Month: March 2011

  • Bernie Ecclestone slams FIA president Jean Todt and says organisation is a joke

    F1 News

    Australian Grand Prix 2011: Bernie Ecclestone slams FIA president Jean Todt and says organisation is a joke

    Formula One chief Bernie Ecclestone has fired a broadside at FIA president   Jean Todt and described motorsport’s governing body as “a joke.”

    Sham: Benie Ecclestone has slammed the FIA saying they are an utter joke Photo: GETTY IMAGES

    Ecclestone has been far from impressed with Todt’s reign since he took over at   the FIA in October 2009 from close friend Max Mosley.

    “Jean Todt is a poor man’s Max,” Ecclestone told the Daily Express. “He   has been travelling around the world doing what Max didn’t do too much –   kissing the babies and shaking the hands.

    “It is probably good for the FIA, but we don’t need it in Formula One.”

    Of particular concern for Ecclestone is Todt’s desire to change the engine   rules from 2013, with F1 due to switch from 2.4-litre V8s to 1.6-litre   turbocharged units.

    Ecclestone believes Todt has “not so much had a positive effect on   Formula One.”

    Believing the teams rather than the FIA should make the rules, the 80-year-old   added: “The competitors have to race and have got a big investment. We   have got a big investment. We should write the rules, give them to the FIA   and they should make sure they are followed.

    “It should be like the police – the police don’t write the rules and say   you’ve got to do 30 miles an hour. The FIA is a joke.”

     

    Copyright. 2011. Telegraph.Co.UK All Rights Reserved

  • Fixing the secrecy system Wikileaks and the press

        Fixing the secrecy system 

        Mar 22nd 2011, 19:07 by G.L. | NEW YORK 

    THE system for keeping secrets in a democracy has never consisted solely of the government and its decisions about what to classify. It includes the traditional, institutional press, which sometimes—in fact, every single day—chooses not to publish everything it knows. It calls this “responsible journalism”, and it’s in large part a product of the press’s ties to power, which stem from its role as a mediator between power and polity. This system has flaws, of course, but until now everyone knew more or less what to expect of it, and so (unless you believed there should be no secrets at all) it worked for both the keepers and the exposers of secrets. But with the emergence of an extra-institutional press like Wikileaks, which has no ties to power, nothing is predictable, the secrecy system is broken and the same secrets will no longer be kept.

    That, then, is what the Wikileaks debate is really about: not the press’s right to publish secrets or the government’s right to keep them, but which part of the system for keeping them needs fixing in order for it all to work again. Those who would clamp down on Wikileaks want to fix the press part. But it’s unfixable, because though a “responsible” press will continue to exist, and though even Wikileaks has somewhat tempered its zeal, there will always be an “irresponsible” publisher out there. So now it falls to the government alone to delineate and enforce secrecy. Paradoxically, therefore, the revolution in openness ends up concentrating more power in the hands of the government.

    In this light, what’s the right system for determining what should be secret? This question came up last night at “Wikileaks and the Law”, the latest in Personal Democracy Forum’s terrific series of panel discussions on Wikileaks in New York. The eminent Geoffrey Stone of the University of Chicago pointed out that America’s current system is based on a pair of what he called “illogical” principles that make sense only when stuck together. Rather than trying to balance the value of an act of free speech against the cost of it, which is a tricky calculation, the United States divides the populace into the guardians of secrets (government employees) and publishers (everyone else). The government has almost total control over the former and almost none over the latter: it decides what secrets to keep and punishes severely those guardians who betray them, but anyone else who obtains and publishes a leak enjoys the protection of the first amendment, revoked only for speech that poses a “clear and present danger” to the United States.

    To Professor Stone, this is a fine arrangement. He argues that whenever juries, officials or legislators have tried to find a balance between free speech and secrecy, they have usually ended up under-protecting free speech; hence, he says, better to leave free speech fully intact, and leave the onus on the government to maintain secrecy at source. When it fails to do so, as in the Bradley Manning case, that is because it is trying to keep too many secrets, and must declassify more.

    It’s a clever-sounding argument, and it appeals to the popular notion that there’s too much secrecy. But it’s unconvincing. If there were fewer secrets overall, a disgruntled soldier or official would presumably have access to fewer too, but would he be less likely to leak them? I don’t see why; and in fact, reducing the ambit of secrecy would mean that those secrets that remain would be more damaging if leaked. Moreover, it’s a pipe dream to imagine that governments faced with secrecy crises will declassify more. America’s response to Mr Manning and Wikileaks has been to balkanise intelligence so that less can leak out. And balkanised intelligence, as 9/11 showed, contributes to intelligence failures.

    So what’s a better system? I have no idea. I argued (unconvincingly) at last night’s event that America’s combination of a liberal framework for publishers and a draconian one for guardians isn’t necessarily the only workable one: public speech in Britain is far less free, yet British democracy is not in evident danger of implosion. (“How would you know?” Professor Stone shot back.) But that isn’t to say that what works in Britain would work here, or should be tried. Even if there were a way to guarantee that limiting freedom of expression would lead to more government openness, it would be a dangerous precedent indeed.

    Still, if the press is no longer a trusted part of the system for determining what stays secret, it seems to me that some other element that answers (at least partly) to the public should be. There have been a good many reforms to the procedures for classifying and handling sensitive information in the past few years, but they have come largely from the  executive branch. Congress, the more representative branch, should certainly have more say.  And even that won’t change the underlying paradox: that thanks to Wikileaks and its ilk, the government may end up with more control over what we know, rather than less.

    (Photo credit:  alexcovic via Flickr)

     

    Copyright. 2011. The Economist Magazine. All Rights Reserved.

  • In Search of the Perfect Search: Can Google Beat Attempts to Game the System?

    Published: March 16, 2011 in Knowledge@Wharton
    Article Image

    Under fire after a series of well-publicized schemes revealed flaws in the effectiveness of its search results, Google is taking action. The search giant recently overhauled its ranking procedures in what company executives called an effort to favor “high quality” sites over those that are “not very useful,” a move Google says will noticeably impact the ranking of results in nearly 12% of all Google queries in the United States.

    The change, which was announced on February 24, went beyond the minor tweaks Google frequently makes that are often invisible to the average user. The company is trying to address fallout from issues that have recently come to light, most notably in a New York Times report that showed how department store chain J.C. Penney became a top search result in many queries by “gaming” the search engine. In a separate incident, retailer Overstock.com was punished by Google for going against policies that prohibit companies from falsely boosting their ranking in the search engine, The Wall Street Journal reported.

    Many technology commentators also have recently criticized Google for allowing spam and low-quality content into its search results. Google has responded by saying it would downplay results from sites often known as “content farms” — that is, sites such as Demand Media and Associated Content that produce large volumes of quickly written articles constructed according to how they will rank in search results. 

    These incidents, and Google’s responses, raise a bevy of questions. How much does search quality matter — and to whom? Does Google have too much market power? Should the company be more transparent about the algorithm that selects its top search results? What is the future of search?

    Google’s search business depends on satisfying two constituencies: users and advertisers,” says Kevin Werbach, a legal studies and business ethics professor at Wharton. “Google is the dominant search engine, but if users find they can’t get to the results they want, they will explore other options. And perhaps more financially significant, advertisers won’t bid up the prices of search keywords. Google’s value proposition is based on being a neutral ‘honest broker’ of good search results.”

    Experts at Wharton say the increasing attention being paid to Google’s search results highlights the cat-and-mouse game between the company and those who attempt to game its secret algorithm that determines the order in which search results are displayed. The practice, known as search engine optimization (SEO), uses a range of techniques for creating web pages that increase the likelihood the site will appear among the top results displayed in response to search engine queries. There are plenty of legitimate SEO techniques which adhere to Google’s best practices. There are also “black hat” techniques that aim to take advantage of quirks in the search rank algorithms to artificially gain a higher spot in the query results and garner more traffic for a website.

    The ultimate impact of Google’s move to prevent the gaming of search results is yet to be determined, according to panelists at the PaidContent 2011 conference in New York on March 3. According to Luke Beatty, a vice president at Yahoo’s Associated Content, one third of the site’s content ranks higher on Google as a result of the change, but two thirds has garnered a lower position. Jason Rapp, president of search engine Mahalo, told conference attendees that the company laid off 10% of its workforce and changed its strategy after the algorithm adjustments. “We had a body of general-interest content that was affected rather significantly,” Rapp noted. “When we see a hit like that, we react accordingly.”

    According to Kartik Hosanagar, a Wharton operations and information management professor, the focus on Google’s search quality is a bit ironic considering how the company originally rose to prominence. “If you look at how Google started out and became so successful, it was because of its PageRank algorithm,” says Hosanagar, referring to the analysis of links across the web the search giant uses to determine a site’s importance, and to decide where pages appear in search results. “PageRank allowed Google to improve search results. Previous search engines at Yahoo and elsewhere were easily littered with spam and low-quality content.”

    Now Google may be facing the same issue that its predecessors grappled with more than a decade ago. “Search quality is critical to Google’s reputation,” Hosanagar notes. “Quality is really fundamental to Google’s dominance in the market.”

    In January, Google accounted for 68.2% of U.S. searches, according to research firm comScore. Bolstered by its partnership with Yahoo, Microsoft’s Bing search site had a 25.6% share. “People wouldn’t put so much effort into gaming Google if it didn’t matter as much as it does,” says Kendall Whitehouse, director of new media at Wharton. “Because Google is so dominant in search, if you’re not easily found there, for all practical purposes, your website is invisible.”

    For that reason, Google’s algorithm overhaul is quite significant, notes Wharton operations and information management professor Eric Clemons. “Anything that weakens the combination of content farms and AdSense [Google's ad serving application for websites] is a good thing. The consumer is better off without content farms. That makes Google better off without them.”

    For now, Google is trying to resolve the issue by instituting set rules to weed out problem content from popping up in searches. “When we try to address challenges like this, we try to do it in an algorithmic way. There may be one-off situations where for legal reasons … we will intervene manually,” Neal Mohan, Google’s vice president of product management, said on February 28 at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media and Telecommunications Conference. Wharton’s Whitehouse underscores the difficulty facing Google in distinguishing between good quality content and bad. “We tend to blame Google” for less than perfect search results, “but knowing what [a search user thinks] is the ‘right’ answer isn’t trivial to implement through software.” Because content quality cannot completely be judged by an algorithm, Google added a feature on March 10 that allows users to block sites they do not like.

    Does Power Corrupt?

    Google is the primary way to find information on the Internet, and that gives the company a lot of power. Naturally, that power attracts players trying to use Google’s system to their advantage. Hosanagar likens Google in search to Microsoft in security: Both are targeted because they are dominant.

    Indeed, a company like Demand Media, which marshals an army of freelancers to produce search-friendly articles, cites dependence on Google as one of the firm’s biggest business risks. Demand Media’s initial public offering coincided with Google’s statements that it would crack down on content farms. On Demand Media’s first earnings conference call on February 22, CEO Richard Rosenblatt emphasized that the company is diversifying its traffic sources.

    Clemons has argued in various publications that Google has too much power. He notes that Google has the ability to censor results with editorial judgments that are layered onto its algorithm, and those judgments can make or break businesses that depend on the search engine for traffic. According to Andrea Matwyshyn, a Wharton legal studies and business ethics professor, there is a tension in Google’s technology between “preserving the purity of the algorithm” and using editorial judgments “to address social policy concerns and bad actors.”

    For instance, Google significantly lowered J.C. Penney’s ranking in several queries after the New York Times article highlighted the scheme that was pushing the retailer’s website to the top of the results for many search terms. The department store chain denied involvement in the scheme, but the company subsequently ended its relationship with its search engine consulting firm. Matwyshyn thinks Google’s reasoning has been sound so far, but warns: “It’s inevitable that Google will label something erroneously and cause economic harm [to a company it downgrades]. The whole question is what constitutes editorial judgment.”

    Matwyshyn adds that Google’s legal obligations when tweaking its ranking algorithm and making editorial adjustments are still a gray area. “To date, this topic hasn’t been explored in law, but it needs to be resolved in the next five to 10 years.”

    When Google said that it would downplay low-quality content, important questions were raised, Whitehouse notes. “What is the unassailable definition of ‘low-value content?’” he asks. Google publishes rules that govern its policies, but generally does not comment on specific actions against websites. Hosanagar predicts that the search giant will continue to be targeted because there are real business returns in trying to subvert the system. “Search is the primary means to the Internet.”

    Does Google have too much power? Indeed, Clemons considers the company to have a near monopoly. Google executives, however, have continually argued that switching to another search provider is easy. “Google is a for-profit enterprise providing a service. No one has to use Google. It can do what it wants,” says Wharton entrepreneurship professor Karl Ulrich. “The risk is that if its results are viewed as incomplete, rival search engines could gain share. Google has a lot of market power because of its market share. However, the switching costs for users are very, very low. Thus, the moment Google does not provide the best search experience, users will migrate to alternatives.”

    But Matwyshyn suggests that it might not be that simple for some users. She notes that while those “who use Google purely as a search engine can find a substitute,” Google customers that also use the company’s e-mail, document, photo and video services may find it more difficult to switch to another search engine.

    The Ideal Search

    Some experts at Wharton wonder if Google is transparent enough. Google frequently revamps its ranking techniques to improve search results. In general, Google tells the public about changes in its procedures, and publishes a best practices guide for web page creators, but does not divulge much information about the details of how search results are compiled, other than noting that the engine uses more than 200 signals, including its original PageRank algorithm, to order websites.

    “I’m not sure how I feel about relying on an algorithm for something as important as search if the algorithm is never described to me,” says Clemons. Matwyshyn would also like to see more transparency but notes that the algorithm is “the company’s prime asset. Google has to keep control over the details.”

    If Google became more transparent, it might become easier to trick, Hosanagar points out. “Google seems fully justified in its moves,” he says. “When spammers knew the features of search engines at Yahoo and elsewhere, they gamed the system. The low quality content problem precedes Google’s [rise to] power.”

    The challenge for Google, as well as other search engines, is essentially reading the minds of users, and coming up with the most accurate set of results. “Search needs a new trick,” Hosanagar notes. “Just like Google came in with PageRank, some other company could find a different and better way to rank search engine results.” The ideal search, according to Hosanagar, would feature artificial intelligence. For example, IBM’s Watson supercomputer, best known for winning on Jeopardy, may make a good search engine, although the use of such technology is unlikely to be generally available in the immediate future.

    In the meantime, search engine providers are tinkering with what Hosanagar calls “artificial artificial intelligence.” The general idea is to integrate social networking feeds from Facebook and Twitter “to infer what human beings are doing,” he says, noting that social feeds might work to enhance results until a better system is devised. “The algorithms don’t understand content and can’t guess what the user wants.”

    Some of these social search efforts are already underway. Google in February unveiled an application that integrates Twitter feeds into results. On February 24, Microsoft’s Bing announced that it would integrate Facebook “likes” into search results. If a user logs in to Facebook and then performs a search on Bing, tips and recommendations from friends will appear alongside the results.

    Social search might improve results, Matwyshyn says, but Google and other companies have to account for users’ privacy preferences and give them control over which results are shared versus which are kept private. “The ideal would be highly individualized results,” she notes. “My search will look different than your search, and be tailored to my privacy levels.” However, “search is a multidimensional problem,” Whitehouse points out. “Is whether a page is the most recent or the most liked by your friends more important than being the definitive statement on a given topic? It depends on what you’re looking for. There isn’t one right answer.”

    In the end, Google’s moves to improve search and police any attempts to game its system will be closely watched. “Because of its dominant position, Google has a heightened responsibility, and its actions will be subject to greater scrutiny,” says Werbach. “The key issue is not whether Google has power, but whether it’s abusing that power. So far, the company has been relatively transparent about what it’s doing, and careful in most cases about what it discourages.”

  • Hiding Details of Dubious Deal, U.S. Invokes National Security

    Dennis Montgomery                           

     

    February 19, 2011
     

     

    By ERIC LICHTBLAU and JAMES RISEN

    WASHINGTON — For eight years, government officials turned to Dennis Montgomery, a California computer programmer, for eye-popping technology that he said could catch terrorists. Now, federal officials want nothing to do with him and are going to extraordinary lengths to ensure that his dealings with Washington stay secret.       

    The Justice Department, which in the last few months has gotten protective orders from two federal judges keeping details of the technology out of court, says it is guarding state secrets that would threaten national security if disclosed. But others involved in the case say that what the government is trying to avoid is public embarrassment over evidence that Mr. Montgomery bamboozled federal officials.       

    A onetime biomedical technician with a penchant for gambling, Mr. Montgomery is at the center of a tale that features terrorism scares, secret White House briefings, backing from prominent Republicans, backdoor deal-making and fantastic-sounding computer technology.       

    Interviews with more than two dozen current and former officials and business associates and a review of documents show that Mr. Montgomery and his associates received more than $20 million in government contracts by claiming that software he had developed could help stop Al Qaeda’s next attack on the United States. But the technology appears to have been a hoax, and a series of government agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency and the Air Force, repeatedly missed the warning signs, the records and interviews show.       

    Mr. Montgomery’s former lawyer, Michael Flynn — who now describes Mr. Montgomery as a “con man” — says he believes that the administration has been shutting off scrutiny of Mr. Montgomery’s business for fear of revealing that the government has been duped.       

    “The Justice Department is trying to cover this up,” Mr. Flynn said. “If this unravels, all of the evidence, all of the phony terror alerts and all the embarrassment comes up publicly, too. The government knew this technology was bogus, but these guys got paid millions for it.”       

    Justice Department officials declined to discuss the government’s dealings with Mr. Montgomery, 57, who is in bankruptcy and living outside Palm Springs, Calif. Mr. Montgomery is about to go on trial in Las Vegas on unrelated charges of trying to pass $1.8 million in bad checks at casinos, but he has not been charged with wrongdoing in the federal contracts, nor has the government tried to get back any of the money it paid. He and his current lawyer declined to comment.       

    The software he patented — which he claimed, among other things, could find terrorist plots hidden in broadcasts of the Arab network Al Jazeera; identify terrorists from Predator drone videos; and detect noise from hostile submarines — prompted an international false alarm that led President George W. Bush to order airliners to turn around over the Atlantic Ocean in 2003.       

    The software led to dead ends in connection with a 2006 terrorism plot in Britain. And they were used by counterterrorism officials to respond to a bogus Somali terrorism plot on the day of President Obama’s inauguration, according to previously undisclosed documents.       

    ‘It Wasn’t Real’

    “Dennis would always say, ‘My technology is real, and it’s worth a fortune,’ ” recounted Steve Crisman, a filmmaker who oversaw business operations for Mr. Montgomery and a partner until a few years ago. “In the end, I’m convinced it wasn’t real.”       

    Government officials, with billions of dollars in new counterterrorism financing after Sept. 11, eagerly embraced the promise of new tools against militants.       

    C.I.A. officials, though, came to believe that Mr. Montgomery’s technology was fake in 2003, but their conclusions apparently were not relayed to the military’s Special Operations Command, which had contracted with his firm. In 2006, F.B.I. investigators were told by co-workers of Mr. Montgomery that he had repeatedly doctored test results at presentations for government officials. But Mr. Montgomery still landed more business.       

    In 2009, the Air Force approved a $3 million deal for his technology, even though a contracting officer acknowledged that other agencies were skeptical about the software, according to e-mails obtained by The New York Times.       

    Hints of fraud by Mr. Montgomery, previously raised by Bloomberg Markets and Playboy, provide a cautionary tale about the pitfalls of government contracting. A Pentagon study in January found that it had paid $285 billion in three years to more than 120 contractors accused of fraud or wrongdoing.       

    “We’ve seen so many folks with a really great idea, who truly believe their technology is a breakthrough, but it turns out not to be,” said Gen. Victor E. Renuart Jr. of the Air Force, who retired last year as the commander of the military’s Northern Command. Mr. Montgomery described himself a few years ago in a sworn court statement as a patriotic scientist who gave the government his software “to stop terrorist attacks and save American lives.” His alliance with the government, at least, would prove a boon to a small company, eTreppidTechnologies, that he helped found in 1998.       

    He and his partner — a Nevada investor, Warren Trepp, who had been a top trader for the junk-bond king Michael Milken — hoped to colorize movies by using a technology Mr. Montgomery claimed he had invented that identified patterns and isolated images. Hollywood had little interest, but in 2002, the company found other customers.       

    With the help of Representative Jim Gibbons, a Republican who would become Nevada’s governor and was a longtime friend of Mr. Trepp’s, the company won the attention of intelligence officials in Washington. It did so with a remarkable claim: Mr. Montgomery had found coded messages hidden in broadcasts by Al Jazeera, and his technology could decipher them to identify specific threats.       

    The software so excited C.I.A. officials that, for a few months at least, it was considered “the most important, most sensitive” intelligence tool the agency had, according to a former agency official, who like several others would speak only on the condition of anonymity because the technology was classified. ETreppid was soon awarded almost $10 million in contracts with the military’s Special Operations Command and the Air Force, which were interested in software that Mr. Montgomery promised could identify human and other targets from videos on Predator drones.       

    In December 2003, Mr. Montgomery reported alarming news: hidden in the crawl bars broadcast by Al Jazeera, someone had planted information about specific American-bound flights from Britain, France and Mexico that were hijacking targets.       

    C.I.A. officials rushed the information to Mr. Bush, who ordered those flights to be turned around or grounded before they could enter American airspace.       

    “The intelligence people were telling us this was real and credible, and we had to do something to act on it,” recalled Asa Hutchinson, who oversaw federal aviation safety at the time. Senior administration officials even talked about shooting down planes identified as targets because they feared that supposed hijackers would use the planes to attack the United States, according to a former senior intelligence official who was at a meeting where the idea was discussed. The official later called the idea of firing on the planes “crazy.”       

    French officials, upset that their planes were being grounded, commissioned a secret study concluding that the technology was a fabrication. Presented with the findings soon after the 2003 episode, Bush administration officials began to suspect that “we got played,” a former counterterrorism official said.       

    The C.I.A. never did an assessment to determine how a ruse had turned into a full-blown international incident, officials said, nor was anyone held accountable. In fact, agency officials who oversaw the technology directorate — including Donald Kerr, who helped persuade George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, that the software was credible — were promoted, former officials said. “Nobody was blamed,” a former C.I.A. official said. “They acted like it never happened.”       

    After a bitter falling out between Mr. Montgomery and Mr. Trepp in 2006 led to a series of lawsuits, the F.B.I. and the Air Force sent investigators to eTreppid to look into accusations that Mr. Montgomery had stolen digital data from the company’s systems. In interviews, several employees claimed that Mr. Montgomery had manipulated tests in demonstrations with military officials to make it appear that his video recognition software had worked, according to government memorandums. The investigation collapsed, though, when a judge ruled that the F.B.I. had conducted an improper search of his home.       

    Software and Secrets

    The litigation worried intelligence officials. The Bush administration declared that some classified details about the use of Mr. Montgomery’s software were a “state secret” that could cause grave harm if disclosed in court. In 2008, the government spent three days “scrubbing” the home computers of Mr. Montgomery’s lawyer of all references to the technology. And this past fall, federal judges in Montana and Nevada who are overseeing several of the lawsuits issued protective orders shielding certain classified material.       

    The secrecy was so great that at a deposition Mr. Montgomery gave in November, two government officials showed up to monitor the questioning but refused to give their full names or the agencies they worked for.       

    Years of legal wrangling did not deter Mr. Montgomery from passing supposed intelligence to the government, according to intelligence officials, including an assertion in 2006 that his software was able to identify some of the men suspected of trying to plant liquid bombs on planes in Britain — a claim immediately disputed by United States intelligence officials. And he soon found a new backer: Edra Blixseth, a onetime billionaire who with her former husband had run the Yellowstone Club in Montana.       

    Hoping to win more government money, Ms. Blixseth turned to some influential friends, like Jack Kemp, the former New York congressman and Republican vice-presidential nominee, and Conrad Burns, then a Republican senator from Montana. They became minority stakeholders in the venture, called Blxware.       

    New Pitches

    In an interview, Mr. Burns recalled how impressed he was by a video presentation that Mr. Montgomery gave to a cable company. “He talked a hell of a game,” the former senator said.       

    Mr. Kemp, meanwhile, used his friendship with Vice President Dick Cheney to set up a meeting in 2006 at which Mr. Kemp, Mr. Montgomery and Ms. Blixseth met with a top Cheney adviser, Samantha Ravich, to talk about expanding the government’s use of the Blxware software, officials said. She was noncommittal.       

    Mr. Flynn, who was still Mr. Montgomery’s lawyer, sent an angry letter to Mr. Cheney in May 2007. He accused the White House of abandoning a tool shown to “save lives.” (After a falling out with Mr. Montgomery, Mr. Flynn represents another party in one of the lawsuits.)       

    But Mr. Montgomery’s company still had an ally at the Air Force, which in late 2008 began negotiating a $3 million contract with Blxware.       

    In e-mails to Mr. Montgomery and other company officials, an Air Force contracting officer, Joseph Liberatore, described himself as one of the “believers,”  despite skepticism from the C.I.A. and problems with the no-bid contract.       

    If other agencies examined the deal, he said in a December 2008 e-mail, “we are all toast.”       

    “Honestly I do not care about being fired,” Mr. Liberatore wrote, but he said he did care about “moving the effort forward — we are too close.” (The Air Force declined to make Mr. Liberatore available for comment.)       

    The day after Mr. Obama’s inauguration, Mr. Liberatore wrote that government officials were thanking Mr. Montgomery’s company for its support. The Air Force appears to have used his technology to try to identify the Somalis it believed were plotting to disrupt the inauguration, but within days, intelligence officials publicly stated that the threat had never existed. In May 2009, the Air Force canceled the company’s contract because it had failed to meet its expectations.       

    Mr. Montgomery is not saying much these days. At his deposition in November, when he was asked if his software was a “complete fraud,” he answered, “I’m going to assert my right under the Fifth Amendment.”       

     

     

    Copyright. 2011 The New York Times Company. All Rights Reserved

  • At The Mob Museum: A dead mobster, a barber chair — and a mini-controversy

                                                                      W

     

    Sam Morris / Las Vegas Sun                                                                   

    Artie Nash unveils the Mob Museum’s most recent acquisition, the barber chair that Albert Anastasia was murdered in Wednesday, March 9, 2011

    By John Katsilometes                                    · March 21, 2011  · 4:34 PM

    Click to enlarge photo

    This is a crime scene photo of Albert Anastasia at the unveiling of the Mob Museum’s most recent acquisition, the barber chair that Anastasia was murdered in Wednesday, March 9, 2011.

     

     

    A minor debate has surfaced since The Mob Museum unveiled its latest artifact, the barber chair in which mob boss Albert Anastasia was sitting when he was shot to death in 1952 in New York City.

    Some keen-eyed observers are claiming the chair undraped March 9 and the chair shown in the photo next to Anastasia’s bloodied, bullet-riddled body are not the same.

    Since the column about the chair was published this month, readers have pointed out what appears to be a different footrest on the chair in the Oct. 25, 1957, photo showing a lifeless, bloodied Anastasia, and the photos taken at the mayor’s office in City Hall when the chair was displayed.

    They do look different, with the new chair’s footrest appearing to show a flat metal surface. The old photo shows the footrest as padded.

    But they are the same. As city of Las Vegas Public Information Officer Jace Radke, the person assigned to lugging the 250-pound chair into the mayor’s office, explains, “The foot rest flips up and down. In the historical photo, the padded side is flipped up. When we displayed the chair, the padded side was flipped down.”

    As Radke further noted, the foot rest screws into the base of the chair, and when the pieces arrived, they were not fastened into place. So Radke screwed the piece into place and reports, “I can tell you that looking at a blown-up shot of the historical photo and from handling it, that is exactly the same as it was in the historical photo.”

    So it shall be, and another Mob conspiracy theory can be put to rest.

    Follow John Katsilometes on Twitter at twitter.com/JohnnyKats. Also, follow Kats With the Dish at twitter.com/KatsWithTheDish

     

    Copyright. 2011. Las Vegas Sun.com All Rights Reserved.

     

  • J. D. Salinger Slept Here (Just Don’t Tell Anyone)

    Jessica Kourkounis for The New York Times

    Callie Ingram and Anton Teubner, prior winners of a writing contest with a prize that included a year in Salinger’s old room.                           

     

    March 20, 2011

    J. D. Salinger Slept Here (Just Don’t Tell Anyone)

    COLLEGEVILLE, Pa. — For years, officials at Ursinus College had been trying to figure out how to capitalize on the fact that J. D. Salinger had spent one semester there in the fall of 1938.       

    They were hoping to attract publicity for Ursinus and tried everything they could think of to lure Salinger from the secluded world he’d lived in for his final 50 years. They offered to make him a guest lecturer; to build a literary festival around him; to award him an honorary degree. “No response,” said Richard DiFeliciantonio, the vice president for enrollment at the small liberal arts college here. “Absolutely nothing.”       

    Then Jon Volkmer, an English professor, had what Holden Caulfield would have called a goddam terrific idea. They could establish an annual J. D. Salinger Scholarship in creative writing for an incoming freshman, and as a bonus the winner would get to spend the first year at Ursinus in Salinger’s old dorm room. “Any college could offer money,” Professor Volkmer said. “Nobody else could offer Salinger’s room.”       

    On Jan. 19, 2006, the college announced the $30,000-a-year Salinger scholarship, and within a week, the writer’s literary representatives were demanding that his name be removed. In retrospect, this was not a big surprise. All his life, Salinger had done everything possible to protect his privacy from the same stinking phonies who’d so unnerved Holden Caulfield. He removed his photograph from the jacket cover of “The Catcher in the Rye” and successfully sued a biographer to prevent the publication of his personal letters.       

    “Salinger’s representatives sent us a warning; it was only one paragraph, but it was blunt,” Mr. DiFeliciantonio said. “They may have used the word ‘exploit.’ ”       

    College officials pleaded that they were just trying to help worthy students. “I don’t think they used the term ‘cease and desist,’ ” Mr. DiFeliciantonio said, “although they may have used the word ‘desist.’ ”       

    In deference to what some would refer to as Salinger’s artistic sensibilities and others would call his nuttiness, the college changed the name of the scholarship to the Ursinus College Creative Writing Award. But the part about sleeping in Salinger’s room remained. “I mean, we own the room,” Professor Volkmer said. “They couldn’t stop us from that, I don’t think.”       

    In the next few weeks, Ursinus will announce the sixth annual winner of what is now known here as the “Not the J. D. Salinger Scholarship.”       

    In theory, previous winners who have slept in Salinger’s room — 300 Curtis Hall — should have felt honored and humbled, although it was no bed of roses.       

    “It’s a pretty tiny room,” said Anton Teubner, a senior who slept there in 2007.       

    “It is small,” said Logan Metcalf-Kelly, the current occupant. “But I don’t mind sleeping in it.”       

    “Late at night,” Mr. Teubner said, “I’d be in bed and there’d be these drunk freshmen yelling in the hallway: ‘It’s the room, it’s the room.’ Cut into my sleep.”       

    On the other hand, for the lonely male freshman, there are benefits. “Girls are interested in seeing the inside of Salinger’s room,” Mr. Metcalf-Kelly said.       

    The problem is, except for the plaque in the hallway identifying the room, there’s not a lot to see, and scant evidence that one of the great writers of the 20th century spent the first half of his freshman year there. A slanting ceiling makes the room feel even smaller than it is. Instead of curtains for privacy, Mr. Metcalf-Kelly has slung a towel over the only window. It’s hard to tell whether the walls are a faded yellow or bright beige. The carpet is so matted, threadbare and cruddy-looking, it does seem possible that Salinger walked on it.       

    A scholarly assessment of Salinger’s four months at Ursinus would probably conclude that great writers are not necessarily great human beings, and that their behavior in their formative years does not necessarily foreshadow their outsize successes to come.       

    Salinger wrote a weekly column in the school paper called J.D.S.’s The Skipped Diploma. The writing is so snide and hip and insiderly, it is almost impossible to tell what, if anything, he was trying to say. He was also the paper’s theater critic, but his reviews were mindlessly positive and cloying, particularly when it came to the female roles, and some scholars have speculated that his primary artistic goal was bedding coeds.       

    If there is one single thing he did at Ursinus that would hint of the perfect short stories to come: “For Esmé — With Love and Squalor”; “Pretty Mouth and Green My Eyes”; “A Perfect Day for Bananafish”— no one has unearthed it yet.       

    Still, for a man who didn’t appear to like much of anything for very long, he seemed to have had a fondness for Ursinus. Compared with his other college experiences — two weeks at New York University and a few creative writing courses at Columbia — Ursinus was as close to an alma mater as he’d get. In her memoir, Margaret, his daughter, wrote that he “had only good things to say about Ursinus and its lack of pretension.”       

    On March 15, 1963, Salinger wrote to the registrar, requesting a catalog for the family’s baby sitter, “a thoroughly nice young girl,” noting that “I look back with a great deal of pleasure on my own days at Ursinus.”       

    To qualify for the Not the Salinger Scholarship, applicants must submit writing samples. The judges aren’t looking for the person who writes most like Salinger; they’re looking for a person who, like Salinger, writes with a strong, distinctive voice.       

    That’s a good thing, because there are applicants who have never read Salinger’s books.       

    “I glanced at them in high school, but never actually read them,” Mr. Metcalf-Kelly said.       

    “I was not a Salinger fan until I came here,” Mr. Teubner said.       

    Mr. Metcalf-Kelly said that if his generation were asked to pick a dorm room to sleep in based on literary merit, many would head for the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, where Dave Eggers slept. “I think Eggers’s ‘A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius’ had the impact on our generation that ‘Catcher in the Rye’ had on its generation,” he said.       

    “Eggers went to my high school,” said Mr. Teubner, the Ursinus senior, who graduated from Lake Forest High near Chicago.       

    If Mr. Teubner were to pick a literary bed, he would move to Bennington, Vt., where Bret Easton Ellis slept. “I’m not sure that’s typical,” he said. “A lot of kids my age don’t read Ellis anymore. He’s a little old. He was big in the ’90s.”       

    Callie Ingram, a junior, slept in the Salinger room two years ago. She described “The Catcher in the Rye” as “a good book, but not pivotal.” She still hasn’t opened her copy of “Franny and Zooey.”       

    If Ms. Ingram had to pick a bed, it would be in Knoxville, at the University of Tennessee, where Cormac McCarthy slept. She was particularly moved by “All the Pretty Horses” and “The Road.”       

    However, if she preferred staying at Ursinus and were willing to settle for rooms occupied by Cormac McCarthy’s niece (class of 2007) or John Updike’s mother (class of 1923), either of those could work, too.       

    E-mail: oneducation@nytimes.com

     

    Copyright. 2011. The New York Times Company All Rights Reserved

  • Royal Wedding

     more royal wedding news, visit our Royal Wedding page.***



    Crown Princess Victoria and husband Daniel Westling
    1 of 10
    It was announced that Sweden’s heir to the throne, Crown Princess Victoria and her new commoner-turned-prince husband Daniel will be at Westminster Abbey. The newlyweds are set to celebrate their first anniversary on June 19, and being at William’s nuptials will no doubt bring back memories of their own romantic wedding.
     
    It was announced that Sweden’s heir to the throne, Crown Princess Victoria and her new commoner-turned-prince husband Daniel will be at Westminster Abbey. The newlyweds are set to celebrate their first anniversary on June 19, and being at William’s nuptials will no doubt bring back memories of

    their own romantic wedding. Fellow Scandinavian royals King Harald (who’s a distant cousin of Queen Elizabeth) and Queen Sonja of Norway have also accepted their invitations.

    The latest word is that Crown Prince Willem-Alexander and his vivacious wife Princess Maxima will represent the Netherlands at the royal wedding, although Maxima let the news slip ahead of the official announcement when she was overheard last week on an official visit to Qatar, saying to Sheikha Mozah that she’ll be seeing her again in London. Well, that means the Sheikha will also be at the wedding. On a state visit to Britain last October with her husband the Emir of Qatar, Sheikha Mozah dazzled in one glamourous outfit after another complete with turbans, opulent jewels, and even a pair of shoes with icicle-shaped heels.

    Although it’s been reported in the Danish and Australian press that Crown Prince Frederick and Crown Princess Mary of Denmark (who was Australian before her marriage, and who gave birth to twins in January) have not been invited, my royal contacts tell me otherwise, and so we’ll be seeing them at the wedding alongside Queen Margrethe, and her husband Prince Henrik. April is set to be an eventful month for the Danish royals with Margrethe’s birthday on the 16th and the christening of Fred and Mary’s boy and girl twins on April 14. As with Danish royal custom, the three-month-old babies will not be named until the day of their christening, but Prince Frederick has jokingly said that they are calling the boy Elvis for now since they share the same January 8 birthday as “The King.” At least we hope that he’s joking about the prospect of a Prince Elvis. Besides, it’ll be a demotion in royal rank from “The King” to prince, wouldn’t it?

    On a serious note, it seems that every time there’s a major royal wedding, there’s a diplomatic minefield to maneuver through. In 1981, the Spanish king and queen ended up boycotting Charles and Diana’s wedding because the young couple was starting the yacht portion of their honeymoon from Gibraltar. Spain has long disputed the status of Gibraltar, a British overseas territory that was captured from Spain in 1704, and which the Spaniards have been trying to reclaim. This time around, someone forgot to include a Gibraltar representative on the invitation list for William’s wedding, and a potential diplomatic rift between Britain and Gibraltar was averted only when a hastily-issued invitation was then extended to Gibraltar’s Chief Minister and his wife. Whew! Let’s see which Spanish royals will be at the Abbey on April 29, although it seems certain that King Juan Carlos won’t be attending since he doesn’t go to royal weddings abroad.

    Others who have opted out of the wedding include King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa of Bahrain, who has declined his invitation, as confirmed by St James’s Palace. The inclusion of the dictator monarch (who proclaimed himself king) on the wedding guest list had elicited opposition and outrage in Britain and elsewhere. Just this week, the king enlisted military forces from Saudi Arabia to violently quash pro-democracy demonstrators in his island nation state — a move that has been denounced by the U.N Human Rights Commissioner. The Bahranian king’s presence at Westminster Abbey is sure to bring much negative attention to William and Catherine’s big day, and perhaps the palace is secretly breathing a sigh of relief that he won’t be attending after all.

    With the recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan, it’s not surprising that the Japanese Imperial Household Agency just announced that Crown Prince Naruhito and his wife, Crown Princess Masako will not be going to London now. An earlier statement last month that the couple intended to be at William’s wedding was met with anticipation by many royal watchers and supporters eager for a rare glimpse of the 47-year-old princess. However, the chances of Masako actually traveling to London was less than certain even before the latest crisis in Japan. Due to an ongoing stress-induced illness, Masako, who’s become the equivalent of a royal Greta Garbo, has not traveled overseas since a private visit to the Netherlands in 2006. The last royal wedding she attended was that of Crown Prince Phillipe of Belgium in 1999, and since then, she has missed the weddings of the heirs to the thrones of Denmark, Spain, Sweden and Brunei. Our thoughts and prayers to the Japanese people and best wishes for a recovery to the devastation.

     

    Copyright. 2011. Huffington Post. All Rights Reserved

        
     
     
     
     

     

     

  • Why Yasir Qadhi Wants to Talk About Jihad

    Todd Heisler/The New York Times

    Yasir Qadhi spoke before the Eid al-Fitr prayer service in September at the Memphis Cook Convention Center.

    March 17, 2011

    Why Yasir Qadhi Wants to Talk About Jihad

    On a chilly night in the dead of a New England winter, Yasir Qadhi hurried down the stairs of Yale University’s religious-studies department, searching urgently for a place to make a private call. A Ph.D. candidate in Islamic studies, Qadhi was a fixture on the New Haven campus. He wore a trim beard and preppy polo shirts, blending in with the other graduate students as he lugged an overstuffed backpack into Blue State Coffee for his daily cappuccino. A popular teaching assistant, he exuded a sprightly intensity in class, addressing the undergraduates as “dudes.”       

    But Qadhi had another life. Beyond the gothic confines of Yale, he was becoming one of the most influential conservative clerics in American Islam, drawing a tide of followers in the fundamentalist movement known as Salafiya. Raised between Texas and Saudi Arabia, he seemed uniquely deft at balancing the edicts of orthodox Islam with the mores of contemporary America. To many young Muslims wrestling with conflicts between faith and country, Qadhi was a rock star. To law-enforcement agents, he was also a figure of interest, given his prominence in a community considered vulnerable to radicalization. Some officials, noting his message of nonviolence, saw him as an ally. Others were wary, recalling a time when Qadhi spouted a much harder, less tolerant line. On this night, however, it was Qadhi’s closest followers who were questioning him.       

    Two weeks earlier, on Christmas Day 2009, a young Nigerian tried to blow up a jet headed for Detroit with a bomb sewn into his underwear. The suspect had been a student of Qadhi’s at the AlMaghrib Institute, which teaches Salafi theology in 21 American cities. F.B.I. agents were demanding interviews with Qadhi’s students. He urged them to cooperate, but many pushed back, and Qadhi found himself caught between two seemingly irreconcilable forces: a deeply suspicious government and a young following he could lose.       

    In the basement of the religious-studies building, Qadhi settled into an empty room, flipped open his MacBook Pro (encased in Islamic apple green) and dialed in to an Internet conference call with more than 150 of his AlMaghrib students. “I want to be very frank here,” Qadhi said, his voice tight with exasperation. “Do you really, really think that blowing up a plane is Islamic? I mean, ask yourself this.”       

    None of the students defended the plot, but some sympathized with the suspect, said several students who participated in the call, one of whom provided a recording to The Times. Was it not possible, they asked, that he had been set up? And how could they trust the F.B.I. after all they experienced — the post-9/11 raids, the monitoring of mosques, the sting operations aimed at Muslims? A few went as far as to say that they could not turn against a fellow Muslim who was trying to fight the oppressive policies of the United States.       

    Qadhi paced the worn, gray carpet. “There were even Muslims on that plane!” he said. “I mean, what world are you living in? How angry and overzealous are you that you simply forget about everything and you think that this is the way forward?”       

    Over the next year, Qadhi was thrust into the center of a crucial struggle — for the minds of his young students, the trust of his government and his own future as America was waking to a new threat. Since 2008, more than two dozen Muslim-Americans have joined or sought training with militant groups abroad. They are among the roughly 50 American citizens charged with terrorism-related offenses during that time. These suspects are a mixed lot. Some converted to Islam; others were raised in the faith. They come from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds and have migrated to different fronts in their global war, from Somalia to Pakistan. Their motivations differ, but the vast majority share two key attributes: a deep disdain for American foreign policy and an ideology rooted in Salafiya.       

    In the spectrum of the global Salafi movement, Qadhi, who is 36, speaks for the nonmilitant majority. Yet even as he has denounced Islamist violence — too late, some say — a handful of AlMaghrib’s former students have heeded the call. In addition to the underwear-bomb suspect, the 36,000 current and former students of Qadhi’s institute include Daniel Maldonado, a New Hampshire convert who was convicted in 2007 of training with an Al Qaeda-linked militia in Somalia; Tarek Mehanna, a 28-year-old pharmacist arrested for conspiring to attack Americans; and two young Virginia men held in Pakistan in 2009 for seeking to train with militants.       

    Qadhi said that none of those former students had approached him for counsel. But in recent years, countless others have come to him with questions about the legitimacy of waging jihad. “We’re finding ourselves on the front line,” Qadhi said. “We don’t want to be there.”       

    During the months I spent in the insular world of young American Salafis, it became clear how pressing those questions are for many conservative Muslims who have come of age after 9/11. They have watched as their own country wages war in Muslim lands, bearing witness — via satellite television and the Internet — to the carnage in Iraq, the drone attacks in Pakistan and the treatment of detainees at Guantánamo. While the dozens of AlMaghrib students I interviewed condemned the tactics of militant groups, many share their basic grievances. They are searching for the correct Islamic response, turning to the ancient texts that guide their American lives. Their salvation, they say, hangs in the balance.       

    This is what makes Qadhi such a pivotal figure in a subculture that is little understood, even by the law-enforcement officials who monitor it. He is the rare Western cleric fluent in the language of militants, having spent nearly a decade studying Islam in Saudi Arabia, steeped in the same tradition that spawned Osama bin Laden’s splinter movement. Arguably few American theologians are better positioned to offer an authoritative rebuttal of extremist ideology. But to do that, Qadhi says he would need to address the thorny question of what kinds of militant actions are permitted by Islamic law. It is a forbidden topic for most American clerics, who even refrain from criticizing their country’s foreign policy for fear of being branded unpatriotic.       

    For an ultraconservative cleric like Qadhi, the picture is more complicated. Engaging in a detailed discussion of militant jihad — a complex subject informed by centuries of scholarship — risks drawing the scrutiny of law enforcement and, Qadhi fears, possible prosecution. If he were to acknowledge that Islamic law endorses the legitimacy of armed resistance against Western forces in Muslim territory, he could give a green light to the very students he claims he is trying to keep off the militant path. Yet by remaining silent, Qadhi says he is losing the credibility he needs to persuade them of his ultimate message: those fights are not theirs, as Westerners, to fight. “My hands are tied, and my tongue is silent,” he said.       

    Militant clerics abroad have filled the void, none more than Anwar al-Awlaki, the American preacher who is now believed to be in hiding in Yemen with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Awlaki has been linked to numerous plots against the United States, including the botched underwear bombing. He has taken to the Internet with stirring battle cries directed at young American Muslims. “Many of your scholars,” Awlaki warned last year, are “standing between you and your duty of jihad.”       

    It was near midnight last October when Qadhi’s teenage acolytes surrounded him at Thomas Sweet, an ice cream parlor in New Brunswick, N.J. Puma sneakers peeked out from under long robes. Suddenly the lyrics “shake your booty” blasted over the speakers. The young men leaned in closer, unfazed. Between helpings of mango-flavored sorbet, Qadhi pontificated on medieval Islamic theology. “We have a reasonable religion,” he said. “We’re a very logical, rational group of people.”       

    Qadhi’s students hang on his every word. They huddle around him — between classes, during meals, even in bathrooms — pinging him with questions. Their reliance on Qadhi is a product of contemporary Islam, a decentralized religion with no clear authority. Clerics with the highest level of scholarship are considered invaluable guides, especially in the secular West.       

    Qadhi was in New Jersey that weekend to teach a seminar on the concept of faith-led action. During a break, a dozen young men flocked to him once again. A soft-spoken engineer lobbed the first question: Wasn’t it hypocritical for the same Western imams who supported the Afghan resistance against the Soviets to now condemn the jihad against American troops? After all, another student asked, don’t civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan “have an obligation to do something to defend themselves?”       

    “I am not commenting on what they should or should not do,” Qadhi replied. “I am commenting on what you should do as American Muslims.”       

    They had heard it before: vote, educate your neighbors, protest peacefully. But is that what Islam commands when your people are dying? The question haunts some of Qadhi’s brightest students. One of the deepest Islamic principles is that of the ummah — the global community that unites all Muslims. The Prophet Muhammad was said to have likened it to the human body. If one part hurts, the whole body aches.       

    One of Qadhi’s followers, a feisty 27-year-old New Yorker, compared his experience of watching bombs fall on Iraq to what other Americans might feel at seeing “California being ravaged day in and day out. How would you feel?” He said he understood why Qadhi could not speak expansively about the conflicts overseas. Even so, he asked, who has greater credibility: the cleric living comfortably in America or the militant “in the cave” who sacrificed everything for his beliefs? “One thing about Awlaki no one can deny,” he said, “this man is fearless.”       

    That Awlaki carries weight with conservative Muslims underscores both the rivalry and proximity between militant and nonmilitant Salafis. Qadhi and Awlaki have parallel pasts: they were both born in the United States, spent part of their youth in the Middle East and entered the American Salafi movement just as it was on the rise. Awlaki later spent time in a Yemeni prison and emerged in 2008 calling for Muslims to fight the West. Recordings of his sermons continued to be sold at AlMaghrib seminars even after the students were ordered to stop in November 2009, following the Fort Hood shootings that Awlaki praised. Many of the students had grown up listening to him preach on his CDs. They trusted him then, one told me, why not trust him now?       

    For the tiny fraction of AlMaghrib’s students who have turned to violence, many are what Qadhi refers to as “sympathizers” of militant anger. These young, politically attuned Muslims are taken with events that don’t even register with most Americans, like two recent terrorism cases in New York that drew overflow crowds, Qadhi’s students among them. “If any Muslim is oppressed anywhere, the prevailing wisdom is that we should be standing up to help them — if we’re true believers,” says Ify Okoye, an AlMaghrib volunteer from Beltsville, Md. Sometimes, she added, “you feel guilty for living here.”       

    Many of today’s young American Muslims are the children of educated, successful immigrants whose passage to the United States came smoothly, in contrast to Europe’s largely working-class Muslims. For years, this bolstered the theory that American Muslim youth had been spared the alienation that fostered militancy in Europe.       

    But alienation has many faces. America’s youngest Muslims have grown up in a newly hostile country, with mounting opposition to the construction of mosques, a national movement seeking to ban courts from consulting shariah, or Islamic law, and rising hate crimes against Muslims. While some young Muslims have sought distance, abandoning Islam and even changing their names, others have experienced a spiritual awakening. The most conservative have found a home in Salafiya.       

    Salafis take their name from the Arabic word “salaf,” meaning “ancestor.” Their movement seeks to reclaim Islam’s lost glory by purging the faith of modern influences. Salafis model their lives after the first Muslims, beginning with the Prophet Muhammad, the seventh-century Meccan merchant to whom the Koran, it is believed, was revealed. They encourage a direct relationship with God through a literal reading of Islam’s primary sources — the Koran and the Sunnah, the prophet’s sayings and deeds.       

    Within the faith, Salafis have a reputation for intolerance and divisiveness. Like other religious conservatives, they tend to be adamant in their strict interpretations, shunning those who disagree. They denounce the veneration of saints, common among some Sufi sects. Many Salafi men insist on a fist-length beard and wear their trousers above the ankle in a desire to emulate the prophet.       

    While versions of Salafiya have persisted through history, its current iteration derives largely from the puritanical, 18th-century school of Saudi Islam known as Wahhabism. Today’s Salafis share the same basic theology but differ on how to manifest it. Many are apolitical, while another subset engages in politics as a nonviolent means to an end — namely, an Islamic theocracy. A third fringe group is devoted to militant jihad as the only path to Islamic rule and, ultimately, heaven. All three strains have surfaced in the West, where the movement has flourished among the children of immigrants. “It’s about this deep desire for certainty,” Bernard Haykel, a leading Salafi expert at Princeton University, says. “They are responding to a kind of disenchantment with the modern world.”       

    One balmy afternoon last spring, Qadhi walked across Yale’s campus, stepping around a throng of teenagers he dismissed, irascibly, as “the prefreshie tour.” He stopped before the tomblike building that houses the elite Skull and Bones society. Qadhi stared up at the brownstone facade, as if imagining the secrets it held. “You’re set for life,” he said, squinting through his sunglasses. “You get to thinking that everyone in the White House was a part of this, and it’s easy to see why people think there is a conspiracy.” After a pause, he added, “I don’t believe those theories.”       

    Qadhi is hardly disenchanted by the trappings of Western life. He has more than 10,000 fans on Facebook, hundreds of sermons on YouTube and a growing Twitter following. He drives a black, leather-interior Honda CR-V, often pulling into a Popeye’s drive-through for popcorn shrimp and gravy-slathered biscuits. He is planning a trip to Disney World with his wife, Rumana, and their four children.       

    Some of Qadhi’s followers find his ease with American culture perplexing, even suspicious. Yet it is his unapologetic comfort with America — his assertion that Muslims belong here as much as anyone — that has also made him a point of pride for many young Salafis. “We need to make sure that our children can live freely, and we’re going to fight for that freedom,” he told me one afternoon. “And every time I use that word, I need to make a disclaimer — I don’t mean ‘fight’ in the Tea Party sense of overthrowing the government.”       

    A stout five-foot-five, Qadhi chuckles easily and speaks rapidly, his hands punctuating his words with slicing motions. He is confident to a fault, often trailing a sentence with “God protect me from arrogance.” In class, he can be staid and professorial, with flashes of frivolity. He once implored students to “make love, not jihad.” He blends religious piety with entrepreneurial savvy. More than 20,000 people have signed up for “Like a Garment,” Qadhi’s new online seminar about sex in Islamic marriage. “I give explicit detail on how a man should give his wife an orgasm in a permissible manner,” he explained.       

    Qadhi’s platform is the AlMaghrib Institute, where he serves as academic dean. Founded in 2002 by Muhammad Alshareef, a Canadian cleric then living in Alexandria, Va., AlMaghrib is now an international enterprise, offering seminars in the United States, Canada and Britain. It reported nearly $1.2 million in revenue in 2009 and aspires to become a full-time Islamic seminary, albeit with an air of corporate America. During a recent retreat in the mountains of Ontario, AlMaghrib’s clerics whizzed along snowy bluffs on sleds drawn by Siberian huskies. “As long as you don’t touch them, it’s all right,” Qadhi said, referring to his interpretation of Islam’s ruling on dogs.       

    Last June, Qadhi and his family left New Haven for the outskirts of Memphis, settling into a spacious new ranch house in a well-tended subdivision. Still at work on his doctoral thesis, Qadhi found a job teaching Islamic studies at Rhodes College, which is affiliated with the Presbyterian Church.       

    It is something of a curiosity that Qadhi, who was raised in Saudi Arabia, Islam’s birthplace, now lives in a landscape marked by church steeples and “What would Jesus do?” bumper stickers. But the American South seems to agree with Qadhi, who often preaches on the Islamic principle of polite conduct. He takes to the gentility of his students at Rhodes, who call him sir. There is no better place to be Muslim than in America, he says, because as a minority “you feel your faith.” At times, he seems oddly Pollyanna-ish about his future in Tennessee, where someone tried to torch the site of a planned mosque last year. Qadhi concedes that living someplace like Saudi Arabia might be easier, but “it’s not my land at the end of the day,” he said. “I am an American. What else can I say?”       

    In Qadhi’s current incarnation, it is hard to make out the preacher he refers to as “the old me.” That Qadhi lives on via YouTube. In a television show recorded in Egypt in 2001, Qadhi, then 26, explains that one form of kufr, or disbelief, is adhering to man-made laws over God’s law. “Can you believe it?” he says. “A group of people coming together and voting — and the majority vote will then be the law of the land. What gives you the right to prohibit something or allow something?”       

    His young students nod their heads. “Islam is a complete way of life, a complete submission to Allah and to the rulings of Allah,” Qadhi said on the show. “It is a complete package.”       

    Long before Salafiya came to the United States, Qadhi’s father arrived in Houston from Karachi, Pakistan. It was 1963, and the young bachelor, Mazhar Kazi, enrolled at the University of Houston with his sights on a medical degree. One of the first foreign-born Muslims to settle in the area, Kazi took a job as a busboy and tended to his studies. He eventually married a microbiologist from Karachi and founded the area’s first mosque.       

    Their son, Yasir, was born in 1975, the second of two boys. When Yasir was 5, the Kazis moved to Jedda, Saudi Arabia, intent on exposing their sons to Islam and Arabic. Kazi took a job teaching medicine at the King Abdulaziz University. The family spent summers in Houston, but the boys were mostly shaped by life in Jedda, a blend of British expat culture and strict Saudi norms. Qadhi (who later changed the spelling of his surname to reflect the correct pronunciation) was precociously bookish. On weekends, he searched the local library for Tolstoy and Hemingway. By 15, Qadhi had memorized the Koran and graduated from high school, two years early, as valedictorian. Following his father’s wishes, he enrolled at the University of Houston in 1991, majoring in chemical engineering.       

    Qadhi had never attended a class with women and was shocked by campus life. He took refuge in the Muslim Students Association, a close-knit group of mostly Arab and South Asian immigrants. He was soon leading study circles and delivering effusive Friday sermons.       

    His introduction to Salafiya came in his sophomore year, when a Muslim convert from Colorado visited campus. A tall, regal man with a wispy white beard, the preacher displayed a command of Islam that Qadhi had never seen. When asked a question, he closed his eyes and recited a litany of evidence from the Koran and the Sunnah. This approach, a cornerstone of Salafiya, appealed to Qadhi’s empiricism. “It’s so disciplined and academic,” he said. Then 17, Qadhi began driving through the night to attend Salafi camping retreats, where legendary clerics lectured from Jordan and Saudi Arabia via teleconference. He drilled into Salafiya with a discipline that defied his adolescence. At a retreat in Boulder, Colo., some of Qadhi’s friends skipped out to go fishing. When they returned, Qadhi refused to share his notes. “It was very clear that this guy was going to become something and we weren’t,” said one of the friends, Amad Shaikh.       

    At another retreat, Qadhi fell under the sway of Ali al-Timimi. A cancer researcher from Maryland, Timimi had studied Islam in Saudi Arabia and helped spread the American Salafi movement, which began in the early 1980s as a patchwork of nonprofit groups subsidized by the Saudi government. Through shipments of free Korans and other texts, Salafi doctrine developed a strong presence at American mosques, prisons and Islamic schools. By the 1990s, the Salafi community numbered in the low thousands.       

    American Salafiya mirrored the movement abroad. It was largely apolitical until the first gulf war, when the United States set up a base in Saudi Arabia. The presence of American troops on Saudi soil, home to Islam’s holiest sites, was a defining moment for Salafis, giving rise to a political awakening and fueling bin Laden’s militancy. In America, some Salafi clerics began calling for political action against the Saudi regime, while others remained loyal. Qadhi was torn.       

    But on other matters, he steered his fellow students in Houston toward a strict code. They instituted sex segregation, policing each other for signs of deviation. When a Pakistani student organization sponsored a rock concert, Qadhi and his friends distributed fliers warning the crowds that Islam prohibited music. They did not see themselves as stakeholders in America, Shaikh recalled. Their goal was to spread Islam and then migrate to Muslim lands. “It was almost cultish,” Shaikh said.       

    For all his stridency, Qadhi broke one significant rule: he fell in love outside the bounds of arranged marriage. The young woman, Rumana, was a quiet, graceful college student of Indian descent. But Qadhi’s parents had their sights on other marriage candidates, and the courtship faded.       

    During college, jihad loomed in the backdrop of Qadhi’s life. Like many of his peers, he was taken by the legend of the American Muslims who had fought with the Afghan mujahedeen against the Soviets. Back then, talk of jihad carried little taboo, given the United States’ role in financing the resistance. Qadhi knew several men who later fought in Bosnia. Noble as it seemed, he said, “I thought there were more productive ways for me to spend my life.”       

    He had long thought of becoming a Muslim scholar. Shortly before graduating, Qadhi applied to the Islamic University of Medina, a leading Salafi institution. After enrolling in the fall of 1996, he called Rumana. “I can’t live without you,” he told her. “Are you willing to live a difficult life?”       

    Qadhi and his new wife settled into a spare apartment, and he plunged into round-the-clock study. Life in Medina deepened his faith while narrowing his tolerance for the outside world. He came to identify with political Salafiya, denouncing secular democracies and declaring Sufis and Shia “heretics.” He took up the Palestinian cause — a pathway, he said, to the anti-Semitic rhetoric that ran rampant in his circles.       

    In the summer of 2001, Qadhi traveled to London to teach at an Islamic conference. At the end of a class, he went into a diatribe arguing that Israel did not rightfully belong to the Jewish people. “Hitler never intended to mass-destroy the Jews,” Qadhi said, telling the audience to read a book about “the hoax” of the Holocaust. He went on to say that most Islamic-studies professors in the United States are Jews who “want to destroy us.”       

    Looking back, Qadhi said he fell down a slippery slope where criticism of Israel gave way to attacks on Jews. Beneath the vitriol, he said, was a sense of victimization — that non-Muslims were to blame for the afflictions of the Muslim world. “When you’re young and naïve, it’s easier to fall prey to such things,” said Qadhi, who publicly recanted years later. Last August, he joined a delegation of American imams and rabbis on a visit to the Auschwitz and Dachau concentration camps, which he said left him “sick” and more embarrassed by his Hitler remarks.       

    “It was a pre-9/11 world,” he said. “The circumstances did not dictate that we think critically.”       

    Two months after the London episode, Qadhi was walking to his mosque in Medina when a friend came running. “Yasir, Yasir, did you hear what happened?” the young man called out. Qadhi rushed to a neighbor’s apartment in search of a television, just as the second tower collapsed.       

    In the aftermath of 9/11, the American Salafi movement fell apart. As federal agents raided Muslim mosques, charities and businesses, the most prominent Salafis vanished from clerical life or landed in prison. Some of the movement’s key figures were convicted on charges unrelated to terrorism, ranging from tax evasion to visa-immigration violations. “All of these people were jailed for different things, but if you look at them collectively, you see the Salafi movement,” Idris Palmer, a onetime Salafi activist, told me.       

    Law-enforcement officials say that there was no policy singling out Salafis. They were rushing to root out a new enemy, with little time to grasp the theological differences separating nonviolent fundamentalists from the creed of the hijackers. Many agents did not even know what a Salafi was “and still don’t,” says Christopher Heffelfinger, a security analyst who consults with the government. Northern Virginia — then a nexus of the American Salafi movement given its proximity to the Saudi Embassy — became a focal point. Anwar al-Awlaki was still preaching in Virginia when federal agents raided 15 local Islamic offices and homes. “It’s a war against Muslims and Islam,” Awlaki bellowed in an audio address. “It’s happening right here in America.”       

    The most high-profile Virginia case involved Qadhi’s onetime mentor, Ali al-Timimi, who regularly preached at a Falls Church mosque. At a dinner five days after 9/11, Timimi and some of the mosque’s young congregants discussed how to respond. Prosecutors later accused Timimi of spurring the men to wage jihad against American troops overseas, saying they practiced shooting at a paintball facility. At issue in the case against Timimi were his words: his lawyers argued that he recommended that the men move to Muslim countries, while prosecutors said he was inciting jihad. They highlighted comments by Timimi unrelated to the dinner, including politically charged speeches and a statement in which he celebrated the Columbia Shuttle disaster. He was convicted and sentenced to life in prison.       

    From Medina, Qadhi followed the case closely. For American clerics, he said, the message was clear: those who engage in controversial rhetoric are treading on thin ice. While 9/11 had shaken Qadhi’s movement, it also unsettled him personally. “No matter how strange this sounds, after having lived in Saudi Arabia for so long and also in America for so long, I could fully understand the fear, the anger, the frustration, the paranoia on both sides,” Qadhi says. “I could understand ‘they’ and ‘us.’ ”       

    Qadhi began to wrestle with some of his own beliefs. It troubled him that Salafiya, even in its nonmilitant form, had helped shape the ideology of groups like Al Qaeda. “What type of Islam are we going to teach people?” he recalled thinking. “This isolationist Islam? This Islam of ‘us’ versus ‘them’ — is that healthy? Is that what my religion is?”       

    At the time, Qadhi was on track to become Medina’s first American doctoral candidate. He wondered if he had a more promising future in America, where the Salafi movement, bereft of leaders, was in crisis. From Houston, Qadhi’s father — who had retired and was volunteering as a prison chaplain — encouraged his son to leave Saudi Arabia, which he believed had left Qadhi “totally brainwashed.”       

    “I said, ‘Come back to America; this is your land,’ ” Kazi said in an interview at his home, sitting in what he called his “Archie Bunker chair.”       

    In 2004, Qadhi applied to Yale. Some of his contemporaries saw the move as strategic. “It was a stepping stone,” Imam Abdullah T. Antepli, the Muslim chaplain at Duke University, told me. “He knew that with that Yale ticket, people would take him more seriously.”       

    Qadhi’s Saudi professors were aghast that he would switch to a Western university to study Islam. Yale’s professors were also surprised. The religious-studies department had never taken on a graduate of the Saudi educational system. “You admit someone from Saudi Arabia, you don’t know how much intolerance you let into an American university,” says Frank Griffel, a professor of Islamic studies.       

    But Qadhi impressed Griffel as “profoundly intelligent” and willing to engage in critical thinking. At Medina, Qadhi’s studies revolved around the search for an absolute religious truth. At Yale, the line of inquiry was markedly different. In Qadhi’s first class with Griffel in the fall of 2005, the subject was a 12th-century Sufi jurist. “You, Yasir, probably know more about this guy,” Griffel said. “But we’re going to study how to study him.” Qadhi was struck by this analytical approach. “The question is more historical in nature — it’s about where did this idea come from, how did it affect later ideas,” Qadhi said.       

    For Qadhi, the Koran remained the unequivocal word of God. But he began to think more critically about the “man-made” canon that informed Islamic theology. So much of Qadhi’s intransigence — especially toward other Muslim sects — was based on the view that his tradition was divinely ordained. He came to see Salafiya as yet another “human development” that was handed down over generations and therefore subject to imperfection. “I realized that, in many issues, only God knows the ultimate truth,” he says.       

    Qadhi landed on the American preaching circuit with force, and his following skyrocketed among young Salafis. America’s leading clerics were converts who had risen to prominence because they could translate an intricate theology into an American vernacular. Qadhi did the same but as the proud son of Muslim immigrants. Plus he was a Salafi — or so it seemed.       

    In July 2006, at a conference in Copenhagen, Qadhi did the unthinkable: he shook a woman’s hand in a spontaneous challenge to her perception of fundamentalists, he said. The woman, Mona Eltahawy, a columnist on Arab and Muslim issues, wrote about the exchange, which became known in Salafi circles as the “when-Yasir-met-Mona moment.” The handshake drew a death threat from a man in London.       

    The following year, Qadhi further pushed the limits, making a pact of “mutual respect and cooperation” with American clerics of the Sufi order, Salafiya’s longtime enemy. Several of Qadhi’s former Saudi professors publicly assailed him, a signal he had become too prominent for them to ignore. 
Qadhi began to step away from the Salafi label, rebranding his movement “orthodox with a capital O.” While he remained devoted to Salafiya’s core tenets, his followers struggled to keep pace with his changes. Others remained skeptical. “Is he being instrumental and opportunistic, or has he really abandoned some of these Salafi beliefs?” said Haykel, the Princeton professor. “He’s engaged in an incredible performance of reinvention that I’m not sure he’ll be able to pull off.” The same question hovered over Qadhi’s institute, whose founder, Alshareef, once gave a sermon titled “Why the Jews Were Cursed.”       

    Meanwhile, as Qadhi honed a new message, he was roundly dismissed on jihadist forums as a “sellout.” One detractor was Samir Khan, a young blogger from North Carolina who eventually moved to Yemen and now runs the Al Qaeda magazine, Inspire, according to law-enforcement officials.       

    While Khan was still living in the United States in 2007, he wrote several blog posts about Qadhi. “He has done good, and we do not deny this,” read one. But Qadhi’s “wrongdoings,” he continued, “can destroy the Muslims.”       

    Suspicion surrounded Qadhi. In February 2006, he was crossing from Canada into the United States when American border agents pulled aside his van and ushered his family into a room. An agent told Qadhi he was “waiting for permission from Washington” to let Qadhi back into the country, he recalled. They were freed more than five hours later.       

    It was the first sign that Qadhi was on the terrorist watch list. From then on, he and his family traveled separately. “I’m not going to be humiliated in front of my kids,” he said. At airports, he became accustomed to long interviews with border agents, who downloaded his laptop hard drive and searched his cellphone. They photocopied notes he kept on his sermons and even asked for his definition of jihad. F.B.I. agents in New Haven questioned him about two American acquaintances who had been charged with terrorism-related offenses. Qadhi said he knew nothing of their activities, but the agents pressed him to report on anyone who expressed views that “might be of interest,” he recalled. He refused, saying, “This is America, not Soviet Russia or East Germany.”       

    Increasingly, Qadhi felt backed into a corner. In August 2006, at a meeting for Muslim leaders in Houston, he walked up to Daniel W. Sutherland, a Homeland Security official. “Hi, I’m a pacifist Salafi,” Qadhi said to him. Looking stunned, Sutherland sat and talked with Qadhi for more than an hour.       

    Then in May 2008, Qadhi received an invitation from Quintan Wiktorowicz, an analyst for a government agency that was hosting a conference on counterradicalization. (Wiktorowicz was recently named a senior director at the National Security Council.) In attendance were British and American intelligence officials, including the director of Homeland Security at the time, Michael Chertoff.       

    During a break, Qadhi spotted a Houston acquaintance who happened to work for Chertoff. “I said, ‘Don’t you think it’s ironic that on the one hand, you’re reaching out for my expertise and wanting my help, and on the other hand, you’re harassing and intimidating me as if I’m a potential terrorist?’ ”       

    In the West, jihad is often depicted as a self-contained, violent cause. But in Qadhi’s world, it exists within a panoply of complex and overlapping issues. The most immediate question is not whether to fight overseas but how to make peace living in the pluralistic West.       

    Debates pivot on arcane theological points from the ninth century, a time when religious empires reigned, not secular nations. Classical scholars reference a world divided between dar al-Islam, the land of Islam, and dar al-harb, the land of war. But which land is America?       

    “If we’re not at war, why is America killing Muslims throughout the world?” says Basil Gohar, 30, who has studied with Qadhi. “If we are at war, how can we live in America peacefully?”       

    Even absent the question of war, Western Salafis ponder their loyalties. Internet forums buzz with talk about the concept of al-walaa wal-baraa, which is rooted in Koranic verses dictating allegiance to Muslims over non-Muslims. Qadhi’s students are divided over whether to vote, pay taxes that support the military or even celebrate Thanksgiving. “These sorts of things, they are the fault lines,” says Okoye, the student from Maryland.       

    Qadhi sees in his students an earlier version of himself — the passionate Salafi who took comfort in a black-and-white world. He prods them to think “in colors” and find a balance between loyalty to Islam and to America. He urges them to pay taxes and vote, drawing the line at military service, given Iraq and Afghanistan. “There is no draft,” he said. “Thank God for that.”       

    For Qadhi and his students, nothing tested those loyalties more than the events after the underwear-bomb plot of December 2009. Whenever a terrorism suspect is identified, AlMaghrib runs the name through its database of alumni to see if there is a match. “Oh, my God,” Qadhi said when a colleague told him that the 23-year-old suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, had been his student.       

    Qadhi searched his memory. The son of a prominent banker, Abdulmutallab had been living and studying in London. He had taken two AlMaghrib classes before attending the institute’s 16-day Houston conference in 2008. There, Abdulmutallab kept mostly to himself. “He never got into political issues,” says Abdul-Malik Ryan, 36, a lawyer from Chicago who studied with him every morning.       

    As media outlets discovered the connection, AlMaghrib’s leaders rushed to contain a crisis. The institute’s vice president, Waleed Basyouni, reached out to the F.B.I.’s Houston field office. Agents wanted to interview all 156 students who attended the 2008 conference. “I said, ‘If you start going to our students and terrifying them, and they stop coming, we will close down,’ ” he recalled telling the agents. “ ‘You would be pushing the students to go to basements, small circles, on the Internet. So it’s in your benefit that this organization stay open.’ ”       

    In previous cases, F.B.I. agents dropped by the homes of some AlMaghrib students, unannounced. This time, they issued a subpoena but agreed to arrange interviews in advance and to send female agents to question the women. The clerics urged the students to cooperate, but many balked, prompting Qadhi’s 50-minute conference call from Yale.       

    Veering between high-pitched emotion and tedious scholarship, Qadhi argued that the case presented no conflict of loyalties because Abdulmutallab, by all appearances, committed a crime, violating both American and Islamic law.       

    But, one student asked, what about America’s transgressions? Why was Qadhi focused on the militants? He responded that he had bluntly criticized American policies to State Department and other officials, telling them “the root cause of this terrorism is terrorism perpetrated at the state level.”       

    Even so, Qadhi urged his students to “chill out” and use common sense. “You need to look at the repercussions of what you are going to do to yourself, to your family, to your society and to the Muslims that are around you,” he said.       

    The students cooperated, and in subsequent meetings with the F.B.I., an agent told Qadhi and Basyouni that the bureau did not consider AlMaghrib a terrorist threat, said the clerics. (An F.B.I. spokesman declined to comment about Qadhi or the investigation.)       

    The Abdulmutallab episode drew a new line in the long-distance battle between Qadhi and Awlaki. The Yemeni-American cleric announced that Abdulmutallab’s operation was in retaliation for American “cruise missiles and cluster bombs.” By then, the United States had authorized the assassination of Awlaki, provoking outrage among many of Qadhi’s students.       

    Qadhi seemed to be riding a pendulum of self-preservation. If he lurched too far toward appeasing the government, he risked losing his base.       

    That March, Qadhi rose before a crowd of thousands in Elizabeth, N.J., to finally speak about Awlaki. “I am against this preacher when he tells our youth to become militant against this country while being citizens to this country,” Qadhi told the packed auditorium.       

    “But when my government comes and says, ‘We’re allowed to take him out; we’re allowed to kill him; we’re allowed to assassinate him,’ I also put my foot down, and I say to my own government, ‘Shame on you!’ ” The audience listened raptly. “Be angry every time a bomb is dropped on innocent civilians in the name of the war on terror,” Qadhi bellowed. “Be angry every time our tax dollars are spent to oppress yet another group of innocent Palestinians. Be angry every time more draconian measures are utilized against us in this greatest democracy on earth.”       

    Never before had Qadhi so forcefully condemned America’s policies in public. But “channel that anger,” he continued, “in a productive manner.” He urged a “jihad of the tongue, a jihad of the pen, a jihad that is not a military jihad.”       

    American Muslims, Qadhi told the audience, needed to abide by the laws of their country, understanding that had they been born in Palestine or Iraq, their “responsibilities would be different.” He did not elaborate.       

    It is this kind of ambiguity that gnaws at some of Qadhi’s students. “We just get wishy-washy nonanswers,” one female student told me, adding that Qadhi’s “jihad of the tongue” was unconvincing. Being martyred in the battlefield, she said, is “romantic,” while “lobbying your congressman is not.”       

    The call to prayer soars through the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Houston, its lobby adorned with a fresco of the Texan flag. Every summer, AlMaghrib’s most-devoted students convene here for a two-week Ilm Summit, transforming the ballroom floor — a corporate tableaux of overstuffed sofas and dim lighting — into a version of Islamic utopia.       

    “Ilm,” in Arabic, means “knowledge.” From dawn to night, the students immerse themselves in advanced Islamic theology and Koran recitation under the guidance of Qadhi and other clerics. The men favor long tunics, and some women wear niqabs, the full-face veil. Most are upper-middle-class college students of South Asian descent who pay $1,500 to attend. To the hotel’s Hispanic waiters, they seem otherworldly. The men and women eat, study and even ride the elevators separately.       

    Yet the so-called AlMaghribis upend easy stereotypes. The women are a forceful presence in class and can be spotted on breaks engaging in fierce arm-wrestling matches. The most dominant trait among the men is a quintessentially American geekiness. Qadhi, like many of his students, is a “Star Trek” fan. His lectures are laid out on PowerPoint as students crouch over laptops. Between classes, talk often turns to the latest AlMaghribi courtship.       

    The mood darkened last July after Qadhi announced that agents from the local F.B.I. office would be dropping by for a “roundtable discussion.” The ballroom fell to a hush as Qadhi and Basyouni led Brad Deardorff, supervisory special agent of the Houston division, to the stage. He smiled tentatively as Qadhi began a quick speech about the need to counteract extremism. Deardorff talked about the history of militant movements, saying there was “no standard profile for an Islamist terrorist.”       

    Then came the students’ questions, submitted in writing. “How do you expect us to help you” read one question, “when there are F.B.I. informants in our mosques?”       

    “Jeez, that’s a tough question,” Deardorff said. “We don’t target mosques. We do collect domestic intelligence. But mosques are buildings. Mosques don’t conspire. Mosques don’t blow things up.”       

    The students stared at him incredulously. It struck some as ironic that Qadhi would engage in a public discussion with the F.B.I. about “terrorism” — which they deemed a loaded word — when the underlying theological issues remained off limits. In a poll last year on Qadhi’s blog, Muslim Matters, participants ranked “jihad” as the No. 1 subject in which they wanted academic instruction.       

    There are several kinds of jihad, which is translated to mean “striving in the path of God.” While progressive Muslims emphasize the spiritual form, Qadhi and other conservatives say that the majority of the Koran’s references to jihad are to military struggle. Qadhi’s interpretation makes him neither a hardline militant nor a pure pacifist. While he unequivocally denounces violence against civilians, he believes Muslims have the right to defend themselves from attack. But he says “offensive jihad”— the spread of the Islamic state by force — is permissible only when ordered by a legitimate caliph, or global Muslim ruler, which is nonexistent in today’s world.       

    Such fine distinctions were less pronounced before 9/11, when Qadhi and others preached openly about the glory of Islam’s early military triumphs. In a decade-old sermon about one of Islam’s landmark battles, Qadhi said, “once a prophet has become ready for jihad, for fighting, then he will not take off his armor until he has actually met the enemy.”       

    By the time he returned to the United States in 2005, AlMaghrib had canceled a popular class on Islam’s military history, and its instructors largely avoided current events. Some students inferred from Qadhi’s silence a tacit support for militant groups. “Everyone was always like: ‘We know he believes it. He can’t say it publicly,’ ” recalled Lauren Morgan, who is 26 and a former student of Qadhi’s. She said she and other students had openly sympathized with militants. “I think if you’re going down the Salafi interstate, the jihadi exit is open for you,” Morgan said. “It’s there.”       

    Many students first heard Qadhi denounce jihadist movements almost a year after the London bombings. That same month, June 2006, AlMaghrib released a statement calling terrorism “a perversion of the true Islamic teachings.”       

    The central contest between Qadhi and militants like Awlaki hinges on a rather abstruse point: how to define America in Islamic terms. Qadhi likens his country to Abyssinia, the seventh-century African kingdom that gave refuge to the prophet’s followers. In exchange for upholding the laws of the land, they were allowed to worship freely — a contract Qadhi equates to an American passport or visa. Breaking the contract by joining militant groups at war with America constitutes treachery, Qadhi says, which is forbidden in Islam. Awlaki, by contrast, compares America with ancient Mecca, where the prophet’s followers were persecuted, forcing them to flee and later fight back.       

    Critics take issue with the technical nature of the debate. Qadhi’s students, they argue, could conclude that joining a militant group is permissible provided they renounce their citizenship. This is further complicated by his refusal to address whether the Islamist uprisings in Iraq and Afghanistan constitute legitimate jihads.       

    Saying yes would open the door to public recriminations, but denying the legitimacy of those insurgencies would fly in the face of Islamic law, says Andrew F. March, a professor at Yale who specializes in Islamic law. “The conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine are unambiguous examples of jihad or war against an outside invader,” March says. “There is no mainstream juridical opinion that says that Muslims cannot resist that.”       

    Under mounting pressure from students, Qadhi and another AlMaghrib scholar, Abu Eesa Niamatullah, considered teaching a course on the fiqh, or jurisprudence, of jihad. “What stopped us?” Niamatullah says. “Picture two bearded guys talking about the fiqh of jihad. We would be dead. We would be absolutely finished.”       

    On Oct. 18, Qadhi posted a 5,000-word essay on his blog, trying to jump-start a discussion on jihad. He argued that extremists cherry-pick verses from the Koran to justify actions antithetical to the faith, while United States policy also plays a central role in radicalizing Muslim youth. What Abdulmutallab did not hear at AlMaghrib, Qadhi lamented, “was a discourse regarding the current political and social ills that he felt so passionately about, and a frank dialogue about the Islamic method for correcting such ills.”       

    “It is an awkward position to be in,” he wrote of his situation. “How can one simultaneously fight against a powerful government, a pervasive and sensationalist-prone media and a group of overzealous, rash youth who are already predisposed to reject your message, because they view you as being a part of the establishment (while, ironically, the ‘establishment’ never ceases to view you as part of the radicals)?”       

    One week later, Qadhi was flying through Dallas. He had traveled free of hassle for nine months and seemed to be off the watch list. But now, border agents were stopping him. They wanted to ask a few questions. “Here we go again,” he said.       

    Qadhi’s ambiguous relationship with the government reflects a quandary facing the Obama administration: whether to engage with Muslims across the ideological spectrum. While many American Muslim leaders have been hit by accusations of extremism, Qadhi is a natural target. Self-described terrorism watchdogs refer to AlMaghrib as “Jihad U.,” and last year, a Fox News reporter called Qadhi a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.”       

    While Qadhi hardly seems the caricature of his critics’ rendering — the stealth Islamist plotting a shariah takeover of the White House — his views reflect a vision that many Americans would find objectionable. He hopes that the world will someday fully adhere to his faith, he said, conceding that it would most likely be “not in my lifetime.” Egypt’s recent uprising, he wrote on his blog, illustrates that change cannot come from militancy but “begins in the heart and in the home, and it shall eventually reach the streets and shake the foundations of government.”       

    As the administration confronts domestic radicalization, some government analysts say they have much to learn from clerics like Qadhi. “We’re trying to get our arms around how to engage with Yasir and people like him,” a senior counterterrorism official told me. “It’s a new issue.” One concern, officials told me, is their uncertainty about how world events might harden the thinking of clerics like Qadhi.       

    In the search for answers, the Obama administration has studied counterradicalization approaches overseas. In Europe, some policy makers argue that nonmilitant fundamentalists are the problem, not the solution, because their rigid interpretation of Islam fuels the very radicalization they profess to fight. The British government was rebuked for providing funds to nonmilitant Salafi organizations.       

    The U.S. Constitution would prevent such financing. But the question remains to what extent the administration will consult with nonviolent fundamentalists or help them by creating what Qadhi and others call “a safe space” in which Muslims are free to discuss controversial issues without the fear of repercussions.       

    “There is a way to stop extremism,” he claimed, “but it’s not palatable for Americans.”       

    Qadhi recently went live with a Web site devoted to issues of jihad. He is calling it The J Word.       

    Other American clerics have also begun to speak out, most notably Imam Zaid Shakir, who posted a widely read letter online aimed at dissuading the “would-be mujahid,” or warrior.       

    Gone are the days when Qadhi would dismiss teaming up with clerics of different schools. There were too few Salafis left in America. “I need help,” Qadhi told me one afternoon last month.       

    He was sitting in the library of his new home, where more than 10,000 books line the cherry-stained shelves. Memphis is a long way from the centers of Islamic thought — places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. It would be folly, Qadhi said, to think that a young American cleric could solve the theological puzzles that have invited centuries of debate.       

    But he was certain of one thing: only America’s clerics could lead the way forward for their young flocks.       

    “American Muslims are at the forefront in battling Islamic extremism because they have everything to lose if anything else happens,” Qadhi said. “They’ll lose their American identity, and they’ll lose their prestige, whatever prestige remains of our religion that we would like to have in this land.”       

    Andrea Elliott (a.elliott-reporter@nytimes.com) is a reporter for The Times. She won the 2007 Pulitzer Prize for feature writing for a series of articles about an imam in Brooklyn.
    Editor: Joel Lovell(j.lovell-MagGroup@nytimes.com)

     

    Copyright. 2011. The New York Times Company. All Rights Reserved

  • Goran Tomasevic/Reuters

    Rebel fighters watched burning vehicles belonging to loyalist forces after an air`strike near Benghazi on Sunday.
    More Photos »

     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    March 20, 2011

    In a Field of Flowers, the Wreckage of War in Libya

    BENGHAZI, Libya — The attack seemed to have come out of clear skies onto a field of wildflowers.       

    Littered across the landscape, some 30 miles south of Benghazi, the detritus of the allied airstrikes on Saturday and Sunday morning offered a panorama of destruction: tanks, charred and battered, their turrets blasted clean off, one with a body still caught in its remnants; a small Toyota truck with its roof torn away; a tank transporter still on fire. But it did not end there.       

    For miles leading south, the roadsides were littered with burned trucks and burned civilian cars. In some places battle tanks had simply been abandoned, intact, as their crews fled. One thing, though, seemed evident: the units closest to Benghazi seemed to have been hit with their cannons and machine guns still pointing toward the rebel capital.       

    To the south, though, many had been hit as they headed away from the city in a headlong dash for escape on the long road leading to a distant Tripoli.       

    “They were retreating,” said Col. Abdullah al-Shafi, an officer in the rebel forces, which had clamored desperately for the allied air help that arrived on Saturday. “Soldiers had taken civilians’ cars and fled. They were ditching their fatigues.”       

    Among it all, across an area the size of four football fields dotted with trees and white and yellow flowers, hundreds of Libyans solemnly picked through the debris on Sunday, gazing at the results of a last battle in Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s assault on Benghazi, the de facto rebel capital.       

    At one point, the onlookers carefully extricated the body of a soldier from the remnants of a tank, turned to cinder like five more bodies, unrecognizable on the roadside.       

    From the debris it was not possible to piece together the full details of the final battle, and some questions hung over the carnage: had Libyan insurgents pinned down the loyalist fighters in some places, as some of them claimed in news reports, or was the damage exclusively the result of allied airstrikes?       

    At least part of the answer was evident overhead, where jets could be seen across the region — some circling nearby, some screaming through on their way to somewhere else. As allied commanders gauged that the Libyan government’s air defenses had been, at the least, severely damaged, it was clear that the air campaign was entering a new phase, where ground targets were being actively hunted by allied attack aircraft.       

    But some people here said there was still ground fighting, too, farther down the road toward the strategic crossroads town of Ajdabiyah. But those reports could not be immediately confirmed, any more than the precise details of what had happened on the roadside.       

    From the look of things on Sunday, it was not immediately clear whether the loyalist column, now turned to ashes, had still been advancing or was staging at this place on the highway. Soldiers appeared to have been trying to bulldoze sand into berms on one flank, with the highway on the other.       

    But given the distance from Benghazi, it was clear that Colonel Qaddafi’s forces had been moving into position, at least to encircle the city or possibly reinforce advance units already there.       

    “This is all France,” a rebel fighter, Tahir Sassi, told a Reuters correspondent as he surveyed the devastation on Sunday. “Today we came through and saw the road open.”       

    The monuments to the loyalists’ last maneuver were not the victory so often trumpeted in their propaganda. Empty ammunition boxes lay discarded among the flowers. Armored personnel carriers still smoldered alongside wrecked rocket-launchers. Craters pitted the fields, as if there had been multiple strikes, apparently by the pilots of the French warplanes that took credit for firing the first shots in the international, American-backed effort to contain Colonel Qaddafi’s forces.       

    In Benghazi itself, the scene of heavy fighting on Saturday as leaders met in Paris to set their imprimatur on the campaign to contain Colonel Qaddafi, the city on seemed quiet on Sunday. The fighting had sent a panicky exodus of fearful Libyans flowing to the east as thousands tried to escape. But on Sunday, hundreds of cars clogged the roads, bearing residents back past makeshift barricades made of refrigerators, a swing set, a set of garish columns — a surreal montage of war.

    In the city, a tire repair shop had reopened and a butcher shop, but many remained shuttered. Long lines formed at the gas stations in this oil-rich land.       

    The military campaign in these parts had once seemed to see-saw as the rebels seeking the ouster of Colonel Qaddafi tried to push west to Tripoli, his stronghold, while loyalist troops sought to push them back east. The air strikes came with the pendulum swinging in the loyalists’ favor, stopping the advance — at least in one field of wildflowers — with the abruptness of firepower concentrated on targets that had not previously needed to fear attack from the skies. 

     

    Copyright 2011. The New York Times Company. All Rights Reserved      


     

     

     

     

     

  • Military Action Against Libya

    President Barack Obama authorized limited military action against Libya Saturday, saying Moammar Gadhafi‘s continued assault on his own people
    left the U.S. and its international partners with no other choice. The Pentagon said it fired 110 cruise missiles at 20 targets.
    Obama said military
    action was not his first choice.
    “This is not an outcome US or any of our
    partners sought,”
    Obama said from Brazil, where he is starting a five-day
    visit to Latin America. “We
    cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy.”

    A senior military official said the U.S. launched air defenses Saturday with
    strikes along the Libyan coast that were launched by Navy vessels in the
    Mediterranean. The official said the assault would unfold in stages and target
    air defense installations around Tripoli, the capital, and a coastal area south of Benghazi, the rebel stronghold.

    Obama declared once again that the United States would not send ground forces to Libya, though he
    said he is “deeply aware” of the risks of taking any military action.

    Earlier in the day, Obama warned that the international community was
    prepared to act with urgency.
    Our consensus was strong, and our resolve is
    clear. The people of Libya must be protected, and in the absence of an immediate
    end to the violence against civilians our coalition is prepared to act, and to
    act with urgency,” Obama said.
    Top officials from the U.S., Europe and the
    Arab world meeting in Paris,
    where they announced Saturday immediate military action to protect civilians
    caught in combat between Gadhafi’s forces and
    rebel fighters. American ships
    and aircraft were poised for action but weren’t participating in the initial
    French air missions.
    As the military action was announced, French fighter jets swooped over Benghazi,
    the opposition stronghold that was stormed by Libyan government forces earlier
    Saturday, in defiance of a
    proclaimed ceasefire.
    France, Britain and the
    United States had warned Gadhafi Friday that they would resort to military means
    if he ignored the U.N. resolution demanding a cease-fire.
    The United States
    has a host of forces and ships in the area, including submarines, destroyers,
    amphibious assault and landing
    ships.
    The U.S. intended to limit its involvement — at least in the initial
    stages — to helping protect French and other air missions by taking out Libyan
    air defenses, but depending on the response could launch additional attacks in
    support of allied forces, a
    U.S. official said. Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of
    the sensitivity of military operations.


    (Copyright 2011 by The
    Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)