by Raziqueh Hussain
Khaleej Times

The story of Osama bin Laden is now over, so how did authors record the mystery behind the hidden terrorist? Raziqueh Hussain finds out

It's a fact that the death of a famous — or infamous — person spikes sales of books about that individual and often bumps books onto bestseller lists. Now, there's a scramble to get books out there on Osama bin Laden, after he was killed by a Navy SEALs unit on April 30 this year. While the details of the operation are still sketchy, publishers are reaping the rewards of this news story.

Within two weeks of bin Laden's death, an e-book of essays Beyond Bin Laden: America and the future of terror was published, the first in an onslaught of books about the Al Qaeda leader and the hunt to find him.

Post 9/11, there have been numerous books written on bin Laden that attempt to explain him, his organisation, and his actions.

Author of The Longest War: The Enduring Conflict Between America an Al Qaeda (already out in e-book format) and The Osama bin Laden I know: An Oral History of Al Qaeda's Leader Peter L Bergen, a national security analyst for CNN, has sealed the deal for Manhunt which will explore the search for bin Laden.

"It is basically an account about the hunt for bin Laden. It's an attempt to tell the story in as much detail as possible, and obviously it's a story that there is a great deal of interest in around the world," says the author who met bin Laden personally in Tora Bora in 1997 and says he "presented himself as a soft-spoken cleric, rather than as the firebreathing leader of a global terrorist organisation."

The Al Qaeda Reader presents documents and texts that trace the origin, history and evolution of the ideas concocted by Al Qaeda leaders Ayman al Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden. Raymond Ibrahim relates the unsettling goals of Al Qaeda, and also includes their propagandist speeches. "Being immensely interested in groups like Al Qaeda, I soon discovered various tracts written by the group — especially Ayman Zawahiri, now its leader — that had never been translated into English, and I thought it would be good to do so," says the associate director of the Middle East Forum in the US.

The research for his book began with Al Qaeda's doctrinal arguments. "You see, just a couple of years earlier, I had finished writing my MA thesis in History on Islam's early conquests. So when I started reading how Al Qaeda was also referring to these conquests, making the same arguments and using the same rationale as the early Muslims — the 'Salafs,' I was intrigued. I also found Al Qaeda's dual approach — saying one thing to Western people ("you are the unjust aggressors") and another to Muslims ("we must subdue the West because it is the infidel") — of interest," he adds. Ibrahim doesn't think that the war is over. "Not really. Whenever a jihadist is killed — including leaders like bin Laden — I like to point out that jihadists are not the cause of hostilities; they are symptoms of a much greater cause. Individually killing them off is like a doctor temporarily treating a sick patient's symptoms without eliminating the cause of sickness."

He points out that there were many myths surrounding the man. "I have seen many writings and whole books that spend much time on bin Laden's character — from those that try to portray him as a sexually depraved deviant and hypocrite, to those that try to 'psychoanalyse' him (suggesting, for example, that he had "daddy issues") — none of which I find compelling. The greatest myth to me centring around bin Laden is the one that maintains he is the beginning and end of conflict," he notes.

Growing Up bin Laden tells the story of a young girl Najwa who married her gentle and kindly first-cousin Osama, enjoying a happy early marriage with the groom of her choice. But world events thrust her husband into a frenzy of militant activities, altering his once pleasing behaviour in the process. "Although everyone thought that at some time Osama would be captured by the US military, the family did not believe that he would be killed. They are asking three questions: When Osama did not resist, why wasn't he arrested? After being killed, why didn't the family get to identify him? Why was he buried at sea when that is against their Islamic beliefs?" writes Jean Sasson, the author, on her blog. "I've been reading many current articles on the bin Laden drama. It's impossible not to compare what I'm reading to what was revealed to me by Omar and Najwa when I was gathering their memories to write their personal accounts of living with Osama. Don't assume that because Amal was the wife with him in Pakistan that she was the favourite. Believe me when I say that he would have preferred Najwa by his side," reveals the American author who has written extensive books on women in the Middle-East.

Professor of Islamic Studies, Duke University and editor of Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama bin Laden, Bruce B Lawrence thinks the recent uprisings are a way forward and not the death of the Al Qaeda chief. "What are we to make of the legacy of bin Laden in the immediate aftermath of the Arab Spring? With new governments emerging in Tunisia and Egypt, possibly in Libya or Yemen, but not likely in either Syria or Bahrain, it is tempting to say that a better way forward for the Arab/Muslim world is about to emerge, and that the physical death of OBL will also augur the symbolic death of the violence that he defined," he says, adding, "One can dare to hope that the uptick of the Arab spring, which began before bin Laden was killed, may produce not a summer of discontent but a fall of hope, followed by a winter of reform and renewal."

Rohan Gunaratna's interest in Al Qaeda began with a series of visits to Pakistan in 1993. The Sri Lankan native has interviewed more than 200 Al Qaeda members and has written six books on the armed conflict.

Inside Al Qaeda, Global Network of Terror is one of the comprehensive books coming from the sub-continent. "Osama was like a politician — he built friendships with threat groups across the world. Zawahiri is not as charismatic as Osama. He is more dogmatic and rigid in his thinking," says the Singapore-based associate professor at The Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS).

Bin Laden's death may have raised the sale of books on him in the West but bookstores in the UAE find that there are no takers for them. Jashanmal bookstore has merely three books on bin Laden and a saleswoman confirms that demand is almost nil for these books. "No, we haven't got any readers who have asked for bin Laden's book even after his death," says one from the Mall of the Emirates, Dubai store.

In Abu Dhabi's Al Wahda Mall, Magrudy's too didn't have any, save for one book on the man. "If someone wants we can get in a book but as of now there's no demand," says the salesman.

"We are already bombarded with so much news about him. I don't think I would want to re-read all of it again in 2,500-odd pages. We are not even sure if he died now or five years back due to kidney failure!" says Emirati student Shuhaib Abdullah, while purchasing some management books at Magrudy's. His friend Khaled A adds, "But if I were to read a book, I would prefer reading a history text on bin Laden to view how his legacy would be recorded. After all, bin Laden defined 'war' and 'terror' for our generation."

[email protected]

Synopsis-Olsen

Oprindelig engelsk tekst: How Islamic Absurdities Prove Islamic Violence

Forleden dag så jeg en video med en sheik der advarer muslimer mod at se bort fra Muhammads sunna, eller de regler og sædvaner som profeten beskrev for muslimerne. Til støtte for sin pointe læse han en hadith, hvori Muhammad fortalte muslimer: "Når du vågner af din søvn for at bede, da vask først din hånd før du lægger den i tvætningsvandet, for du ved ikke, hvor din hånd har været i nattens løb."

Derpå fortalte sheiken om en mand, der efter at have hørt Muhammads ord, forhånende sagde, "Hvad, skulle jeg ikke vide hvor min hånd har været?!"

Manden vågnede blot for at finde sin arm – fra hånd til albue – langt oppe i sin endetarm.

Historiens morale? Jo, det er farligt at ignorere Muhammads ord. Sheiken understregede den autoritative kilde til denne anekdote, Sharh Sahih Muslim, og læste den afsluttende advarsel: "Lad således den dødelig frygte Allah og se ikke let på sunna – for se hvad der skete med denne mand for at gøre oprør og håne profetens ord."

Det er grund til at Islams vogtere – før som nu – altid truer muslimerne med at de skal tage sunna alvorligt: Muhammad har sagt et antal bizarre eller perverse ting der naturligvis vækker afsky, om ikke direkte latter.

Lad os se på blot en af dem: Det at voksne skal die, eller rida' al-kabir i Islam, der begyndte da Muhammad beordrede en kvinde at "give bryst" til en voksen mand. Fordi den er med i en kanonisk hadith da går topmuslimske autoriteter i dag, 1400 år senere, stadig ind for denne perverse praksis. Trods alt ville det at afvise den eller nogen anden kanonisk hadith være det samme som af afvise kilderne og sædvanerne i usul al-fiqh – kort sagt at forkaste Sharia. (se denne artikel på synopsis om emnet.)

Lad os nu forbinde trådene for at se, hvordan det bizarre i Islam også viser volden.

Overvej dette: Hvis muslimer stadig er tvunget til at gøre ting som "af få bryst" som voksen, blot fordi det 7. århundredes Muhammad sagde det, er det da ikke logisk at konkludere at de vil gå ind for profetens endnu bedre dokumenterede og ubestridelige ord vedrørende de vantro?

Se således på det: Emnet "give bryst" til voksne er pinligt for muslimerne; den giver dem overhovedet ikke nogen form for fremskridt eller goder, den sætter dem, især deres kvinder, i en latterlig position (faktisk er det som nummer 1 på denne listen med "de ti mest bizarre eller latterlige fatwas"

). Hvorfor er det da stadig et relevant problem blandt muslimer? Fordi Muhammad engang beordrede det. Således, om du kan lide det eller ej, da må muslimen se at forlige sig med det.

Hvad så med Muhammads andre bud – bud der, hvis de overholdes, i stedet for at gøre dem pinligt berørt, vil give muslimerne magt, velstand og hedonistiske nydelser – det er bud der så udmærket paasser med menneskehedens mest primitive impulser? Jeg taler her om Muhammads (og dermed Sharias) bud til muslimerne om at føre krig ("jihad") mod de vantro, at plyndre de vantro for hans velstand, kvinder og børn og at holde ham i evig underkastelse – alle de ting der er Islams historie, vis à vis ikke-muslimen.

Med andre ord, den muslimske mentalitet der tilskynder til behovet for at gå ind for at "give bryst" til voksne blot fordi Muhammad engang gav råd om det, skal helt sikkert 'sælges' sammen med profetens konstante tilskyndelser til krig og erobring.

Da vi bor i områder, hvor den muslimske verden er betydeligt svagere end den vantros verden, og den muslimske verden derfor lige for tiden ikke er i stand til en fuld offensiv, kan man let overse denne kendsgerning. Men intentionen er der helt bestemt. Man behøver blot at se, hvordan ikke-muslimske minoriteter, især kristne behandles i den muslimske verden – de forfølges, bortføres, voldtages og udplyndres – vær sikker på det.

Published in FrontPageMagazine.com

Father Zakaria Botros, also known as Islam's "Public Enemy #1," is back.

From around 2005-2010, this 76 year-old Coptic priest was Islam's bane. Appearing weekly on Arabic satellite, where he was viewed by an estimated 60 million people worldwide, mostly Muslims, he meticulously exposed any number of theological problems with Islam—all from Islam's own books—while simultaneously evangelizing from his own book, the Bible.

His mission "is to attack Islam, not to attack Muslims but to save them because they are deceived. As I love Muslims, I hate Islam."

And he has been effective: Mass conversions to Christianity, open and clandestine, have resulted. Indeed, years back al-Jazeera aired a segment complaining about Fr. Zakaria's "unprecedented evangelical raid" on the Muslim world; similarly, one Sheikh Ahmad al-Qatani lamented that as many as six million Muslims annually "apostatize" to Christianity.

Unsurprisingly, Fr. Zakaria's exploits caused al-Qaeda to proclaim him "one of the most wanted infidels in the world," putting a $60 million bounty on his head; undeterred, the priest kept going, his viewers and converts multiplying by the week.

Then, in May 2010, after a particularly graphic episode on Muhammad, his shows inexplicably stopped airing. His enemies exulted. Muslim leaders, preachers, and sheikhs appeared on TV, gleefully announcing that Allah had silenced the great enemy of Islam.

Yet, over a year after his many foes—external and internal, Muslim and non-Muslim—have managed to stifle him, Fr. Zakaria is back on satellite, now with his own station Fady TV (Redeemer TV), "a channel for those searching for the truth."

Though other Islam-critics and evangelists have appeared on Arabic satellite since, many with a good following, it is clear that people have not forgotten the priest, the original trailblazer of open and honest talk on Islam—the original scourge of Islam.

Watching the first episode of his new show, "Knowledge of the Truth," was like witnessing a reunion between a lost flock and its spiritual shepherd. Viewer after viewer—Christians and Muslims, much more of the latter—called in to express how much they had sorely missed the evangelist, and how happy they were to see him again, some in tears, others in joyous laughter.

And while their words were full of sincere and enthusiastic praise—many insisted that he is a living saint, others a modern day St. Paul—it was only when an elderly-sounding woman asserted that everyone must support Fr. Zakaria, not for his sake, but for the sake of his work liberating Muslims from bondage, that the normally stoic Zakaria broke down in tears.

Why is Fr. Zakaria so loved—and hated? For starters, as a native Arabic-speaker, he takes his message straight to the heart of the Islamic world; as a man of God, he takes his message straight to the heart of Muslims—something the Western approach cannot achieve.

You see, while Western critics are limited to making secular arguments against specific aspects of Islam—for instance, that it is illiberal, intolerant, sexist—he makes spiritual arguments against the very foundations of the religion.

This is not to say that Western polemics are not beneficial; they are, in that they awaken Western peoples to the nature of Islam. However, arguing or even proving that Islam falls short of Western/secular standards has little impact on Muslims—except perhaps to make them more tenacious of their faith (the inevitable result of comparing apples and oranges).

But an attack on the veracity of the religion itself—an attack articulated through a spiritual as opposed to asecular paradigm—must be confronted by Muslims.

In short, Fr. Zakaria's success rests in the fact that he fights fire with fire; that he speaks the same language Muslims do—not just literally, Arabic, but more importantly, figuratively, the language of religion and faith, the language of God. He cannot simply be ignored.

For example, during this, his first episode, he discussed Sheikh Huwaini's recent assertions that Islam advocates plundering, enslaving, buying, and selling infidels. Many have written about this anecdote either to show that Islam is intrinsically violent, or that "radical Islamism" is spreading, or that Islamic teachings are incompatible with the West.

But Fr. Zakaria takes it a step further—takes it right to the heart of the matter. After asserting that "God created mankind in his image," he sincerely addressed his Muslim viewers: "Would God truly want you to kill your neighbor, to enslave him? Would the Almighty truly want believers to buy and sell other human beings like animals? Think people! Use your minds, listen to your hearts—for your souls are at stake!"

The same reason the secular mindset may find this approach too simplistic or "unsophisticated" is the same reason it is far from comprehending Islam.

Still in its early stages of development and financially challenged, Fady TV has yet to reach the Middle East, where the real battle for souls is waged, though the priest is hopeful. The station is set to air entire programs dedicated to examining various topics in depth, including the Koran, the Hadith, Muhammad, and Allah.

As I previously did, I plan on following and summarizing Fr. Zakaria's programs. See for example "The Perverse Sexual Habits of the Prophet" and "Was Muhammad a Messenger from God or Satan?" for a sampling.

For more information on this singular priest, read his exclusive 2009 FPM interview, wherein he discussed his life story, including the torments he experienced for preaching to Muslims in Egypt. Also, to get a feel for his very "non-dhimmi" approach, watch his famous "Ten Demands of Islam."

Published in Pajamas Media

In a world paralyzed by political correctness and warped philosophies, attention is proving to be one of the greatest enemies of Islamist encroachment.

Consider the difference between pre- and post-September 11: A decade after the 9/11 jihad got the West's attention, many people — perhaps not unlike yourself — have become aware of Islam and its doctrines, especially the "anti-infidel" ones, certainly many more people than before Sept. 11, 2001.

The result is that today, even nonviolent effronteries like the Ground Zero mosque – called by Newt Gingrich"an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization" — create a stir, though they once would have passed unnoticed.

Here's another, more personal, anecdote of how attention can backfire on Islamists (complete details here). After Seattle's Everett Community College invited me to come and speak on May 5, one Jaffar ("Jeff") Siddiqui, who has a long history of trying to quash free speech on Islam, began pressuring the college to cancel my talk, including by writing a letter — titled "Don't Invite Bigots!" — to its president.

Likewise, the director of the radical Council on American-Islamic Relations Washington chapter, Arsalan Bukhari, asserted that "[i]nviting Raymond Ibrahim to give an alternative viewpoint on being Muslim is like inviting the KKK to speak about African American history."

Then, the day before my talk, this same Bukhari wrote an op-ed in Seattle's Herald arguing that "by inviting a known conspiracy theorist with a history of making unfounded claims about Islam, the college is doing a disservice to the public and risks creating a hostile learning environment for its students." Also the day before the talk CAIR's main headquarters issued a particularly nasty and accusatory press release that culminated as follows:

By issuing Mr. Ibrahim an invitation, giving him an audience, and in any way providing him a platform, Everett Community College is complicit in inflaming a tinder box of hate and violence against Islam and Muslims, and is abusing its public trust as a federally funded educational institution. Therefore, we urge the College to cease its promotion of bigotry and hate speech by rescinding its invitation to Raymond Ibrahim to speak on campus.

To CAIR'S chagrin, the college refused to cave in, pointing out that my appearance was "consistent with the belief that students be exposed to a variety of views."

Now, consider how CAIR caused an otherwise local event to snowball into something detrimental to its cause — simply by complaining about it, that is, drawing attention to it:

For starters, muchmediaattentionfollowed — attention that would never have been if not for CAIR's howling — including a featured story for MSNBC on whether Islam is a "Terror threat or peaceful religion?" The over 3,000 comments on this report alone reveal that, as "leftist" as MSNBC is, many of its readers are aware of the Islamist agenda; others wonder why CAIR is so scared of free speech.

Moreover, that CAIR cried wolf yet again — and was ignored — not only embarrassed but publicly belittled CAIR's influence. A community college defying Islamist threats and intimidation must surely shine as an example for other institutions that may actually be interested in promoting diversity of views —institutions that would never have even known that bullies like CAIR could be so easily ignored, if not for all the attention CAIR itself created.

In short, politically active Islamists must walk a fine line, must choose their fights carefully: if they scream bloody murder to silence free speech — scream "racist," "hater," "Islamophobe" — they risk bringing unwanted attention that backfires on them; yet if they sit back and do nothing, they risk having more and more people speak up and expose them.

Either way — whether CAIR or its un-stifled opponents make the noise — the result is the same: Americans, wondering why Islam is always in the spotlight, begin inquiring; some become acquainted with reality, and go on to discuss it with friends and family.

The cycle of slow but steady awareness that first began when 9/11 got the world's attention continues.