Young Muslims 'Are Turning to Extremism'

The Middle East Strategic Information (MESI) project published an article (originally from The Telegraph) about young Muslims in the UK and an increased support for extremist ideology. I found this article particularly interesting considering that increased support and acceptance of radical ideology has become a shocking trend among many Muslims.

Study: Young Muslims 'Are Turning to Extremism'
Patrick Sawer
23/06/2008

Increasing numbers have become so alienated from mainstream society that they could even lend their support to jihadi terrorism, the study claims.

While most reject violence, many distrust police and are reluctant to inform on extremists.

The report was commissioned by the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) after last year's failed bomb attacks in London's West End and at Glasgow Airport. It is to be discussed at Acpo's annual conference this week.

In the most comprehensive research of its kind to date, Prof Martin Innes, of the Universities' Police Science Institute in Cardiff, led a team of researchers which carried out face-to-face and telephone interviews with more than 600 Muslims in London, Birmingham and Oldham.

They found that the radicalisation of young British Muslims was more widespread than previously feared, with "a disturbing proportion" expressing support for extremist elements.

The report, which is being distributed among senior officers, Whitehall officials and ministers, finds that:

• Anger and disaffection are "widespread in sections of Muslim youth".

• There is tacit support for extremist violence within sections of the Muslim community.

• Police need to do more to win the trust of Muslim communities if they are to tackle radicalisation.

• Many Muslims distrust police and are reluctant to inform on extremists, preferring to deal with problems inside their communities.

The study, entitled Hearts and Minds and Eyes and Ears: Reducing Radicalisation Risks Through Reassurance Orientated Policing, warns that "the threat to the UK from jihadist terrorism may increase in the future".

It concludes: "Increasing numbers of young Muslim people are becoming sufficiently disaffected with their lives in liberal-democratic-capitalist societies that they might be willing to support violent terrorism to articulate their disillusionment and disengagement."

Across Britain, the security services have said they are tracking 2,000 individuals suspected of having links to terrorism, investigating 200 networks and monitoring 30 plots.

(Read the entire article here)

Welcome to UC Irvine

It is a well-chronicled fact that modern academia is no friend of Israel. Even in this generally hostile environment, however, the University of California at Irvine stands in a class of its own.

Witness the school's tradition of allowing the campus chapter of Muslim Student Union (MSU) to hold events whose sole aim is to denounce Israel and America, while supporting Islamic terrorist groups. Past events hosted in this mold have been titled "Hamas: the People's Choice" and "Israel: The 4th Reich," and have featured far-left demagogues like professors Norman Finkelstein and Ward Churchill, as well as Amir-Abdel Malik-Ali, a black imam notorious for his anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and his open championing of Hamas and Hezbollah.

Terrorism Awareness Project

The David Horowitz Freedom Center has launched the Terrorism Awareness Project to combat the complacency and ignorance about the intentions of the radical Islamists who declared a holy war on the United States and the West on September 11, 2001.

If one thing was clear in the aftermath of the attack, it was this: the terrorists would be back. But the alarms 9/11 set off were soon muted by complacency and self doubt. After overthrowing the Taliban, the U.S. soon returned to the illusion of peace and security and confusion of purpose that had marked the Clinton era, when the Jihad first began to strike against our America. Because of the campaign by the "anti-war" movement, our populace as a whole is ignorant of the threat, doesn't know the enemy, and is unaware of their true intent, capabilities and resolve. This is especially true of college students who face a daily barrage of anti-war and anti-American propaganda. The Terrorism Awareness Project is designed to make them aware of the threat of jihad and the struggle that lies ahead if this nation is to survive its assault.

The Freedom Center designed the Terrorism Awareness Project to put informative materials about the war on terror into the hands of millions of college students. Please visit the Terrorism Awareness Project website. Terrorism Awareness Project also has a YouTube channel.

THE ISLAMIC MEIN KAMPF


THE MIDDLE EAST CONFLICT

Department of Education Reopens Case Against UC Irvine

The Zionist Organization of America has the details:

June 6, 2008

Contact Morton A. Klein at: 917-974-8795 or 212-481-1500

Attn: NEWS EDITOR

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INITIATES NEW INVESTIGATION INTO

UC IRVINE'S RESPONSE TO CAMPUS ANTI-SEMITISM

By letter to the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) dated April 25, 2008, the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has indicated that it will be investigating several incidents of alleged anti-Semitic harassment, intimidation and discrimination that occurred in May 2007, at the University of California, Irvine (UCI). The ZOA had brought these incidents to OCR's attention almost one year ago, asserting that the incidents show that UCI has continued to respond ineffectively to campus anti-Semitism, in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI). Title VI requires that recipients of federal funding (like UCI) ensure that their programs and activities are free discrimination based on "race, color, or national origin." If the recipient is found to have violated Title VI, it can lose its federal funding.

The ZOA first brought UCI's alleged violation of Title VI to OCR's attention in October 2004, when the ZOA filed a Title VI complaint on behalf of Jewish students with OCR, the federal agency responsible for enforcing the law. The ZOA's complaint alleged that Jewish students had been facing a longstanding pattern of anti-Semitic harassment and hostility on the campus, and that UCI had failed to respond effectively to the problem, in violation of its obligations under Title VI. After reviewing the ZOA's allegations, OCR decided that an investigation into UCI's conduct was warranted.

In the course of that investigation, the ZOA furnished OCR with evidence about several incidents of harassment that had occurred at UCI as late as May 2007. The ZOA repeatedly urged OCR to interview witnesses with pertinent information about these incidents. Even though these incidents were relevant to the allegations of the ZOA's October 2004 complaint asserting a pattern or practice of anti-Semitic discrimination at UCI, OCR refused to investigate the incidents or to interview crucial witnesses.

OCR typically resolves Title VI complaints within 180 days after they are filed. It took OCR more than three years to issue a decision on the ZOA's October 2004 complaint. In November 2007, when OCR finally issued its decision, it absolved UCI of wrongdoing. It was plain from the decision that OCR had applied a narrower interpretation of Title VI than the one that OCR had said it would enforce when it issued two policy statements in the fall of 2004. At that time, OCR had made it clear that consistent with federal precedent recognizing that Jews were a racial or national origin group for purposes of affording civil rights protections, OCR would likewise protect Jewish students from anti-Semitic harassment under Title VI. Later, under new leadership at OCR, that policy was whittled down, so that Jewish students would no longer be afforded the protections of Title VI as a racial or national origin group.

OCR's decision in November 2007 engendered deep concern from Members of both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, which was expressed in powerful letters to U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings. In the letter from U.S. Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA), Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Sam Brownback (R-KS) - all three of whom are Members of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary - they questioned the decision that OCR reached in the ZOA's case against UCI, and the interpretation of Title VI that OCR had applied in the case. According to the Senators, OCR's conclusion in the ZOA's case "is inconsistent with its prior policy statements." The Senators asked probing questions of Secretary Spellings, including why there were witnesses "that the ZOA proffered . . . whom OCR did not interview."

The letter from Members of the House also raised troubling concerns about OCR's decision in the ZOA's case, and demanded answers from Secretary Spellings about whether OCR's policy for enforcing Title VI was affording Jewish students the protections they need. U.S. Representatives Brad Sherman (D-CA), Linda Sanchez (D-CA), Steven Rothman (D-NJ), Allyson Schwartz (D-PA), Robert Wexler (D-FL) and Shelley Berkley (D-NV) emphasized that OCR's conclusion in the ZOA's case "reversed OCR policy, as clarified in 2004, of protecting Jews against anti-Semitism."

The leadership of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the umbrella group for more than 50 national Jewish organizations across the religious and political spectrums, also criticized OCR's decision in the ZOA's case against UCI. In a letter to Stephanie Monroe, the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education, the Presidents' Conference urged OCR to reconsider its decision in the ZOA's case. The decision "will affect Jewish students not only at UCI, but also at other colleges and universities across the United States. At a time when reports of anti-Semitic harassment and intimidation on college campuses is [sic] increasing, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), whose mission is to redress racial and ethnic discrimination, should be seeking to expand the protections of the law."

When, in the April 25, 2008 letter, OCR notified the ZOA about the new investigation of incidents that occurred at UCI in May 2007, OCR indicated that it had determined that several of the ZOA's allegations "are appropriate for investigation under the laws enforced by OCR. . . . We will contact you soon to discuss the allegations and complaint resolution process."

Morton A. Klein, the ZOA's National President, and Susan B. Tuchman, Esq., the Director of the ZOA's Center for Law and Justice, said, "We are pleased to know that the Office for Civil Rights is finally looking into incidents that the ZOA brought to OCR's attention almost one year ago. The witnesses who were ready and willing to come forward at that time are just as eager to furnish information to OCR now. As we did during OCR's first investigation, we stand ready to assist the agency in every way possible.

"Since the time that OCR issued its decision in November 2007, OCR has gotten the clear message from Members of the House and the Senate, and from the Presidents' Conference, that OCR's narrower interpretation of Title VI is of deep concern. We hope that OCR will rethink that more restrictive policy. When it conducts this new investigation, we urge OCR to keep an open mind and apply the policy it clarified in 2004 - that OCR would protect Jewish students from anti-Semitic harassment under Title VI. As the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights recognized in April 2006, Jewish students are entitled to the protections of Title VI, and the Office for Civil Rights should be vigorously enforcing the law to ensure that they are protected."

UC Irvine or UC Intifada?

Below is an article I wrote for Pajamas Media.

UC Irvine of UC Intifada?

My PJM article on the frightening situation at my alma mater was not meant to create fear and hatred where there is none. Faculty members who claim that the administration is taking the appropriate action against the radical Muslim Student Union need to get out of their offices more.

June 6, 2008 - by Reut Cohen

Bruce Blumberg, who is the Chair of the Academic Senate Council on Student Experience at the University of California-Irvine, wasn’t happy about a recent PJM article I co-wrote with Jonathan Movroydis. In the piece, we make the claim that UCI administrators have capitulated to the university’s radical Muslim Student Union (MSU), whose members regularly voice support for terrorist groups and denounce America and Israel.

In an email posted by Jerry Pournelle, Blumberg writes that “no one” in the “media or on campus” is aware of the inaction on the part of the administration and the UCI Police Department that is alleged in the article. It appears that Blumberg, like most of the UCI faculty and administration, will never come the defense of students who can think for themselves, will stand up for their civil liberties, and won’t flock with the rest of the sheep.

During the academic year at UCI, the MSU holds several hateful events, including an annual anti-Israel week. Although MSU events certainly fall within the bounds of “free speech,” freedom of speech and expression does not include the right of MSU members to engage in blatant harassment. Nor should it enable UCI administrators to restrict the freedoms of other individuals at the university campus.

For example, student journalist Jonathan Movroydis and his brother were harassed out of an auditorium for simply recording a lecture by the radical imam Amir Abdel Malik-Ali in 2007. University officials allowed for members of the MSU to police their own event and allowed the group to prohibit filming at a public university event. Fortunately, California Assemblyman Chuck Devore was able to convince UCI Chancellor Michael Drake to reverse the campus taping policy. The administration, however, has been unwilling to fully enforce this new rule.

Moreover, UC Irvine police officers will stand idly while intimidation occurs, and administrators continue efforts to censor certain groups and people on the campus. I learned this firsthand last year, when I had a camera shoved in my face by a member of the MSU. At the scene a police officer refused to take a statement from me. Because I was appalled and could not believe that shoving a camera in someone’s face would be considered lawful behavior, I could not let such a matter fall. After several phone calls and e-mails, I was finally able to schedule a meeting with Edgar Dormitorio, Dean of Judicial Affairs at UCI, and given the opportunity to file a complaint with the police department on campus. I had the perpetrator’s face on camera and witnesses. However, no action has yet been taken against the student.

While I studied at UCI, I witnessed an affirmative action bake sale being shut down by administrators. Because a group of students wanted to sell cupcakes at different suggested prices for various racial groups in order to demonstrate what they felt were the injustices of affirmative action, the administration decided to completely shut down the event for what appeared to be “sensitivity” issues. Regardless of one’s position on affirmative action, it is outrageous that one’s view on a college campus, which so often promotes itself as the marketplace of different ideas, would be restricted by the administration.

Interestingly enough, when the Muslim Student Union brings speakers who have called for genocidal actions against Jews and Israelis, the administration refuses to speak out against this blatant hate speech. MSU’s right to free speech does not require the administration to be silent when the group’s members call for the destruction of Israel and threaten students who are Israel supporters . At the very least, administrators should uphold the rights of all students and make certain that individuals have the right to film and protest. The university should refrain from selective enforcement of its rules and regulations.

Thus far the administration at UCI has been extremely negligent. An independent task force investigation recently issued findings that clearly suggest anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism, and pro-terror speech is well documented at UC Irvine. The full report can be read here.

According to this independent investigation, harassment and intimidation has occurred on campus and the administration has not worked to alleviate the problems that plague the campus. Instead, the administration’s lack of response and selective enforcement of policy has aided groups like the MSU in vilifying other students and groups.

For instance, when an anti-hate rally took place after a cardboard “apartheid wall” put up on campus by the MSU was vandalized in 2004, Vice Chancellor Manuel Gomez refused to invite Jewish organizations. In a more recent incident, a non-Jewish student described the atmosphere at UCI as dominated by a philosophy that looks at the United States and Israel as enemies, while supporting terror organizations. The same student had a professor who had a picture of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on her computer. She also recounts an argument with an Iranian student who said “f- Israel” and pulled down his trousers to show his swastika tattoo.

In his email, Blumberg implies that the situation at UCI is a “pro-Israel” and “pro-Palestine” issue with mistreatment on both sides. With all due respect to Dr. Blumberg, he has got to venture outside his office a bit more. If the Academic Senate Council really supports the freedoms of all students and believes that UCI is truly a beacon of “free speech,” they are doing a poor job of showing it. The could learn a thing or two from Democratic Representative Brad Sherman, who recently urged Chancellor Drake to “publicly denounce” the MSU’s hate speech.

As a recent alumnus of the university, I will continue to advise my friends and family members not to attend UC Irvine unless changes are made.

Editor’s Note: Mr. Blumberg declined a Pajamas Media invitation to respond to Ms. Cohen’s previous piece.

Reut Cohen recently graduated from UCI, where she ran a blog to document the 'anti-Israel,' anti-Semitic and anti-American incidents on campus.

Members of the U.S. Congress send letter to Secretary Margaret Spellings of the U.S. Department of Education (OCR) regarding Title VI

Below is an excerpt of a letter to Secretary Spellings dated April 30, 2008. It is signed by Representatives Brad Sherman (D-CA), Linda Sanchez (D-CA), Steven Rothman (D-NJ), Allyson Schwartz (D-PA) and Robert Wexler (D-FL).

"RE: Title VI Applies to Anti-Semitism

Dear Secretary Spellings,

We are writing to express our concern regarding anti-Semitic incidents aimed at Jewish students at several colleges and universities and the response to such incidents by the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR). In particular, we are concerned about whether OCR is enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) to protect Jewish students from anti-Semitic discrimination.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On October II, 2004, the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) filed a complaint with OCR alleging a pattern of anti-Semitic harassment, intimidation, and discrimination on the campus of the University of California at Irvine (UCI). Such conduct allegedly interfered with the ability of UCl's Jewish students to participate in and benefit from academic and extracurricular activities. Many of the students reportedly felt threatened, and some transferred to other schools due to the harassment. The complaint further alleged that because UCl's administration failed respond effectively to repeated complaints about anti-Semitism on campus, UCI had violated Title V.

Over three years later, on November 30,2007, OCR concluded that it lacked jurisdiction under Title VI over many of the allegations in the ZOA's complaint. Title VI prohibits discrimination based on "race, color, or national origin." Because OCR reasoned that none of these categories generally apply to anti-Semitism, OCR did no have the authority under Title VI to pursue most of the alleged claims of discrimination. This reversed OCR policy, as clarified in 2004, of protecting Jews against anti-Semitism....."

Please read the entire letter here.

Jewish student decides not to attend UC Irvine

Spencer Morgan, an incoming freshman to Vassar College, has decided against attending UC Irvine due to the pervasive anti-Semitism and the hostile environment of the campus. Although UC Irvine is home to some of the best minds in academia, the inaction on the part of the administration in speaking out against hate speech and their inability in enforcing campus policy appears to be making students reconsider attending the university. I can certainly understand Morgan's position. Considering my experiences at UCI, I can safely say that I wouldn't encourage my siblings to attend UC Irvine unless some changes are made.

I Chose Against University of California Irvine Because of Hate Speech
Spencer Morgan June 2nd 2008
Poughkeepsie, NY

I am a student in college and have been hearing many stories about Israel and America on the campus that make my skin crawl.

I was accepted to University California Irvine, but decided against it. I heard Allyson Rowen Taylor speak at a Chabad event and she discussed the issues on the campus to a room filled with parents who had no idea what was going on in the public arena. After reading about UCI online, and speaking with others who have seen the campus antics, I decided to go elsewhere, not only for reasons of the intense hatred of Jews at UCI, but because I wanted to be free of the "apartheid walls" and the vitriol of speakers who create hate with my fellow students. I searched for a campus with high academics where study was a priority, and the influence of the MSU was minimal if not absent. While there are issues at my campus, they are tiny compared to the issues of the UCI campus.

Thank you for opening the eyes of others who have no idea what is happening to our universities.

Spencer Morgan is a member of the Vassar Class of 2011.

Baghdad Jews: Only an estimated 7 Jews remain in Iraq

Hat Tip: Eli Friedman

I am a Jew of Sephardic/Mizrahi and Ethiopian ancestry. The following story really touched me as my father's family were refugees from Iraq. During the Farhud pogroms of the early 1940s my dad's family experienced intense persecution and lost loved ones.

We should note that in Israel a Muslim has full civil rights. On the other hand, in the Arab world Jews and other non-Muslims face intense persecution. The treatment of Jews and non-Muslims in Islamic countries explains the mass exodus of the 1940s-1950s.

Here is an excerpt of a New York Times article about Baghdad Jews that is very much worth reading:

Baghdad Jews Have Become a Fearful Few
By: Stephen Farrell

"I have no future here to stay."

Written in broken English but with perfect clarity, the message is a stark and plaintive assessment from one of the last Jews of Babylon.

The community of Jews in Baghdad is now all but vanished in a land where their heritage recedes back to Abraham of Ur, to Jonah’s prophesying to Nineveh, and to Nebuchadnezzar’s sending Jews into exile here more than 2,500 years ago.

Just over half a century ago, Iraq’s Jews numbered more than 130,000. But now, in the city that was once the community’s heart, they cannot muster even a minyan, the 10 Jewish men required to perform some of the most important rituals of their faith. They are scared even to publicize their exact number, which was recently estimated at seven by the Jewish Agency for Israel, and at eight by one Christian cleric. That is not enough to read the Torah in public, if there were anywhere in public they would dare to read it, and too few to recite a proper Kaddish for the dead.

Among those who remain is a former car salesman who describes himself as the “rabbi, slaughterer and one of the leaders of the Jewish community in Iraq.”

Although many of his Muslim friends and immediate neighbors know he is Jewish (“I’m proud, I’m Jewish, not ashamed. I’m not hiding,” he wrote at one point.), he was wary of being named because it could draw more dangerous attention to him or his friends. To protect him, he is referred to as Saleh’s grandson, because his or his father’s name would be too easily recognizable here. Interviews with him were conducted by correspondence over the course of several months.

He lamented that Jews in Baghdad had had no meeting place since the Meir Tweig synagogue, the last in the city, was closed in 2003, after it became too dangerous to gather openly.

Blast kills at least six people at Danish Embassy in Pakistan

A massive blast targeting the Danish Embassy in Pakistan Monday killed at least six people and wounded as many as 18, authorities said.

CNN reports:

The blast left a four-foot deep crater in the road.

Confusion lingered about the attack in the capital city of Islamabad and the number of casualties. Police at the scene said a suicide car bomber pulled up next to the embassy at about 1 p.m. and detonated explosives. But Senior Superintendent of Police Ahmad Latif told CNN that authorities could not immediately label it a suicide attack.

Likewise, a medical worker told CNN the explosion killed eight people, including a young child and at least one foreign national.

But Latif put the number of fatalities at six and said none of the dead were foreigners. Among the wounded, he said, was a Brazilian citizen of Pakistani descent.

The article also discusses the infamous Danish cartoons depicting Mohammad:

In February, several newspapers in Denmark reprinted the controversial cartoons of Islam's prophet, Muhammad, after Danish authorities arrested several people who allegedly were plotting a "terror-related assassination" of the cartoonist, Kurt Westergaard.

Westergaard's cartoon depicted the prophet wearing a bomb as a turban with a lit fuse. He said he wanted his drawing to say that some people exploited the prophet to legitimize terror.

However, many in the Muslim world interpreted the drawing as depicting their prophet as a terrorist.

Islam generally forbids any depiction of the prophet -- even favorable ones -- fearing that it may lead to idolatry.

Two years ago, demonstrations erupted across the world after some newspapers printed the same cartoons. Some protests turned deadly.

The protests prompted Danish officials to temporarily close the embassy in Islamabad.

In the spirit of freedom of speech, below is a recent film by Geert Wilders that has also sparked violent protests across the globe because of its critique of Islam. While I do not necessarily agree with Mr. Wilders on some issues, I support his right to voice controversial ideas which should be open to debate and discussion. Here it is:

Please note that the following film has disturbing images.