea of “democracy” that it doesn’t appear to matter to them that the “democrats” in this case are fanatic mass murderers. At best, it can only be seen as incredibly myopic and ignorant to support Mubarak’s enemies.

People make the same mistake Carter did with Iran and Nicaragua: they commit the logical error of assuming that just because a country’s current leadership is flawed and “undemocratic,” that automatically someone else would do better. Newsflash, they can do worse, and almost without exception, they do, because people who take power by street riot have no interest in “democracy.”

If their street revolutions are successful, these Middle Eastern countries will rapidly degenerate into radical Muslim thugocracies, allied with our communist enemies. Israel will be the first target and with Obama’s radically anti-Israel orientation, they will stand alone. We will be next. One is left to wonder if Obama will then stand to defend the country he swore to, or if he will be out in the streets with his fellow radical leftists burning American flags.

My bet is he will be in the street.

The Eventual Caliphate

      When he was asked why the vast majority of Egyptians, the heirs to a great pre-Islamic civilization, speak Arabic rather than Coptic, a leading Egyptian historian replied, "Because we had no Ferdowsi." That would be the tenth-century Persian poet and the author of the "Shahnameh, (Book of Kings)" who revived not only the Persian language, but also Persian identity. Ferdowsi is known for his efforts to save the Persian language, and the history, from oblivion. It has been suggested that Ferdowsi is Iran's Homer:


      Twice as long as Homer's Iliad and Odyssey taken together, the Shahnameh blends Iran's ancient myths and legends with accounts of major events in its past. Its 55,000 rhyming couplets chart the history of the Iranian world from its creation to the fall of the Persian Empire in the seventh century.


Muslim Conquest Of Persia


      The cruel, successful subjugation of the Persian people by the Arab invaders wetted the latter's appetite for further conquests. They ventured elsewhere into the civilized world -- to Egypt, Syria, the Levant, Spain, and eventually to the gates of Vienna. Cruelty and terror were their instruments of policy. Terrorism is nothing new to Islam's ideology, they've employed this technique for more than a thousand  years.

      Out of all the peoples conquered by the Arab invasion in the seventh century, the Persians are the only one who can boast of a major body of literature in the indigenous language that they were using before the conquest. The Persian language, culture, and traditions have been Iranians' shields against the Muslim hordes and their barbaric Islamic ideology for the past 1,400 years.

      In English, this language is historically known as "Persian," though some Persian-speakers migrating to the West continue to use inaccurately and inappropriately the word "Farsi"to identify their language in English. Farsiis encountered in some linguistic literature as a name for the language, used both by Iranians and by foreign authors. But in fact, Farsi is the Arabized form of the native word Parsi. Due to a lack of the p phoneme in standard Arabic, the word Farsiwas born. The Academy of Persian Language and Literature has declared that the name "Persian" is more appropriate, as it has the longer tradition in the Western languages and better expresses the role of the language as a mark of cultural and national continuity.

      The enumeration of the influences of Iranian civilization on world cultures is not the primary objective of this author and is out of the scope of the present article. It is important, however, to demonstrate the salient point of how Islam has been on a collision course with great ancient civilizations such as Egypt, Persia, and many more from its inception up to now. Just as it brutally conquered and bitterly stifled one of the fountainheads of progress in ancient times, Islam remains a very real threat to Western civilization and to any progressive civil society in the 21stcentury. It is virulently capable of great destruction and retardation of minds, as we have seen in the past three decades in Iran and elsewhere. Any and all enlightened citizens of this planet who care about freedom, human rights, and progress should take this clear and present danger very seriously.

      Egypt is one of the crown jewels of the ancient world, rich in culture and filled with illustrious antiquities. Unlike the Persians, the Egyptians became completely Arabized and have little or no nostalgia for their ancient past. Islam has dominated the Egyptians' lives. Pew's Global Attitude Project poll shows that the Egyptians want more Islam in politics.

      At the time of the Muslim conquest, the population of Egypt was made up of Christian Copts and estimated to have been about nine million at the time of the invasion of 641 AD. Today, Copts form 15% to 18% of Egypt's population. The Arab conquerors imposed a special tax, known as jizya, on the Christians, who acquired the status of dhimmis. Egyptian converts to Islam, in turn, were relegated to the status of mawali.

      Early on, the Prophet Muhammad explicitly said, "There is no compulsion in religion." He further confirmed that admonition: "For you, your religion; and for me, my religion." But as soon as he gathered enough power, Muhammad violated those exhortations and set out to force his belief and way of life on others at the point of the sword. Further, he conveniently ignored his own teaching by unsheathing his sword upon "the people of the book" -- Jews and Christians. He spared them death only if they converted or consented to pay the backbreaking religious taxes of jizya.

      I hope that people in the West and in America are beginning to see the real face of Islam and the danger it poses to secular democratic societies. In the past, Islam succeeded in largely displacing the magnificent Persian civilization with a primitive, myopic, discriminatory system of belief. Presently, once again and with renewed vigor, Islam is aiming to destroy another civilization -- the Judeo-Christian civilization, a civilization that constitutes a living falsification of the primitive and backward Islamic creed. Islamofascism presents a clear and present danger -- not only to Western civilization, but to the entire civilized world, as is evidenced by the ruling Islamists in places such as Iran, the Sudan, Somalia, and Saudi Arabia.

      With the just concluded Egyptian uprising, the very notion of rapidly advancing 1.6 billion human beings from illiteracy and barbaric 7th-century mentality up to 21st-century Western standards of democracy is an utter impossibility. Over 60% of the "Muslim world" (excluding Iran) is illiterate and only Quran-trained. The task is insurmountable, in my opinion. I believe first and foremost that we should support the Iranian people efforts to gain their freedom, draw them back into our Western civilization, and declare Islam a defunct ideology that has simply failed in Iran.


Barbaric Christian Beheading


      While the Egyptian demonstrators are as much against Hosni Mubarak as they are against his tyrannical regime, they don't mind having sharia law injected into their day-to-day lives. On the contrary, the 2009 Iranian protests were just as much against the Islamic Republic as they were against Shi'a Islam. In fact, much of the protesting was against Islam itself. People have experienced what a primitive and defective system of belief Islam is, and they aim to abandon it for good. In fact, millions of Iranians representing the entire spectrum of society are demanding change from the repressive Islamic theocracy to an open secular democracy.

      Young Iranians, particularly the urban educated Iranians, are among the most ardent believers in democracy in the world. Many view America as the country that holds the best hope for spreading and protecting the high ideals of democracy. In a sense, many Iranians feel a closer affinity with a democratic Israel than with all the neighboring Arab Muslim dictatorships. Although Islam was imposed on Iran some 1,400 years ago, Iranians deeply value their own ancient non-Arab identity and have never fully surrendered to the Arab culture. During the bloodletting war initiated by the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein against Iran, all Arab states sided with the "Butcher of Baghdad" against Iran. Israel was the only Middle Eastern country that remained neutral and in fact helped Iran in the struggle. We Iranians don't forget our friends, and we also remember our enemies.

      While I'm worried that the Muslim Brotherhood will take over this quasi-popular revolt in Egypt, I am also hopeful that the Iranian patriots will see the Egyptian demonstrations and be inspired to make yet another try at toppling the loathed mullahcracy in Iran.

Mubarak Out, Brotherhood Remains Primed

With Hosni Mubarak stepping down Friday, Egypt's future remains uncertain. Egypt's Supreme Council of Armed Forces has taken temporary power with expectations of elections still set for the fall.

"Egypt is free!" chanted the hundreds of thousands of people gathered in Cairo's

Tahrir Square

.

A U.S. official, described by CNN as involved in Egypt discussions, called Mubarak's resignation "obviously a welcome step" that opens the door to "an unpredictable next chapter."

The future role of the Muslim Brotherhood remains uncertain. The Brotherhood, a fundamentalist Sunni movement, seeks to spread Islamic law throughout the world. Its members have indicated a desire to revoke Egypt's peace treaty with Israel and increase support for Hamas and other terrorist groups.

In a statement in Wisconsin Thursday, President Obama said this is "a moment of transformation" in Egypt and that the United States supports an "orderly and genuine transition to democracy" there. But earlier that morning, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper seemed to minimize the concern – and mischaracterize the Brotherhood -- by describing it as "a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence."

U.S. officials may be able to blunt some of the Brotherhood's influence in that transition by helping Egypt's secular opposition movements build competitive political organizations, writes Ayyan Hirsi Ali, a former Muslim who once belonged to the Brotherhood.

The U.S. was preparing an aid package for Egyptian opposition groups before Mubarak stepped down, Time magazine reports. It wasn't clear who would receive the money. "White House officials declined to say whether any of the new money would go directly or indirectly to the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's most prominent Islamic party," Time reports.

It's not clear how deep the group's support is among Egyptians. A poll commissioned by the Washington Institute for Near East Studies indicates tepid support for the Brotherhood and other radical Islamists within Egypt's population centers of Cairo and Alexandria.

Only 4 percent said they strongly approve of the group, while 11 percent approved somewhat. A third of the respondents, however, said they didn't know how they felt. As Hirsi Ali argues, the Brotherhood has the most sophisticated political infrastructure and messaging. Part of that message is an argument that opposing the Brotherhood would be "a rejection of Islam altogether."

"The Muslim Brotherhood will insist that a vote for them is a vote for Allah's law," she writes. "But the positions of power in government will not be filled by God and his angels. They will be filled by men so arrogant as to put themselves in the position of Allah. And as the Iranians of 2009 have learned to their cost, it is harder to vote such men out of office than to vote them in."

It has enjoyed significant electoral success as recently as 2005. In parliamentary elections that year, Brotherhood members running without party affiliation won 88 seats out of 444. Only 26 Brotherhood candidates survived the first round of balloting in November, and the group boycotted a subsequent round claiming the ballot was rigged.

Statements from Brotherhood officials about the future are cagey.

After issuing some conflicting statements in the early stages of the protests, Brotherhood officials have coalesced around the message that they are not seeking power and would not offer a candidate to succeed Mubarak.

That doesn't mean it won't seek to drive Egypt toward a more religion-driven society. In a column published by the New York Times Wednesday, Brotherhood official Essam El-Errian made it clear that, for all the flowery praise of liberty, their notion of democracy must involve theology.

"As our nation heads toward liberty, however, we disagree with the claims that the only options in Egypt are a purely secular, liberal democracy or an authoritarian theocracy," El-Errian wrote. "Secular liberal democracy of the American and European variety, with its firm rejection of religion in public life, is not the exclusive model for a legitimate democracy."

Religion is "an important part of our culture and heritage," he wrote, so any just Egyptian state "draws on universal measures of freedom and justice, which are central Islamic values. We embrace democracy not as a foreign concept that must be reconciled with tradition, but as a set of principles and objectives that are inherently compatible with and reinforce Islamic tenets."

Similarly, Brotherhood leader Kamal Helbawy told an Australian interviewer that religious law would come to Egypt "if the majority in the Parliament would like to see Islamists in power and agree on Islamic law and Sharia, the Muslim Brotherhood will be happy to implement that without any negative impact or effect on non-Muslims."

But the group's own bylaws are more absolute. Article 2 says the group "seeks to establish Allah's law in the land by achieving the spiritual goals of Islam and the true religion." That includes "the need to work on establishing the Islamic State, which seeks to effectively implement the provisions of Islam and its teachings."

Last September, Brotherhood General Guide Muhammad Badi called for the Quran to be the constitution of the state.

The Muslim Brotherhood has a long history of overplaying its political hand and leaving behind ill will, writes Jonathan Schanzer of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. In 1952, it supported the Free Officers Movement coup that brought down the Egyptian monarchy and gave rise to the current government. But from 1952 to 1954, it sought to spread its ideology in the Egyptian military. In 1954, when Gamal Abdel Nasser overthrew the President Mohammad Neguib's government, he purged the Brotherhood, hanging some of its members and sending others to jail.

When Anwar Sadat became president of Egypt following Nasser's death in 1970, he freed many of its members in exchange for the organization's renunciation of violence. But by the late 1970s, the Brotherhood concluded Sadat was insufficiently pious and the two sides had a falling out. Sadat began re-jailing its members and sending others to Afghanistan.

History shows that revolutions started by the masses against government oppression can be hijacked by more ruthless opportunists, former Clinton administration National Security Council member Kenneth Pollack warns.

After nearly three weeks of laying low and proclaiming no interest in leading the next government, Mubarak's departure triggers a new phase in which political maneuvering will say more than anything.

The Islamist Mindset

1. When Is The Aggressor Not The Aggressor? When He Has Been Forced to Defend Himself and His Lost Honor



Aasiya Zubair Hassan


On February 12, 2009, immediately after stabbing his unarmed wife 40 times with two large hunting knives and then brutally beheading her, he became calm, relieved. For the first time in years, he felt “peaceful.” Only then did he feel “safe from the Evil Dragon Terrorist” which is how he referred to Aasiya Zubair Hassan, the wife he had viciously battered for seven years.

Muzzammil Syed Hassan quietly told the police that he had killed his wife—but he immediately pleaded “not guilty” to second-degree murder. In fact, he told the police and the media what he is now telling the judge, prosecutors and jury in a Buffalo courtroom: that he, not she, was the “abused” and long-suffering spouse.

How is this possible? How can a man with a long and terrible history of physically and psychologically battering three wives and physically and psychologically abusing his children as well—he once punched his 13-year-old son in the nose—say this and believe it with his whole heart?

Muzzammil Syed Hassan

In pre-trial interviews, Hassan insisted that he suffered immense psychological abuse and humiliation during his seven year marriage to a woman who publicly nurtured a false image as a kinder and more sympathetic woman.

“All abuse happens behind closed doors, thus NO witnesses,” Hassan stated in his most recent letter. “All abuse is psychological, emotional wounds are not visible, thus NO evidence. . . . What a perfect crime! Only the poorly trained abusers use physical violence and get caught, for physical abuse leaves behind evidence.”

The Late Mrs. Hassan

In the hour leading up to the murder, Hassan sent Aasiya text messages saying:

“I am a good man, Aasiya…a humble and decent man, made some mistakes; please don’t punish me so hard. God likes forgiveness…I have not done anything to hurt you since Sunday.”

Like other batterers, he is not merely saying that Aasiya “provoked” him to kill her but that she had been torturing him for seven years: cleverly leaving no marks, while he had been suffering the torments of the damned. Finally, afraid of being exposed—either as a batterer or as a battered spouse, both humiliating possibilities for a leader of the Muslim-American community—he said that he “snapped.” He could take no more. He had to kill her to restore his peace of mind.

And so, he took control.

2. Where Else Have We Heard Such Reasoning?

An Al-Qaeda, Hamas, or Muslim Brotherhood leader will insist that his campaigns of murder and propaganda are really campaigns of “self defense” against the Zionist, infidel, Nazi, Apartheid Enemy. Since their holy Muslim lands (which they define as part of their honor and often as the entire world, which is, psychologically, their missing phantom limb) have been taken and occupied by infidels, Westerners, and Zionists, they must send suicide killers so that what belongs to them is returned, so that they are made whole and no longer humiliated in history.

Thus, Islamist acts of beheading (journalist Daniel Pearl, would-be businessman Nicholas Berg, civil engineer Kenneth Bigley, contractor Eugene Armstrong, engineer Jack Hensley, engineer Paul Marshall Johnson, Jr., etc.), blowing up innocent civilians on aircraft, at cafes, on the streets, at work in the World Trade Center, are not “aggressive” acts, but are, rather, “defensive” acts, desperate attempts to ensure that the impure infidels will flee, so that their Muslim property, purity, and honor can be restored.

Blowing up Israeli civilians is even more an act of “self-defense,” since, as they see it, there are no innocent Israelis, all are complicit in the “genocidal crimes” against the Palestinian and Arab people. Blowing up other Muslim civilians, using children as soldiers—well, some Muslims are not “true” Muslims, some Muslims are working with the enemy infidel, some Muslims are whores—and they all deserve to be killed anyway.

Before we get into Muzzammil’s personal history, we need to understand something about the country he comes from: Pakistan.

3. Where Could Muzzammil Syed Hassan Have Learned That Extreme Violence Towards Women Is Normal, A "Man’s God-Given Right"

For the first seventeen years of his life Hassan grew up in Pakistan, where the level of violence towards girls and women was and still is barbarous and quite unbelievable.

In 2009, an extraordinary report which documented honor killings in Pakistan. A Pakistani informant, of the SW Community Development Department, in Sind, Pakistan, sent me an unpublished paper in which he describes and explains a murderous Pakistani culture very carefully. He writes:

Women in Pakistan live in fear. They face death by shooting, burning or killing with axes if they are deemed to have brought shame on the family. They are killed for supposed ‘illicit’ relationships, for marrying men of their choice, for divorcing abusive husbands. They are even murdered by their kin if they are raped. The truth of the suspicion does not matter — merely the allegation is enough to bring dishonor on the family and therefore justifies the slaying. The lives of millions of women in Pakistan are circumscribed by traditions which enforce extreme seclusion and submission to men. Male relatives virtually own them and punish disobedience with violence.

According to this informant, of all of the honor killings in Pakistan, most go unreported and even more go unpunished.

The isolation and fear of women living under such threats are compounded by state indifference to and complicity in women’s oppression. Police almost invariably take the man’s side in honor killings or domestic murders, and rarely prosecute the killers. Even when the men are convicted, the judiciary ensures that they usually receive a light sentence, reinforcing the view that men can kill their female relatives with virtual impunity. There are few women’s shelters, and any woman attempting to travel on her own is a target for abuse by police, strangers or male relatives hunting for her. For some women suicide appears the only means of escape.

He continues: “In [Pakistani] communities an ‘honor killing’ is considered a just punishment, not a crime. This view is also shared by many Pakistanis who do not belong to tribal societies.”


In these communities:

Male control does not only extend to a woman’s body and her sexual behavior but all of her behavior, including her movements, her language and her actions. In any of these areas, defiance by women translates into undermining male honor and ultimately family and community honor. Severe punishments are reported for bringing food late, for talking back or for undertaking forbidden trips, etc. A man’s honor defiled by a woman’s alleged or real sexual misdemeanor or other defiance is only partly restored by killing her. He also has to kill the man allegedly involved. Since [the woman] is murdered first, the [man] often hears about it and flees, aided by the fact that unlike the woman, he is both familiar with the world outside the house and can move freely in it. But [men] who escape will not be able to return to normal life. Nobody will give such a man shelter; he remains on the run until he and his family are ready to negotiate with the victim, the man whose honor the [man] defiled. The balance is restored by negotiating compensation for damages.


Moreover, there are few safe places for a woman to escape to. Seeking help outside the family is fraught with danger for a woman. Not only does society blame a woman for being targeted for murder–the popular perception being that she must somehow deserve it–but by seeking outside help she risks being sent back to her husband or father in whose custody she is perceived to belong. Most important by seeking help outside, she adds shame to her husband and his family by making the issue public. No Kari [“black” woman marked for honor-killing] who escapes is ever forgiven, even if her innocence is recognized; some men are known to have traveled hundreds of miles to find and kill Karis, even years after the alleged misdeed.

According to this informant, “The sheer scale of the phenomenon in Pakistan makes it a case apart.” In his view, although such crimes of honor are a pre-Islamic practice, the increase in religious fundamentalism has led to an increase in honor killings. Honor killing victims “remain dishonored even after death. Their dead bodies are thrown in rivers or buried in special hidden Kari graveyards. Nobody mourns for them or honors their memory by performing their relevant rights.”

This is the culture that nurtured Muzzammil Hassan, the culture that also nurtured his wife Aasiya—which explains why, after she obtained an order of protection and had Muzzammil ejected from their home (his home, his land, his property), she still did his laundry and indeed, was bringing him clean clothing to his office at Bridges TV, where he lay in wait for her with his two pitiless hunting knives.

4. Can Living in America Erase the Pakistani Within?

In America, he liked to be called “Mo” and “Steve,” which were short for Muzzammil Syed Hassan. The Big Guy—and he was a big guy who weighed nearly 300 pounds, or twice his wife’s weight–just wanted to fit in, be a regular American. After all, he came here when he was 17 and excelled admirably. In 1996, he received an MBA from the Business School at the University of Rochester, and he then became a banker in Buffalo, New York. Big “Mo” was ambitious. He wanted to present Muslims in a positive light. Thus, in 2004, together with his wife Aasiya, they founded Bridges TV, an English-language Islamic network to combat alleged anti-Muslim bias in the American media. He found several million dollars in backing.

But Hassan could not stop being a Pakistani Muslim man. What does this mean? It means that he still felt entitled to control, monitor, harass, and physically batter his wife. When he physically punished her, it was viewed as “correcting” her mistakes. When she went to the hospital and filed a police report—when she had black eyes, bruises, cuts—he viewed her exposing him as “humiliating attacks,” indeed, as “terrorist attacks.” When she said that she was going to file for divorce, he viewed that as “killing him;” in addition, he began to fear that these police and hospital reports plus a divorce with such facts stated might jeopardize his dream of a pro-Muslim television network. Her attempts to defend herself from his physical violence, e.g. sitting on her, trying to run her car off the road (2007), beating her so viciously that his son from a previous marriage who lived with them had to use a whole roll of toilet paper to stanch the flow of blood, dragging her across their driveway, blackening her eyes, breaking windows (2009), etc., were seen by him as “abuse.”

In other words, her attempt to defend herself against his violence was something he experienced as “abusive” to him.

Many Pakistani men in America have killed their wives and their daughters. In a studies published at Middle East Quarterly, I found that honor killing victims comprised two very different groups: One victim group had an average age of 17; the second victim group had an average age of 36. Aasiya was 37 when Muzzammil murdered her. I also found that one feature of an honor killing is “overkill.” The victims are tortuously murdered, burned, raped, mutilated, stoned, even beheaded, as was the case with Aasiya. At trial (which is still ongoing) it became clear that Muzzammil attacked his unarmed wife with two hunting knives and stabbed her at least 40 times before he beheaded her—a signature Islamist-era gesture.

For example, on September 11, 1999 in St. Clairsville, Ohio, 33-year-old Pakistani-American Dr. Lubaina Bhatti Ahmed, a physician, had her throat cut by her estranged Pakistani-American husband because she had the audacity to file for divorce after years of being a battered wife. He also murdered her father, sister, and sister’s child because they were present and morally supporting her decision to divorce him. Talk about overkill! The husband, Nawaz Ahmed, was a former pilot in the Pakistani air force. Ahmed was jailed, tried, and sentenced to death. He remains in the Ohio State Penitentiary.

On July 6, 2008, in Atlanta, 25-year-old Pakistani-American Sandeela Kanwal was strangled to death by her Pakistani-American father Chaudhry Rashid because she wanted to divorce the man to whom she had been forcibly married in Pakistan.

Clearly, female-initiated divorce is not acceptable, neither in Pakistan (where women are killed for less than demanding a divorce) nor in America. Muzzammil Hassan was a three-time loser with a reputation and credibility on the line. If it came out that he beat his wife, badly, and constantly subjected her to psychological torture, he feared he would lose his backers and their image of him as a good, great man.

On February 6, 2009, Aasiya finally obtained an order of protection and had Hassan ejected from his home. In Pakistan, this would never happen. And, if any woman dared do this, her murder would be seen as justifiable. More, Aasiya had been mothering the two children Muzzammil brought from a previous marriage as well as their own two children. She turned to Child Protective Services on their behalf.

5. Is Muzammil Hassan “Crazy” in Western Terms? Is He Culturally “Crazy”? Is he Crazy as a Fox?

Muzzammil is not only a man, he is a male batterer, who is also a Pakistani and Muslim man. What this means is that he has been brought up to believe that he is entitled to whatever he needs, thinks he needs, or wants. Anyone who deprives him of what he needs or wants, is a dangerous “terrorist” enemy, especially if she is a woman—and a woman who wants to leave him exposes his failings to the world.

According to Muzzammil, he and Aasiya made a “contract” which included certain terms, i.e. that she never turn to the police, never threaten divorce, never report him to Child Protective Services. Each time she does so, he is being “killed,” his world is “collapsing,” his pride is wounded, his failure to control his wife has become known. He in no way factors in, acknowledges, relates to the harm he has done to her or to their children.

Indeed, Prosecutor Colleen Curtin Gable forces him to admit that he was “not in any danger” when he attacked an unarmed woman. And she forces him to admit that he had “killed” his wife. Acidly, and precisely, she notes that “In three-and-a-half days of testimony,” Hassan spent about “two seconds on the actual murder.”

That is because he wanted the judge and jury to hear “his side,” “the whole truth.” And he thus spent all his time trying to arouse pity, sympathy, understanding for how he had suffered, not how his wife and children may have suffered. He is the only one who exists for him in his own world.

Also, Muzzammil takes no responsibility for his actions, how they affect others. Thus, he referred to the murder as “things happened.” As to the 40 stab wounds which preceded his beheading of her, he responds, dully, disassociated, “If the wounds are there, then I did it, ma’am.” But he has “no recollection of specific things happening.” All he knows is that when it was all over, “defending himself,” he felt no “remorse,” but only “relief that he managed to escape a (diseased) terrorist.” He says: “I was face to face with evil.”

Muzzammil Syed Hassan is unapologetic, brash, brazen, belligerent, and incredibly aggressive. Acting as his own lawyer, he wanted to personally question the judge, the prosecutors, and his own children on the stand. (He did cross-examine his daughter Sonia, who looked down and at the jury the entire time). Muzzammil admitted that he called the district attorney “dumbo,” his wife “Darth Vader,” a “monster,” and an “evil dragon.” He also called the court “voodoo justice” and a “kangaroo court.”

Muzzammil has the mind, heart, and soul of both an overly pampered baby and a domestic terrorist. But his lack of remorse, concern only for his own image, his willingness to do anything, including murder, to punish those who have tarnished his image teaches us all something about the mind of an Islamist jihadist.