The American Kafir

2011/10/31

Tunisia Tests Arab Democratic Gains

Source Article Link: Folksmagazine

Tunisia Tests Arab Democratic Gains

by Stephen Schwartz

The Tunisian Republic, where the “Arab Spring” began at the end of last year, has now passed the first test of democracy in the region undergoing upheaval since then. On Sunday, October 23, the country held free elections for its new constituent assembly.

But there was an ambiguous aspect to the success of the balloting process. A plurality of 41 percent was received by Ennahda (Renaissance), the local branch of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), delivering 90 of 217 assembly seats to the Islamist party. Ennahda has proposed its secretary general, Hamadi Jebali, as the country’s new prime minister, and has commenced negotiations for a coalition with the secularist Congress for the Republic (CPR) and the leftist Ettakatol party, according to BBC News.

Ennahda and its top leader, Sheikh Rachid Ghannouchi, have presented a version of MB ideology mentored by Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his Justice and Development Party (known by its Turkish initials as the AKP). Among other links with the AKP environment, several books by Ghannouchi have been published in Turkish. In addition, Ghannouchi’s views have, for some years, been promoted by the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID), a U.S.-based think tank known for its outreach to radical Islamist regimes and groups in Iran, Sudan, and in the West.

Ghannouchi and Ennahda have declared that, as in Turkey, where the AKP and Erdoğan have won three national elections since 2002, Ennahda promises Islamic policies while respecting the secular basis of the Tunisian state. But also as in Turkey, such pledges may cover intentions by Ennahda as a party not so thoroughly committed to reliably equable governance as one might hope. The Turkish AKP includes numerous activist cadres from the ultra-radical Milli Gorus or National Vision movement of Necmettin Erbakan, which is distinguished by flamboyant Jew-baiting and other conspiratorialist views. Erdoğan has conducted a long and alarming judicial offensive against alleged opponents of the AKP inside the military and media (the “Ergenekon conspiracy”).

The AKP administration has threatened naval action in the Mediterranean to assist the Hamas regime in Gaza. Erdoğan ‘s government has pursued an expansion of Turkish Islamist influence beyond his country’s borders, westward into the large Turkish diaspora in Germany and the Netherlands, as well as in the former Ottoman provinces in the Balkans. Similar AKP initiatives are visible eastward in the Turkic-speaking ex-Soviet nations of Central Asia, and southward in the Arab countries, including Syria (where the AKP government has taken its distance from the bloody dictatorship of Bashar Al-Assad). In North Africa, aside from its relationship with Ennahda, the Erdoğan government was quick to inject itself into the recent civil conflict in Libya.

AKP is the party on which Tunisia’s Ennahda has modeled itself, although the latter cannot hope for such an ambitious field of foreign operations as the AKP has assumed. But Ennahda possesses an asset that AKP lacks. That is, the secular state within which the Turkish neo-fundamentalist party operates remains largely intact. The Turkish army, formerly the protector of the state from religious penetration, has been reduced in its power yet still constitutes a significant factor. But the Tunisian secularist state of Zine El Abedine Ben Ali was overthrown, and the constituent assembly to which the Ennahda deputies were elected is responsible for writing a new constitution. By contrast, the Turkish AKP has managed to amend the national constitution, but has not proposed a completely new political foundation for the state.

In addition, even if it cannot play the role in transnational politics undertaken by the Turkish AKP, Ennahda and Ghannouchi’s notable success at the ballot box will doubtless have an important impact in the Arab countries. At the end of November, Egypt will begin a series of parliamentary elections. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in the country on the Nile, is recognized as its best-organized political and social force, and has created a political front for the vote, titled the Freedom and Justice Party. Candidate registrations for the Egyptian elections were closed on October 24, with Islamist parties claiming a majority of those accepted to run for 498 seats. According to the news portal bikyamasr.com, 6,700 candidates were registered, representing 47 political parties.

The Egyptian MB has taken cues from the Turkish AKP and the Tunisian Ennahda in offering a new image of itself as an epitome of moderation. The Freedom and Justice Party has said it will contest no more than half of the seats to be awarded in the voting, and has formed an alliance with the New Wafd Party, the heir to a liberal nationalist party, the Wafd or “Delegation” created in the 1920s. The original Wafd was banned after the Egyptian Revolution of 1952, from which the pan-Arab revolutionary platform of Gamal Abdel Nasser emerged. The Egyptian MB resembles the Turkish AKP in its broad support among the aspiring middle class, and the MB’s alignment with the New Wafd Party underscores this aspect of its profile, although Turkey is, at least for now, economically better-off than Egypt. The MB’s Freedom and Justice Party and the New Wafd Party have combined under the rubric of a “Democratic Alliance.”

The Egyptian MB possesses, on its own, a large enough constituency to achieve its electoral goals, so that it needs no particular help from either the AKP or Ennahda. But the reaction of the international community to the success of the Tunisian Ennahda may well affect the psychological state of the MB and its partisans in the Egyptian elections.

That is, if elections are held in Egypt. Unlike the Turkish army, which has been curbed by the AKP, and the Tunisian state apparatus, which was deposed, the Egyptian armed forces were largely unaffected by the events of the “Arab Spring,” and could intervene to reinforce the military rule under which Egypt has been governed since 1952. Further, the Tunisian outcome is liable to be irrelevant in responding to one of the most disturbing aspects of the Egyptian chapter in the “Arab Spring:” the emergence of an ultra-fundamentalist Wahhabi party, Nour (“Light”) competing with the Egyptian MB in radicalism. Nour has joined two other radical Islamist groups, in an electoral list titled the “Islamist Alliance.” The Wahhabis, inspired by the Saudi ultra-fundamentalist, exclusivist, and violent sect, are often flattered by the label of “Salafis,” because of their purported emulation of the “aslaf,” the Islamic forerunners, made up of the companions and successors of Muhammad.

On October 27, Matt Bradley of The Wall Street Journal reported at length on a feature of the Egyptian context different from the situations of Turkey and Tunisia. Egyptian secularists have “discovered” the very large presence of spiritual Sufi Islam in Egyptian life, and are assessing whether mobilization of Egyptian Sufis may produce an effective counterbalance to the MB and Wahhabis. Bradley notes that Egyptian Sufis claim 15 million adherents, which would outnumber the combined voters for the MB and the Wahhabis. Egypt is indeed one of the outstanding Muslim countries in its Sufi legacy and institutions, with, as Bradley points out, a substantial Sufi presence in rural Egypt, giving them credibility as challengers to the MB and Wahhabis.

Egyptian Sufis have come under physical attack from the resurgent Wahhabis, who condemn Sufi spiritual practices as heretical. Sufi mosques and shrines have been targeted for destruction by Wahhabis, who seek to prohibit milad, the celebration of the birthday of Muhammad, which they consider a dilution of Islamic monotheism and which some Wahhabis assail as an alleged imitation of the Christian worship of Jesus. Milad is, however, deeply engrained in the Egyptian collective sensibility and cannot be removed from it.

The Egyptian Tahrir (Liberation) Party was formed in February with the participation of a leading Sufi sheikh, Mohamed Alaa Abul Azayem of the Azeemia Sufi order, who called for resistance to the fundamentalists. It will present 80 candidates at the polls. A similar Democratic People’s Party has been established and has recruited thousands of Sufis. The latter party has reached out to the Egyptian Coptic Christian population, which has suffered atrocities from Wahhabi fanatics and army units following the overthrow of the Mubarak regime, and the electoral list of the Democratic People’s Party will include a group of Copts.

Sufi politics may, however, be difficult to organize, as the WSJ‘s Bradley pointed out in his reportage. Some Sufi movements, or tariqas, have cleaved to Islamist ideology, and while Sufis have a reputation for non-involvement in political activity, Sufis vary in their attitudes to the state. The Naqshbandi Sufi movement, for example, claims spiritual descent from the first of Muhammad’s four “righteous caliphs,” Abu Bakr, while other Sufis assert their origins in the example of Imam Ali, the fourth of the “righteous caliphs.” The Naqshbandis have historically sought to protect the Islamic state and a rigid standard of Islamic law from alleged dilution, by placing their sheikhs and adherents close to or in positions of political authority. The Turkish AKP has drawn support from semi-clandestine Sufi movements that survived under the secularist regime in that country, after the public suppression of the Sufi orders in the aftermath of the abolition of the Ottoman caliphate.

The ideological underpinnings of the AKP include followers of the Nurcu movement of Said Nursi (1877-1960), who began as a Naqshbandi Sufi, but gravitated to the jihadist Sufism of the Qadiri tariqa. A series of such Sufi-inspired figures has been prominent in the revival of Islamist politics in Turkey, culminating in the foundation of the AKP. A variant in this evolution is represented by the Turkish Islamist movement of Fethullah Gulen, whose network of schools, newspapers, and policy institutes has extended far beyond Turkey and the Turkish diaspora, into Western civil society, as well as Pakistan and other countries.

It is a matter of their physical survival for the Sufis of Egypt and other countries to defend themselves against militant fundamentalists, especially the acolytes of Wahhabism. Pakistan is already undergoing a crisis in which the Barelvi Muslims, who are Sunnis with a strong internal attachment to Qadiri and Naqshbandi Sufism, have abdicated their responsibility for defending their shrines and personal security against a brutal offensive by the Deobandis, Wahhabis, and others bent on wrecking their sacred sites and killing them. Indeed, the Pakistani Barelvis, who represent a majority of South Asian Muslims in the diaspora community of Britain, have shown that some Sufis cannot be expected to resist the onslaught of fundamentalist violence on their own. Similar examples are found in other Muslim communities.

The Turkish and Pakistani examples indicate that the Sufis, long neglected in Islamic life and treated as a manifestation of “folk Islam” by academic experts, may prove either complicit with Islamists or passive in the face of homicidal aggression against them. Such an outcome would represent a profound deviation from the path of love, mercy, and mutual respect between all human beings taught in Sufism. As a Muslim Sufi myself, I hope sincerely that the Egyptian Sufis can mobilize to defend their shrines, their communities, and the stability of their nation against both the “neo-fundamentalism” of the refurbished MB and the bloodthirsty schemes of the Wahhabis.

Tunisia’s election was a first test, but only the first. Events in Egypt will have a much greater impact in the Islamic lands and the world as a whole.

Advertisements

Iran already has nuclear weapons

Filed under: Illegal Immigration, Iran, National Security, Nuclear, Obama — Tags: , — - @ 6:00 pm

Source Article Link: Washington Times

Iran already has nuclear weapons

Western intelligence has known it for years

Illustration: Iran nukes by Alexander Hunter for The Washington Times

The pressure the United States and the West is bringing to bear on Iran to keep it from acquiring nuclear weapons is all for naught. Not only does the Islamic Republic already have nuclear weapons from the old Soviet Union, but it has enough enriched uranium for more. What’s worse, it has a delivery system.

The West for nearly a decade has worried about Iran’s uranium enhancement, believing Iran is working on a nuclear bomb, though the government maintains its uranium is only for peaceful purposes.

When Iran began its nuclear program in the mid-1980s, I was working as a spy for the CIA within the Revolutionary Guards. The Guards‘ intelligence at that time had learned of Saddam Hussein’s attempt to buy a nuclear bomb for Iraq. Guard commanders concluded that they needed a nuclear bomb because if Saddam were to get his own, he would use it against Iran. At that time, the two countries were at war.

Mohsen Rezaei, then-chief commander of the Guards, received permission from the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to start a covert program to obtain nuclear weapons, so the Guards contacted Pakistani generals and Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani nuclear scientist.

Commander Ali Shamkhani traveled to Pakistan, offering billions of dollars for a bomb, but ended up with a blueprint and centrifuges instead. The first centrifuge was transferred to Iran on Khomeini’s personal plane.

In a second but parallel attempt to amass nuclear weapons, Iran turned to the former Soviet republics. When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1990, Iran coveted thousands of tactical nuclear warheads that had been dispersed in the former republics.

In the early 1990s, the CIA asked me to find an Iranian scientist who would testify that Iran had the bomb. The CIA had learned that Iranian intelligence agents were visiting nuclear installations throughout the former Soviet Union, with particular interest in Kazakhstan.

Kazakhstan, which had a significant portion of the Soviet arsenal and is predominately Muslim, was courted by Muslim Iran with offers of hundreds of millions of dollars for the bomb. Reports soon surfaced that three nuclear warheads were missing. This was corroborated by Russian Gen. Victor Samoilov, who handled the disarmament issues for the general staff. He admitted that the three were missing from Kazakhstan.

Meanwhile, Paul Muenstermann, then vice president of the German Federal Intelligence Service, said Iran had received two of the three nuclear warheads and medium-range nuclear delivery systems from Kazakhstan. It also was reported that Iran had purchased four 152 mm nuclear shells from the former Soviet Union, which were reportedly stolen and sold by former Red Army officers.

To make matters worse, several years later, Russian officials stated that when comparing documents in transferring nuclear weapons from Ukraine to Russia, there was a discrepancy of 250 nuclear weapons.

Last week, Mathew Nasuti, a former U.S. Air Force captain who was at one point hired by the State Department as an adviser to one of its provincial reconstruction teams in Iraq, said that in March 2008, during a briefing on Iran at the State Department, the department’s Middle East expert told the group that it was “common knowledge” that Iran had acquired tactical nuclear weapons from one or more of the former Soviet republics.

Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, an experienced intelligence officer and recipient of a Bronze Star, told me that his sources say Iran has two workable nuclear warheads.

An editorial in Kayhan, the Iranian newspaper directly under the supervision of the Office of the Supreme Leader, last year warned that if Iran were attacked, there would be nuclear blasts in American cities.

Despite knowing that Iranian leaders were seeking nuclear weapons, Western leaders chose to negotiate and appease with the hope of reaching a solution with Iran. Nearly three years into President Obama’s administration, we must acknowledge that the policies of first a carrot of good will and then a stick of sanctions have neither stopped the Iranians with their nuclear program nor have they deterred their aggressive posture. The Iranian leaders today, despite four sets of United Nations sanctions, continue with their missile and nuclear enrichment program, and they have enough enriched uranium for six nuclear bombs, according to the latest International Atomic Energy Agency report.

The Revolutionary Guards now have more than 1,000 ballistic missiles, many pointed at U.S. military bases in the Middle East and Europe. The Guards also have made great strides in their intercontinental missile delivery system under the guise of their space program. As I revealed earlier, nuclear weapons-capable warheads have been delivered to the Guards, and Iran’s supreme leader has ordered the Guards to arm their missiles with nuclear payloads. Iran’s navy also has armed its vessels with long-range surface-to-surface missiles and soon will expand its mission into the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico.

“History suggests that we may already be too late to stop Iran’s nuclear bomb. Why do we suppose Iran cannot accomplish in 20 years of trying – with access to vast amounts of unclassified data on nuclear-weapons design and equipped with 21st-century technology – what the U.S. accomplished in three years during the 1940s with the Manhattan Project?” asks nuclear weapons expert Peter Vincent Pry, who served in the CIA and on the EMP Commission, and is now president of EMPact America.

Mr. Pry concludes that Iran only needs a single nuclear weapon to destroy the United States. A nuclear EMP (electromagnetic pulse) attack could collapse the national electric grid and other critical infrastructures that sustain the lives of 310 million Americans.

Are we ready to finally realize what the goals and the ideology of the jihadists in Tehran are and take appropriate action against them? The Iranian people themselves, who oppose the dictatorial mullahs, for years have asked us to do so. Thousands of them have lost their lives to show us the true nature of this regime. We must act before it’s too late.

Reza Kahlili is a pseudonym for a former CIA spy who is a fellow with EMPact America and the author of “A Time to Betray,” about his double life in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards (Threshold Editions, Simon & Schuster, 2010).

A Cataclysmic Regional War is Coming to the Middle East-PDF

View this document on Scribd

Where are the Muslim Brotherhood and the Obama Administration Taking America?

Source Article Link: Family Security Matters

Where are the Muslim Brotherhood and the Obama Administration Taking America?

Dr. Essam Abdallah

–       In this article, published in the leading liberal pan Arab “Elaph, Egyptian liberal writer Dr. Essam Abdallah exposes the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood within the Obama Administration and the campaign led by CAIR and its allies against Middle East Christians, US experts and American Muslim reformers. Abdallah’s article is powerful evidence to a reckless policy of backing Islamists, perpetrated by the Obama Administration and its advisors on Islamic affairs.  The Editors. 

Disturbing reports are coming out of Washington, D.C.

These reports reveal the depth of the below-the-surface coordination between the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Hamas, Hezbollah, the Iranian regime and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, Libya and Jordan. This bloc of regimes and organizations is now becoming the greatest Islamist radical lobby ever to penetrate and infiltrate the White House, Congress, the State Department and the main decision making centers of the US government. All of this is happening at a time when the US government is going through its most strategically dangerous period in modern times because of its need to confront the Iranian Mullahs regime, which is expanding in the Middle East, as well as penetrating the United States, via powerful and influential allies.

It looks like the near future will uncover many surprises after the fall of the Gaddafi regime, as we realize more and more that the popular revolts in the Arab world – and the Obama Administration’s position towards them – were determined by political battles between various pressure groups in Washington.  Moreover, pressures by these lobbying groups have left an impact on the region’s events, the last of which was the canceling of the visit of Maronite Patriarch Rahi to Washington. A number of Arab and Western news agencies have leaked that one of “those who sought to cancel this visit was Dalia Mujahid, a top advisor on Islamic and Arab affairs at the State Department, who is of Egyptian origin. And that”, said the reports, “came at the request of the high command of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, who wish to see the US Administration support the Islamist Sunni current.”

Also very noticeable at this point is the growing domination of Islamist forces around the Mediterranean: the victory of the Nahda Islamist Party in Tunisia, the declaration by (TNC Chairman) Mustafa Abdeljalil that Libya is an Islamist state and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. These developments wouldn’t have happened without the approval of the United States. A document published in Washington indicated that Egypt will face more violence and tensions while moving to the Pakistani, rather than the Turkish, model. Egypt will be ruled by an opportunistic bourgeoisie and a regime declaring itself Islamist, and it will be backed by a military institution. The military will be used by the Islamists to maintain power but the armed forces, the parliament, the regime and the constitution will all become Islamist.

In return, the Maronite Patriarch is denied a visit to Washington, Coptic Christian churches are destroyed in Egypt, and Coptic demonstrators are massacred at Maspero in Cairo by the Egyptian military, demonstrating that the goal is to suppress Christians in the Middle East, who are – as Patriarch Rahi said – paying a high price for the revolts of the Arab Spring. Rahi expressed his concerns about the fate of Syrian and Lebanese Christians and sees, as does the world, the flight of millions of Iraqi and Middle Eastern Christians from their homelands as a result of events in Iraq, and the methodic persecution against the Copts. The Christians of Egypt aren’t only facing suppression and ethnic cleansing but a form of genocide.

The real question now is: who is allowing the Muslim Brotherhood lobby to damage the relationship between the US Administration and millions of Middle East Christians? This lobby was able to delay meetings between leaders from Coptic Solidarity International, including Magdi Khalil and Adel Guindy, with the US Government. Similar obstructions have been happening with Chaldean and Assyrian delegations over the past few years. Moreover, the Muslim Brotherhood has waged a hysterical campaign against prominent experts in counterterrorism such as Steven Emerson, Daniel Pipes, John Guandolo and Robert Spencer. One particularly rough campaign was waged by CAIR against Professor Walid Phares, one of the most important, and even prescient, experts in counterterrorism and Jihadist movements in the US. In his book, “The Coming Revolution: Struggle for Freedom in the Middle East”, Dr. Phares predicted its evolution and the shape of coming Islamist regimes in the region.

But the Muslim Brotherhood’s campaign is not limited to liberal Arabs, Christians, Jews and Atheists. It has also targeted Muslims who oppose the Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) lobby such as Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, the President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD); Sherkoh Abbas, from the Syrian Kurdish Council; Farid Ghadri; the Somali-American author Ayan Hirsi Ali; Ali al Yammi; Tarek Fatah and many more.  Attacking Muslim liberals in the West helps the Muslim Brotherhood’s project in the radical Islamization of the Middle East, but it does not at all help US interests. Oppressing opposition, diversity, pluralism, and shedding human rights and freedoms are in direct contradiction to the values defended, and sacrificed for, by America’s founding fathers as well as by all those who fought wars for America throughout her history.

These intimidation and suppression campaigns directed against Arab and Middle East Christians – and against intellectuals and researchers opposing the Muslim Brotherhood and its sinister ties to Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran – in fact are aimed at America’s ability to become aware of the threat all of them pose to American freedoms. For American strength isn’t only in its navies and military power, but in its Constitution and the laws which provide the moral force for all other distinctly American liberties.

Note that the US Constitution did not include any suppressive articles (regarding freedom of religion or freedom of speech), the lack of which is the case in many Middle Eastern countries. Rather, it was written in the spirit of a Jeffersonian federal democracy based on individual freedoms.

So, all things considered both here and in the Middle East, where exactly are the Obama Administration and the Muslim Brotherhood lobby, together, taking America? And why?

Dr. Essam Abdallah is an Egyptian liberal intellectual who writes for the leading liberal pan Arab “Elaph”.

Teaching Your Child to be a Dictator’s Lackey

Teaching Your Child to be a Dictator’s Lackey

by Daniel Greenfield

Imagine your child’s school teaching him how wonderful dictatorships are by having him and his friends model their very own group of dictatorships as part of their education. Like so many other Orwellian nightmares in the American educational system, this one is very real and takes place through the Model UN program.

The Model UN program teaches American students that global government is better than national government and that the corrupt kleptocracy on Turtle Bay is the ideal state of mankind. Finally it trains them to put American presidents on trial for violating United Nations laws.

Twenty-two Model UN events are scheduled to take place in November alone and many more are set to follow month after month throughout the school year as the advocates of global government exploit the school system to indoctrinate a new generation in their roles as servants of the conclave of totalitarian regimes.

The Model UN program teaches students to act out roles as representatives of different UN nations, but its real goal is to teach them to reject American exceptionalism in favor of multilateralism by convincing them that countries vary in interests, not in character, and that the People’s Republic of China and Saudi Arabia are no different than the United States in their legitimacy or their form of government.

The great lie that the United Nations was built on is that the voices of all nations are equally valid, regardless if they are banana republics, brutal Islamic theocracies, Communist tyrannies or nations with free and open elections that offer human rights to all. The United Nations is a democracy, but it is a democracy of dictatorships.

The vast majority of the world’s population lives in the thrall of tyrannies and the Model UN program models the farce that this great collective of the oppressed is legitimately represented by the lackeys of tyrants who speak in their name under the United Nations flag. There are 26 full democracies to 55 authoritarian regimes with the latter outnumbering the former in population three to one. The average UN representative is not representing a people or a nation, he is there as the personal representative of an Assad, a Kim Jong Il or a Khaddafi.

The democracy of dictatorships is why global multilateralism does not work and can never work, but the Model UN program helps embed the lie that it can and should into the growing minds of the leaders of tomorrow.

“You may be playing a role, but you are also preparing for life,” UN Secretary General Ki Ban Moon said in an address to the students of a Los Angeles classroom, “You are acting as global citizens.”

Global citizenship under the auspices of the United Nations is incompatible with American citizenship. It violates the United States Oath of Allegiance which states, “I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty” and it sets aside the national sovereignty of the United States and its open system of government in favor of a closed global system ruled by foreign princes and potentates.

What is not taught to students at the Model UN is that while American, Canadian and Australian leaders can be changed through national elections, and they can then recall their representatives, the majority of the UN’s representatives answer to rulers who cannot be recalled or removed except through revolution, civil war or death. That makes the UN a closed system whose charade of democracy disguises its core undemocratic and unrepresentative nature. Instead students are tricked into admiring its oppressive edifice and acting out their parts in its global tyranny.

The most widespread UN Model program is conducted through the Global Classrooms program of the United Nations Association of the United States of America. The UNA-USA’s National Council is chaired by none other than former president, Jimmy Carter, who did more than any previous leader to undermine America’s national sovereignty.

Read the rest of the article at FrontPageMag

2011/10/29

Turkey and Islamism – The Start of a Beautiful Friendship?

Source Article: Family Security Matters

Turkey and Islamism – The Start of a Beautiful Friendship?

By Darlene Casella

At the end of Casablanca, when Rick and Louis walk off into the fog, Renault says: “I think this is the start of a beautiful friendship.”

Something similar is happening with Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan. Except he is walking off into the sunset with many Islamist Middle Eastern leaders saying “I think this is the start of a beautiful friendship.”

When President Barak Obama announced the decision to withdraw military forces from Iraq, circumstances in the Middle East immediately changed.

Turkey is a multi dimensional political player in the Middle Eastern chess game. She sits on the Black Sea, the Aegean Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, the Bosporus, and shares a maritime border with the former USSR.   Her contiguous neighbors are Bulgaria and Greece on the European side of the Bosporus and on the Asian side Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Iran, Iraq, and Syria.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan elevates himself as an assertive player.  In September 2011 Turkey agreed to station high powered U.S. radar on its territory as part of a missile defense system to protect NATO allies from the threat of long range Iranian rockets.  As Turkey refuses to share data with Israel; the radar systems will operate separately.   The system will be integrated with U.S. Navy cruisers and destroyers equipped with Aegis ballistic missile defense systems.

Turkey faces a challenge with Kurdish Separatists.  They want self determination. Turkey considers this a threat.  During WWI, elimination of Kurdish identity was accomplished by deportations, death marches and forced Turkification.  According to the Journal of Genocide Research, more than 350,000 Kurds perished.  This was similar to the Armenian marches at the time.  Currently about 18% of the population is Kurdish.  The primary Kurdish populations are in Turkey, Iran, and Iraq, they live around the triangle where the three countries meet.

Kurds carry out ongoing attacks on Turkish military. The conflict has intensified.   On October 20, 2011 an attack at the Turkish Iraqi border killed at least 24 Turkish soldiers.

President Erdogan said “Whoever in secret or openly supports terrorism, the breath of the Turkish State will be on their necks.”  Turkey responded with attacks involving warplanes, and 10,000 troops which pursued the militants over the border into Iraq.   Erdogan does not tolerate Kurdish terrorist attacks in Turkey on military targets; however he condones attacks on innocent Israeli civilians by Hamas from Gaza.

For decades Turkey was one of the United States’ most dependable allies.  Now the region is in turmoil.  A void left by declining American power, is being filled by Erdogan.  He challenges America on two important issues:  Iran’s nuclear program and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Erdogan is building connections throughout the region.  He does this by creating economic integration with roads, railroads, airports, oil and gas pipelines.  For Arabs Erdogan is becoming a regional hero.

Azerbaijan was elected to the non=permanent membership of the UN Security Council in October 2011.  Subsequently, President Ilham Aliyev and Prime Minister Erdogan have created a Strategic Cooperation Council between their countries.

Agreements were signed in Izmir between Azerbaijan and Turkey which remove remaining hurdles to the Southern Gas Corridor.  This involved Azerbaijan’s state oil company SOCAR and the Turkish pipeline company BOTAS.  Energy Ministers from each country signed intergovernmental agreements on the sale and transportation of Azerbaijani gas to and through Turkey.

Each day 1500 trucks bring Turkish goods into Iraq.  Trade between the two countries last year was more than $6 billion.  It is a huge and growing export market for Turkey.  The Nabucco gas pipeline project is an $11 billion project that will bring Iraqi gas to Europe through Turkey.  The Turks also have stakes in other oil and gas projects that all organized in Basra, Iraq.  Turkish companies have refurbished the Sheraton Hotel in Basra and Turkish Air has four flights a week between Istanbul and Basra.  They sell amusement rides and candy and opened an international Fair Ground organized for Iraq’s petroleum industry.  Turkish companies make up 75% of all foreign companies in Iraq.   There are four Turkish Consulates in Iraq.

Erdogan continues a hostile stance towards Israel.  He blockades Armenia and attacks Kurdish rebels.  However he faults Israel for the Gaza blockade and takes the side of Hamas terrorists in Gaza.  Erdogan threatens military action regarding gas fields in the Mediterranean off the coast of Israel.  He backs Lebanon in a dispute of previously agreed upon maritime borders with the United Nations.  Turkish war ships are off the north coast of Cyprus in an effort to thwart drilling of discovered gas fields in the area.  Turkey maintains 30,000 troops in Northern Cyprus which Turkey calls Turkish Cyprus, something which no nation legally acknowledges.

Last month Erdogan went to Egypt for meetings with the top military leaders seeking strategic alliances and diplomatic ties between Egypt and Turkey.  During this trip he met with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. He has also visited Jordan’s King Abdullah II.   In Istanbul last week Turkey, Afghanistan, and Pakistan agreed to hold military drills together.

It is speculated whether Recep Tayyip Erdogan seeks the greatness of the former Ottoman Empire.  Perhaps Erdogan believes that he is the reincarnation of the 16th century Islamist, Suleiman the Magnificent!


Family Security Matters Contributor Darlene Casella was, before her retirement, an English teacher, a stockbroker, and president/owner of a small corporation. She lives with her husband in La Quinta, California, and can be reached at thedeadseawest@aol.com.

A 2006 Taqiyya Warning About Tunisia’s Leading Candidate for Prime Minister

Filed under: Hamadi Jebali, Muslim Brotherhood, Shari'a Law, Taqiyya, Tunsia — Tags: — - @ 6:40 pm

Source Link: AndrewBostom.org

A 2006 Taqiyya Warning About Tunisia’s Leading Candidate for Prime Minister

October 27th, 2011 by Andrew Bostom |

Hamadi Jebali: Another North African Zabibah-stan Leader-in-Waiting?

On the heels of their landslide election victory,  Tunisia’s Muslim Brotherhood offshoot Ennahda Party has just announced that Ennahda’s Secretary General and spokesperson, Hamadi Jebali (who, fittingly, sports a prominent Zabibah on his forehead, slightly left of center), will be its candidate for Prime Minister.

Career US diplomat, David Ballard, then having a senior role in Tunisia, summarized his 8/30/2006 meeting with Jebali, as recorded in a 9/6/2006 cable published by Wikileaks.

Jebali unabashedly extolled Hamas’s electrical victory as a “paradigm” in his discussion with Ballard. Moreover, Ballard’s own assessment concluded with a sober warning about Jebali’s (and Ennahda’s) dissimulation gleaned from additional interviews with reliably secular elements of Tunisian society, who were also vehement in their opposition to the recently toppled Ben Ali government.

Ballard noted,

Jebali’s insistance that more freedom of expression and freedom of association is necessary for Tunisia’s long-term political development closely echoes our own Freedom Agenda goals in Tunisia.

But the US diplomat seemed appropriately dubious, “…whether An-Nahdha would continue to promote these moderate policies,” given evidence very apparent in September, 2006 of Tunisia’s traditional Islamic resurgence, i.e.,  “…signs of increased religious practice among Tunisians, most visibly evident in a sharp increase in the number of Tunisian women wearing hijab.”

And Ballard acknowledged this major caveat regarding Jebali’s assurances:

Many of our secular opposition and civil society contacts, themselves stridently anti-regime, also warn us “not to be fooled” by An-Nahdha’s talk of moderation. Jebali, the most senior An-Nahdha official with whom we’ve met in recent years, indeed presented what he undoubtedly assumed to be a “West-friendly” description of An-Nahdha’s politics – no Shari’a law, democracy with full participation, etc.

Video-Sean Hannity-Muslim’s Trying To Force A Catholic School to Accomodate for Prayer

Islamism and Sadism

Source Link: Family Security Matters

Islamism and Sadism

Written By Amil Imani

It is not about God or love, it is about control and domination—just as sadism is not about human intercourse or love; it is about control, torture, punishment and domination.

Why else name a so-called religion “submission?” Islam’s provisions are intended to dominate every waking moment in the life of a believer. Islam seeks nothing less than a total global domination. There is no room for being a half-hearted Muslim and no toleration of watering down its invocations.

How do the Islamists prey upon their victims? For one, Islam is stamped on the impressionable mind of the child from birth. The parents and immediate members of the family are the ones who make the very first impressions on the tabula rasa of the young mind. These early impressions are the grid-work for further formation of the person’s mind and belief system. It is by far easier, as life goes on, to incorporate “items” that readily fit into the grid-work, than to modify it or dismantle it altogether and begin anew. It is in recognition of the importance of early training and education that people such as Saint Augustine and Freud considered the first few years of life as critical for molding the person.

It is some consolation; however, to realize that there are many practicing religions who are willing to stand up to the extremists, even at their own great peril. It is also quite human to fight against control and domination. However, marrying Islam with government is stoking fire with explosives. That is what the Islamic Republic of Iran currently represents.

The Mullahs and their lackeys have tortured, raped and executed hundreds of little girls and little boys out of their abject fear of losing control. They are to be ridiculed and despised among men as the wretched, miserable, and entirely loathsome creatures that they are.

In free democracies, governments are accountable to the people and serve at the people’s pleasure. In Islamic theocracy, governments are accountable only to Allah and the people must serve at the pleasure of the government. And one can see the result of Islamic total or partial rule in fifty-six or so countries which rank among the highest nations of the world on every index of misery.

Other problems arise. Liberty, deeply cherished by democracies, is replaced by submission—unquestioning obedience and adherence to the dictates and precepts of the all-knowing and all-wise Allah. The individual becomes little more than a passive obedient vessel of Allah and his perspective of himself and life drastically changes. Once he submits to the all-powerful, all-knowing, then he is absolved of the responsibility of having to chart his own way in life.

It is this total form of submission that, among other things, prompted the Muslims to systematically burn libraries of the lands they invaded. They justified their actions by contending that the Quran, the comprehensive unerring book of Allah, contained all perfect knowledge that humanity needs. To this day, in places where Islam rules, many books are banned, newspapers and magazines are systematically either censored or shut down, and other non-print media are methodically blocked.

There is considerable allure in submission to a power that is willing and able to take care of the person. It is not a bad arrangement. The problem is that all past claimants have invariably been proven as either fraud or failures in honoring their part of the bargain. Islam is no exception. A cursory glance is enough to show the condition of Muhammad’s flock. In spite of huge material wealth, Muslims in the oil-rich countries are imprisoned in the paralyzing mentality of submission and all the terrible ancillaries that go with it.

Islam certainly has taken on a predominant role in Europe. It has become so prominent there that the most senior judge in England has blessed the idea of making Sharia law equal with civil law in some cases. Many European countries are already on the verge of capitulation to the Islamists. The Supreme Guide of terror in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, confidently proclaimed that Europe will be Islamic in a dozen years. He has good reason to say that. Muslims are forming states within states in many European towns and cities. In Britain, for instance, non-Muslims are in serious danger entering Muslim neighborhoods.

Comparatively, it is imperative to comprehend that a sadistic person is not after sex; he seeks a sick way of dominance and pain over his victims. He wants to be in control of the action. A person being raped, for example, really has no control over the situation, the subject literally being coerced.

Violence, weapons, injury, or torture fascinates a sadistic person just as it fascinates an Islamist. Both enjoy getting their subjects (be it humans or animals) to do what they want them to do by frightening them through a series of intimidation, fear and terror. Both take pleasure in the psychological or physical suffering of others (including animals).

This is exactly how the Islamists have been ruling over a peaceful and sophisticated country, Iran, for the past 33 years. They have completely restricted the activity and independence the people of Iran. In the cycle of prison horrors and terrors, the Islamic Republic of Iran uses many old Soviet techniques, ranging from harassment, intimidation and tortures, to mechanical devices designed to inflict gross tissue damage. They employ psychological and physiological techniques, such as solitary confinement and sleep deprivation. The Islamic Republic’s lackeys are commonly using these techniques on the Iranian youth while the Islamic Republic dreams of world Shi’a domination.

In short, the Islamists want to have control over their subjects during one’s entire life. This is exactly how the Prophet of Islam controlled his army of followers. The campaign of death waged by the jihadist, be a puppet or a puppeteer, is energized by the belief of delectable rewards that await the faithful implementer of Allah’s dictates.

Through a highly effective indoctrination, the Islamists have come to believe firmly in Islamic utopia. They believe that Allah is the one and only supreme creator of earth and heavens and it is his duty and privilege to abide by Allah’s will and carry out his plans at all costs. He believes firmly in a gloriously wonderful immortal afterlife in paradise, for which a martyr’s death is the surest quickest admission. Although the dominating theme of the delusion is quasi spiritual, the promised rewards of the afterlife awaiting the martyr are sensual and material. All the things and activities that the jihadist desires and cannot attain or practice, and rejects in his earthly life will be purified and proffered to him in the paradise of the next life. Thus goes the delusion.

Islam is violent, oppressive, racist, and irrational at its very core. It is treachery for people to present it as otherwise, either out of ignorance or because of their own personal reasons. To truly appreciate Islam, you must experience firsthand Islam in power. Take a quick trip to the lands of the Muslims and find out for yourself how horribly they treat the non-Muslims, even the, “People of the book,” Jews and Christians. Try to have a Bible study group or build a church in Saudi Arabia and discover the benevolence of Islamic rule.

Folks, this is a battle for survival that every one of us can help wage. Let us get on with it before, if not you, then your children and grandchildren end up under the barbaric rule of Sharia law. All the excuses, grievances and reasons given for savagery of the jihadists and Islamofascists are side issues. Islam is about terror, punishment, control and domination.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Amil Imani is an Iranian-American writer, poet, satirist, novelist, essayist, literary translator, public speaker and political analyst who has been writing and speaking out about the danger of radical Islam both in America and internationally. He has become a formidable voice in the United States against the danger of global jihad and Islamization of America. He maintains a website at www.amilimani.com. Imani is the author of the riveting book Obama Meets Ahmadinejad and the thriller Operation Persian Gulf.

Europe: “You Are Entering a Sharia Controlled Zone”

Source Article Hudson NY

Europe: “You Are Entering a Sharia Controlled Zone”
Hezbollah Pitches Tent in Denmark

by Soeren Kern

A Muslim group in Denmark has launched a campaign to turn parts of Copenhagen and other Danish cities into “Sharia Law Zones” that would function as autonomous enclaves ruled by Islamic law.

The Danish Islamist group Kaldet til Islam (Call to Islam) says the Tingbjerg suburb of Copenhagen will be the first part of Denmark to be subject to Sharia law, followed by the Nørrebro district of the capital and then other parts of the country, the center-right Jyllands-Posten newspaper reported on October 17.

Call to Islam says it will dispatch 24-hour Islamic ‘morals police’ to enforce Sharia law in those enclaves. The patrols will confront anyone caught drinking alcohol, gambling, going to discothèques or engaging in other activities the group views as running contrary to Islam.

Integration Minister Karen Haekkerup told Jyllands-Posten “I consider this to be very serious. Anything that attempts to undermine our democracy, we must crack down on it and consistently so.”

The Call to Islam group promotes Salafism, a fundamentalist sect within Sunni Islam that espouses a literalist reading of Islamic scriptures and adheres to a conservative and highly regulated puritan lifestyle.

Salafism also seeks the destruction of Western democracy, which is to be replaced by a Universal Islamic Caliphate, a worldwide Islamic theocracy regulated by Sharia law.

In a statement on its website, Call to Islam asks: “How can we [Muslims] claim to be followers of the Sunnah [principles established by the Islamic prophet Mohammed] and defend the best Deen [doctrines of Allah], when we prefer to live among the infidels, be subject to their laws, emulate them and fail to differentiate ourselves from their kufr [camp of unbelievers]? How can we claim to love Allah and His Messenger when we are embarrassed to call for Sharia? How can we be indifferent to the establishment of Allah’s rule on Earth, which is a duty for every Muslim?”

The statement continues: “To work to establish the Caliphate is one of the biggest tasks of our time. And this task cannot be achieved unless we work collectively under an Emir [commander, general or prince]. Moreover, it is known that it is a duty to fight the evil that is prevalent everywhere around us. Man-made laws and rules are present today and it has now become a mandatory obligation for all Muslims to work collectively to rid the world of this great munkar [evil], democracy.”

Denmark’s TV2 public television recently filmed members of Call to Islam in downtown Copenhagen openly campaigning for the abolishment of democracy and calling on people not to vote in parliamentary elections that were held on September 15.

A video posted on the Call to Islam website asks: “Do you want to take part in establishing Sharia in Denmark? Or do you want to stand by? The choice is yours!”

Call to Islam in Denmark is emulating similar movements in other parts of Europe.

In Britain, for example, a Muslim group called Muslims Against the Crusades has launched a campaign to turn twelve British cities – including what it calls “Londonistan” – into independent Islamic states. The so-called Islamic Emirates would function as autonomous enclaves ruled by Islamic Sharia law and operate entirely outside British jurisprudence.

The Islamic Emirates Project names the British cities of Birmingham, Bradford, Derby, Dewsbury, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Luton, Manchester, Sheffield, as well as Waltham Forest in northeast London and Tower Hamlets in East London as territories to be targeted for blanket Sharia rule.

In the Tower Hamlets area of East London (also known as the Islamic Republic of Tower Hamlets), for example, extremist Muslim preachers, called the Tower Hamlets Taliban, regularly issue death threats to women who refuse to wear Islamic veils. Neighborhood streets have been plastered with posters declaring “You are entering a Sharia controlled zone: Islamic rules enforced.” And street advertising deemed offensive to Muslims is regularly vandalized or blacked out with spray paint.

In Belgium, a radical Muslim group called Sharia4Belgium recently established an Islamic Sharia law court in Antwerp, the country’s second-largest city. Leaders of the group say the purpose of the court is to create a parallel Islamic legal system in Belgium in order to challenge the state’s authority as enforcer of the civil law protections guaranteed by the Belgian constitution.

The Sharia court, which is located in Antwerp’s Borgerhout district, is “mediating” family law disputes for Muslim immigrants in Belgium. The self-appointed Muslim judges running the court are applying Islamic law, rather than the secular Belgian Family Law system, to resolve disputes involving questions of marriage and divorce, child custody and child support, as well as all inheritance-related matters.

Unlike Belgian civil law, Islamic Sharia law does not guarantee equal rights for men and women; critics of the Sharia court say it will undermine the rights of Muslim women in marriage and education. Legal experts say the Islamic court will also undercut the Belgian state’s ability to investigate and prosecute perpetrators of so-called honor crimes.

Sharia4Belgium says the court in Antwerp will eventually expand its remit and handle criminal cases as well.

In Germany, the spread of Islamic Sharia law is far more advanced than previously thought, and German authorities are “powerless” to do anything about it, according to a new book about the Muslim shadow justice system in Germany.

The 236-page book titled “Judges Without Law: Islamic Parallel Justice Endangers Our Constitutional State,” which was authored by Joachim Wagner, a German legal expert and former investigative journalist for ARD German public television, says Islamic Sharia courts are now operating in all of Germany’s big cities.

This “parallel justice system” is undermining the rule of law in Germany, Wagner says, because Muslim arbiters-cum-imams are settling criminal cases out of court without the involvement of German prosecutors or lawyers before law enforcement can bring the cases to a German court.

In France, Islamic Sharia law is rapidly displacing French civil law in many parts of suburban Paris. The 2,200-page report, “Banlieue de la République” (Suburbs of the Republic) says France is on the brink of a major social explosion because of the failure of Muslims to integrate into French society.

The report shows how the problem is being exacerbated by radical Muslim leaders who are promoting the social marginalization of Muslim immigrants in order to create a parallel Muslim society in France that is ruled by Sharia law.

In Spain, Salafi preachers in the north-eastern region of Catalonia have set up Sharia tribunals to judge the conduct of both practicing and non-practicing Muslims in Spain. They also deploy Islamic “religious police” in Lérida and other Catalan municipalities to monitor and punish Muslims who do not comply.

In one case, nine Salafists kidnapped a woman in Reus, tried her for adultery based on Sharia law, and condemned her to death. The woman just barely escaped execution by fleeing to a local police station.

In another case, a Salafi imam in Tarragona was arrested for forcing a 31-year-old Moroccan woman to wear a hijab head covering. The imam had threatened to burn down the woman’s house for being and “infidel” because she works outside of the home, drives an automobile and has non-Muslim friends.

Back in Denmark, local politicians appear oblivious to the spread of Sharia law. In September, the city council of Copenhagen gave its final approval for the construction of the first official “Grand Mosque” in the Danish capital.

The mega-mosque will have a massive blue dome as well as two towering minarets and is architecturally designed to stand out on Copenhagen’s low-rise skyline.

Unlike most mosques in Europe, which cater to Sunni Muslims, the mosque in Copenhagen pertains to Shia Islam. The mosque is being financed by the Islamic Republic of Iran and critics say that theocrats in Tehran intend to use the mosque to establish a recruiting center for the militant Shia Muslim group, Hezbollah in Europe.

The Copenhagen city council says that who pays for building the mosque is none of its concern. But the Copenhagen mosque is, in fact, being built bty Ahlul Beit Foundation, a radical Shia Muslim proselytizing and political lobbying group run by the Iranian government.

Ahlul Beit already runs around 70 Islamic centers around the world, and has as its primary goal the promoting of the religious and political views of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ahlul Beit is especially focused on spreading Islamic Sharia law throughout Europe including Denmark.

Soeren Kern is Senior Fellow for Transatlantic Relations at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook.

2011/10/28

US denies sale of F-16 jet to Egypt in Grapel deal

Source Link: JPost
F-16 fighter jet in flight
Photo by: REUTERS

US denies sale of F-16 jet to Egypt in Grapel deal

Ma’an news agency report: US participated in negotiations, worked to sweeten deal over dual US-Israeli citizen Grapel, held on spying charges.

By JPOST.COM STAFF

The US on Thursday denied reportsthat they agreed to sell an F-16 fighter plane to Egypt in connection with the release of Ilan Grapel.“There is no truth to [these] press reports,” a US statement read. “Since 1982, the US government has sold over 220 F16s to Egypt as part of our long standing bilateral defense relationship,” the statement continued.

Palestinian Ma’an news agency on Thursday quoted Egyptian military expert General Sameh Sayf al-Yazal as saying that the United States was called into the negotiations to help Egypt exact the best possible deal for Grapel’s release.

According to the report, Israel refused to release all 81 Egyptian prisoners in Israel for a deal that included both Grapel and Ouda Tarabin, an Israeli Beduin who, like Grapel, is being held in Egypt on spying charges.

Grapel is expected to be released on Thursday after five months in prison in exchange for 25 Egyptian prisoners. He is expected to fly from Cairo to Ben Gurion airport at 5 p.m., and meet with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem before setting on his way.

Salah loses deportation case

Filed under: anti-Semitism, Palestine, UK — Tags: , , — - @ 6:21 pm

Source Article Link: The Jewish Chronicle

Salah loses deportation case

Written By Marcus Dysch
Raed Salah
Palestinian activist Raed Salah has lost his deportation case and could now be forcibly removed from Britain.

An Immigration Tribunal found in favour of Home Secretary Theresa May’s order that Sheikh Salah should be banned from Britain as his presence “would not be conducive to the public good”.

The judgment found she had acted correctly on grounds of his alleged “unacceptable behaviour”.

Sheikh Salah is expected to appeal against the decision.

A Home Office spokesman said: “We are pleased the court agrees Sheikh Salah’s removal would be conducive to the public good and that he has engaged in unacceptable behaviour. We will seek to deport him at the earliest opportunity.”

Sheikh Salah, the leader of the northern branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel, was detained in London in June after entering despite Mrs May imposing the banning order.

The tribunal ruled that a poem, said to be antisemitic and written by Sheikh Salah, was not racist and was not “directed at the Jewish people as a whole”.

In its judgment the tribunal acknowledged that Sheikh Salah had “behaved lawfully throughout this matter, and that he has been the victim of unfairness and procedural irregularity…and was detained unlawfully for a period of time”.

A Community Security Trust spokesman said: “CST welcomed the government’s tightening of anti-extremist legislation, and we are glad to see it being supported by this important test case.”

The 52-year-old father-of-eight won the right to seek damages earlier this month after a High Court judge ruled his detention had been partially unlawful.

Related Articles:

DHS Gave Secret Clearance to Islamist now Accused of Leaking Classified Data

Source Link: Creeping Sharia

We told you about the hiring a year ago – Napolitano Swears in Islamist to Homeland Security Advisory Council. In the video below, a Congressman grills Napolitano over the same Islamist’s possible abuses of the secret clearance. Watch it all or skip to the three minute mark. H/t @CausingFitna (also see CF’s vids on left nav bar now)

Patrick Poole at PJM: BREAKING: Homeland Security Adviser Allegedly Leaked Intel to Attack Rick Perry

Texas Department of Public Safety officials are asking questions following a report that Department of Homeland Security Advisory Council member Mohamed Elibiary may have been given access to a sensitive database of state and local intelligence reports, and then allegedly shopped some of those materials to a media outlet. He allegedly used the documents to claim the department was promoting “Islamophobia” — claims that the media outlet ultimately rejected. They declined to do the story.

Earlier today, I received confirmation from a left-leaning media outlet that Elibiary had recently approached them asking to do a story attacking Texas DPS:

Yes, he approached us and gave us some reports marked FOUO [For Official Use Only] that he said showed a pattern of Islamophobia at the department. He emphasized that some of the regional fusion centers were shut down a few years ago after the ACLU complained that they were targeting Muslim civil rights groups and said that this was being directed by [Texas Gov.] Rick Perry.

We looked at the reports and they weren’t as he had billed them to us. They seem to be pretty straightforward, nothing remotely resembling Islamophobia that we saw. I think he was hoping we would bite and not give it too much of a look in light of the other media outfits jumping on the Islamophobia bandwagon.

I asked if there was any sense of his possible motivation:

Oh, self-promotion definitely. It was clear up front that he wanted to be a quoted source in the story. We’ve used him as an unnamed source in previous stories. There’s nothing unusual or unseemly about that because officials do it all the time, but this was the first time he approached us with documents. Honestly, if they had been what he represented them as we would have probably run with the story. But we looked at them and saw this was a partisan hatchet job that could blow back on us so we passed on it.

In light of these allegations, I spoke today with Texas DPS Director Steve McCraw. He confirmed that Elibiary has access to the Homeland Security State and Local Intelligence Community of Interest (HS SLIC) database, which contains hundreds of thousands of intelligence reports and products that are intended for intelligence sharing between law enforcement agencies.

I asked Director McCraw if he knew whether Elibiary had access to TX DPS reports on the HS SLIC, to which he replied:

We know that he has accessed DPS documents and downloaded them.

Continue Reading it all at Creeping Sharia

Kent State professor shouts ‘Death to Israel’ during speech by former Israeli diplomat

Filed under: anti-Semitism, Israel, Jihad, Stealth Jihad — Tags: , — - @ 3:50 pm

Source Article Link: Toledo Blade

Kent State professor shouts ‘Death to Israel’ during speech by former Israeli diplomat

ASSOCIATED PRESS

KENT, Ohio — An Ohio professor with former ties to a jihadist website has come under fire for shouting “Death to Israel” during a speech by a former Israeli diplomat.

Multiple media outlets report that Kent State University professor Julio Pino (pee-NOH’) shouted the comment after trading barbs with former Israeli diplomat Ishmael Khaldi.

Pino reportedly asked how Israel could justify providing aid to countries with “blood money” that came from the deaths of Palestinians.

Kent State President Lester Lefton issued a statement calling the comment “deplorable,” but defending Pino’s right to say it.

Pino has been a controversial figure on campus. He had previously written a column in the student newspaper eulogizing a Palestinian suicide bomber and has contributed to a jihadist website.

The Associated Press has reached out to Pino for comment.

PDF Copy of Flier Found at Occupy Phoenix Ponders: ‘When Should You Shoot A Cop?’ Also Bulletin Issued by Arizona Counter-Terrorism Information Center (ACTIC)

This is the same group Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi are endorsing. This is the same Barack Obama who asked about the Republicans who would not accept his second stimulus plan disguised as another “Jobs Bill” and made this statement “Are they against putting teachers and police officers and firefighters back on the job?” Now who really is against the Police????????? W

H/T The Blaze

View this document on Scribd
View this document on Scribd

2011/10/26

Organizer Behind “Occupy Wall Street” Has History of Anti-Jewish Writing

Source Article Link: Commentary Magazine

Organizer Behind “Occupy Wall Street” Has History of Anti-Jewish Writing

Written By Alana Goodman

It isn’t just a few crackpots engaging in anti-Semitism incidents at the Occupy Wall Street protests. Apparently, the main organizer behind the movement – Adbusters editor Kalle Lasn – has a history of anti-Jewish writing.

Back in 2004, he wrote a highly controversial Adbusters article entitled “Why Won’t Anyone Say They Are Jewish?” which peddled some of the more feverish theories about American Jews, neoconservatism, and the Bush administration (emphasis added):

Drawing attention to the Jewishness of the neocons is a tricky game. Anyone who does so can count on automatically being smeared as an anti-Semite. …

Here at Adbusters, we decided to tackle the issue head on and came up with a carefully researched list of who appear to be the 50 most influential neocons in the U.S. (see above). Deciding exactly who is a neocon is difficult since some neocons reject the term while others embrace it. Some shape policy from within the White House, while others are more peripheral, exacting influence indirectly as journalists, academics and think tank policy wonks. What they all share is the view that the U.S. is a benevolent hyper power that must protect itself by reshaping the rest of the world into its morally superior image. And half of them are Jewish.

The “Jew Watch” list sparked an understandable wave of outrage across Canada and the U.S. But Lasn was unfazed. He wrote in defense:

Is it not just as valid to comment on the Jewishness of the neocons as it is to point out that the majority of them are male or white or wealthy or from the Western world or have studied at a particular university? If half the neocons were Palestinians, would the U.S. have invaded Iraq?

This wasn’t the only time Adbusters’ was hit with charges of anti-Semitism. In 2009, the magazine published a photomontage comparing the Gaza Strip to the Warsaw Ghetto. This sparked a legal dispute between the magazine and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which reportedly owned the Warsaw photos used by Adbusters.

But Lasn also has defenders, including David Duke, who published this sympathetic essay by Jeff Gates on his website:

Kalle Lasn​, founding editor of Adbusters, is a graphic artist who eventually awoke to the harm he was doing as an advertising executive. An Estonian, he saw firsthand how the Soviets exerted virtual control by manipulating the mental environment. In March 2004, Lasn published an article in Adbusters pointing out that, whereas less than two percent of Americans are Jewish, 26 of the top 50 neoconservatives advocating war in Iraq are Jewish (52 percent).

He titled the article: “Why Won’t Anyone Say They’re Jewish?” By ADL standards, that meant he was an “anti-Semite”—just for asking the question. What’s since been confirmed is that the bulk of those who fixed the intelligence around that predetermined goal were either Jewish or assets developed by operatives who were Jewish.

That’s not to say the Occupy Wall Street movement itself is anti-Semitic. But if the top organizer behind the Tea Party turned out to have published a blacklist of American Jews he claimed had dual loyalty to the U.S. and Israel, the backlash from the media would be massive. And if the top leader of the Tea Party fought a legal battle with the U.S. Holocaust Museum over an offensive collage he made using Warsaw Ghetto photos, politicians certainly wouldn’t be lining up to support the movement.

Related Article: @ Discover The Networks

Who is KALLE LASN?

  • Co-founder of the Adbusters Media Foundation
  • Derides “the dog-eat-dog world of capitalism” as “a destructive system”
  • Condemns American consumerism
  • Catalyst of the Occupy Wall Street movement in 2011

See also:  Adbusters Media Foundation

Born in Estonia in 1942, Kalle Lasn spent his early childhood years in a German refugee camp and then relocated with his family to Australia. From 1965-70 Lasn lived in Japan, where he founded a market research company and worked in the advertising industry. In 1970 he moved to Vancouver and spent the next two decades producing documentaries for PBS and Canada’s National Film Board.

In 1990 Lasn lent his support to an environmentalist group that was engaged in an anti-timber industry campaign. When the CBC and other television stations refused to sell advertising airtime to that organization, Lasn and his allies started Adbusters magazine which, according to journalist Kenneth Rapoza, once featured George Soros on its editorial board. (Aides to Soros said in October 2011 that Soros had never before heard of Adbusters, and Soros himself declined comment.) Soon after launching Adbusters, Lasn and wilderness cinematographer Bill Schmalz co-founded the Adbusters Media Foundation (AMF).

Denouncing American consumerism as an “ecologically unsustainable” and “psychologically corrosive” phenomenon, Lasn derides “the dog-eat-dog world of capitalism” as “a destructive system” that has caused “a terrible degradation of our mental environment.” In his 2000 book Culture Jam: How to Reverse America’s Suicidal Consumer Bingeand Why We Must, Lasn wrote: “The aggregate level of American life fulfillment peaked in 1957, and with a couple of brief exceptions, it’s been downhill from there.” According to Lasn, “at least 75 percent” of the U.S. population is “caught in a consumer trance,” having been “brainwashed” into “believ[ing] in the American Dream.”

The dangers of consumerism, says Lasn, have profound “environmental, psychological, and political consequences” not only domestically, but internationally. Asserting that “every single purchase that you make has some kind of an impact on the planet,” he complains that “we, the rich 1 billion on the planet, are now consuming 86 percent of all the goods in the global marketplace, leaving a lousy 14 percent for the rest of the 5 billion people on the planet.” The worldwide resentment that is allegedly bred by this “overconsumption in the rich countries,” Lasn concludes, “is one of the root causes of terrorism.”

Lasn and AMF strive to combat consumerism through such initiatives as “Buy Nothing Day” and the “simplicity movement,” which encourage people who have been “stung by consumer culture” to drop their obsession with money and material possessions.

Warning that anthropogenic “climate change” poses a worldwide ecological threat, Lasn says that “overconsumption is in some sense the mother of all our environmental problems.” Specifically, he derides the automobile—because of its greenhouse-gas emissions—as “arguably the most destructive product we humans have ever produced.” To counteract the environmental damage allegedly caused by such emissions, Lasn recommends “not just a carbon tax, but a global across-the-board pricing system” in which cars would cost “around $100,000” apiece, and “a tankful of gas, $250.” Moreover, Lasn calls for the imposition of a 1 percent “Robin Hood Tax” (i.e., taking from the “rich” and giving to the “poor”) on most goods and services worldwide, with the aim of using its generated revenues to fund social-welfare programs.

Lasn refers to advertising professionals, whom he holds in contempt because of their commitment to perpetuating consumerism, as “the cool-makers and the cool-breakers” who “more than any other profession … have the power to change the world.” He hopes to promote “a mental/environmental movement that will wipe the advertising industry out as we know it.”

In 2004 Lasn wrote a controversial Adbusters article entitled “Why Won’t Anyone Say They Are Jewish?”—criticizing America’s most influential neoconservatives for their “view that the U.S. is a benevolent hyper power that must protect itself by reshaping the rest of the world into its morally superior image,” and noting that “half of them are Jewish.”

Describing himself as someone who has “been a student of revolution all my life,” Lasn says that in the summer of 2011 he and his fellow Adbusters staffers—especially senior editor Micah White­—were “inspired” by the popular revolution that had recently occurred in Tunisia. Moreover, they “thought that America,” whose economy was in crisis, “was [also] ripe for this type of [mass] rage.” According to Lasn, Americans’ anger stemmed chiefly from Wall Street financial speculators’ violation of the “sense of fairness Americans have always believed in.”

Lasn was also confident that young Americans’ “despondency” over such concerns as “climate change,” “corruption in Washington,” and the “decline” of their country, greatly increased the likelihood that the U.S. might experience “a Tahrir moment” of sorts. (The reference was to Cairo’s Tahrir Square, a focal point of the 2011 Egyptian Revolution.) Emboldened further by “that sort of anarchy cred” which the civil disobedience/“hacktivism” group Anonymous had been demonstrating in recent times, Lasn and his Adbusters associates held brainstorming sessions on how they themselves might effect “some kind of a soft regime change” to diminish the political influence of “finances,” “lobbyists,” and “corporations.”

In an effort to “catalyze” a protest movement against those forces, Lasn and Adbusters “put feelers out on our [Internet] forums” suggesting a mass demonstration in the hub of New York City’s financial district. Thus was born the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement, whose first public rally was held on September 17, 2011. After some OWS demonstrators subsequently became involved in conflicts with police officers, Lasn said that “police brutality actually helps the movement” by drawing media attention.

While Lasn concedes that every popular movement faces the “danger” that its idealistic leaders may eventually “turn into monsters,” he nonetheless believes “it’s very important for us to win, and [to] worry about how badly we behave later—right now we need to pull the current monster down.”

Lasn is an open admirer of Marxists like Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, anarchist David Graeber, and post-anarchist Saul Newman.

Christian Mother of Five in Nigeria Killed

Source Article Link: Compass Direct

Christian Mother of Five in Nigeria Killed

Soldiers containing inter-religious youth fighting shoot her in her home.

BAUCHI, Nigeria, October 24 (CDN) — Nigerian soldiers summoned to stop inter-religious fighting between Muslim and Christian youths last week shot and killed a Christian mother of five in the Yelwa area of Bauchi city, according to family and church sources.

Soldiers were called in to restore calm following fighting that broke out at a high school soccer match on Thursday (Oct. 20), and later three Muslim soldiers shot and killed Charity Augustine Agbo and a Christian boy. The circumstances leading to the shooting of the boy, who is unrelated to Agbo, were not immediately known, and his name was not disclosed.

“There was not any justifiable reason for the soldiers to have shot the woman,” said the Rev. Lawi Pokti, chairman of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), Bauchi State.

Pokti confirmed the shooting of the boy, who was initially reported as having been killed, and said he had been resuscitated in a hospital.

Augustine Agbo, husband of the murdered woman, told reporters that three soldiers shot his wife after storming their house on Lagos Street in the Yelwa area of the city.

“Three soldiers arrived in a Hilux vehicle with siren blaring, scaring us and forcing us to run into our houses,” he reportedly said. “When we all ran inside, we saw these three soldiers coming to our house; then we locked the outside gate, but the soldiers followed us and broke the glass door and forced the door open and shot my wife twice on the chest.”

Agbo reported the shooting to the Army commander in Bauchi, and his soldiers later came to his house to take his wife to an area clinic owned by the Church of Christ in Nigeria, he reportedly said.

“After they left, the situation became worse, forcing us to take her to the ATBU Teaching Hospital, where she later died,” he told reporters.

The inter-religious violence erupted during a soccer game at the Baba Tanko Secondary School in Kagadama, a part of the Yelwa area, and then spread to other parts of Bauchi city. Other Muslims reportedly joined Muslim students from the school, attacked Christians and set their homes ablaze.

The Baba Tanko Secondary School is known as a hotbed of Islamic extremism, with Christian sources saying that most religious conflicts in Bauchi have been triggered by Muslim students at the school. In 2007, Muslim students along with other Muslims attacked Christians, killing dozens of them and destroying Christian-owned homes.

Mohammed Majeed Ali, assistant commissioner of police with the Bauchi State Police Command, confirmed the outbreak of the religious violence; he told Compass that the crisis has been contained.

For more than a decade, Christians in Bauchi state have been under pressure from Muslim extremists who have destroyed Christian worship places and killed Christians, said Pokti of CAN. Earlier this year, the Rev. Ishaku Kadah and his wife were abducted and killed, as was pastor Irimiya Maigida.

“I want to make it categorically clear that enough is enough, because despite the fact that the Christian community has constantly remained peaceful, it has become a target for these extremist Muslims even when there is peace,” he said.

Pokti faulted the government for being slow to prosecute Muslim extremists.

“Because of lack of pro-active measures by the government to ensure peace in Christian areas in the state, Christians are being killed by Muslim extremists, and none of them has been brought to book,” he said. “The lukewarm attitude of the Nigerian government to problems of persecution facing Christians has made it easy for Muslim extremists to attack Christians and get away with such crimes.”

2011/10/24

Libya’s liberation: interim ruler unveils more radical than expected plans for Islamic law

Filed under: Government, Laws, Libya, Shari'a Law — - @ 9:45 am

Source Article Link: The Telegraph

Libya’s liberation: interim ruler unveils more radical than expected plans for Islamic law

Libya’s interim leader outlined more radical plans to introduce Islamic law than expected as he declared the official liberation of the country.

Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, the chairman of the National Transitional Council and de fact president, had already declared that Libyan laws in future would have Sharia, the Islamic code, as its “basic source”.

But that formulation can be interpreted in many ways – it was also the basis of Egypt’s largely secular constitution under President Hosni Mubarak, and remains so after his fall.

Mr Abdul-Jalil went further, specifically lifting immediately, by decree, one law from Col. Gaddafi’s era that he said was in conflict with Sharia – that banning polygamy.

In a blow to those who hoped to see Libya’s economy integrate further into the western world, he announced that in future bank regulations would ban the charging of interest, in line with Sharia. “Interest creates disease and hatred among people,” he said.

Gulf states like the United Arab Emirates, and other Muslim countries, have pioneered the development of Sharia-compliant banks which charge fees rather than interest for loans but they normally run alongside western-style banks.

In the first instance, interest on low-value loans would be waived altogether, he said.

Libya is already the most conservative state in north Africa, banning the sale of alcohol. Mr Abdul-Jalil’s decision – made in advance of the introduction of any democratic process – will please the Islamists who have played a strong role in opposition to Col Gaddafi’s rule and in the uprising but worry the many young liberal Libyans who, while usually observant Muslims, take their political cues from the West.

2011/10/23

Marketing Gilad Schalit

Filed under: Gaza, Gilad Shalit, Hamas, Israel, Muslim Brotherhood, Palestine, Terrorism — - @ 6:11 pm

Marketing Gilad Schalit

Source Article Link: Caroline Glick.com

hamas celebrations.jpgGilad Schalit is home. And that is wonderful. The terrorists Israel released in exchange for the IDF soldier held hostage by Hamas for more than five years are running around Judea, Samaria and Gaza promising to return to terror. And that is a nightmare.

But so far, the Israeli public is happy with the outcome. Indeed, the polling data on the government’s decision to swap 1,027 terrorists for Schalit are stunning.

According to the New Wave poll carried out for Makor Rishon, for instance, 75.7 percent of the public supported the deal and only 15.5 percent opposed it. In a society as rife with internal divisions as Israel, it is hard to think of any issue that enjoys the support of three quarters of the population. But even more amazing than the level of support is that the poll also shows the vast majority of Israelis believe that the deal harms Israel’s national security.

Sixty-one-and-a-half percent of respondents believe the deal increases the Palestinians’ motivation to commit acts of terror. Only 23.4 percent disagree.

The New Wave poll’s results are in line with the polling data reported by other firms. Down the line, the numbers are consistent:

Three quarters of the public supported the deal and two-thirds of the public said it endangers the country. What this means is that two-thirds of the public listened to their hearts instead of their heads in supporting the Schalit-for-murderers swap.

How can this triumph of emotion over reason be explained? Israelis are not a society of overgrown adolescents, enslaved by their urges. So what brought a large majority of Israelis to favor a deal they know endangers them?

Part of the answer was provided in an article in the Globes newspaper on Monday. Titled “Lucky the kidnapping happened in the technological era” and written by Anat Bein-Leibovitz, it analyzed the five-year advertising campaign that shaped public perceptions about Schalit and built public support for a deal that obviously harms the country.

The Shalmor Avnon Amichai firm ran the campaign to free Schalit. Shlomi Avnon, a partner in the agency, described the goals of the campaign as follows: “The first goal was to generate empathy for Gilad and his family. We did not know when the government needed to make a decision, but we wanted the Schalit family to enjoy wide public support when a decision came. It was clear that Gilad’s return would be at a high price to Israel, and in order to make sure that Gilad would be returned, it was critical that there should be public support to put pressure on the government.

“The second goal was to keep Gilad in the public consciousness so that he would not be forgotten…. We attacked on all fronts: emotionally, by comparing Gilad with Ron Arad, and on a security level, by bringing in security personalities who supported his release.

“We made a decision that our target audience was the public and not decision makers, because we knew that with decision makers all could be lost….”

Avnon and his colleagues marketed Schalit like a commercial product. As advertising executive Sefi Shaked explained, “This was a battle between two brands. One was ‘Bring Gilad back,’ and the other ‘Woe if we free murderers.’ The challenge for the Gilad brand was to maintain awareness of it, to keep going forward….They did much better work than the rival brand, which is a strong brand, but it didn’t do much. They gave it the knockout.”

While the PR executives interviewed for the article are correct in their assessment that the Shalmor Avnon Amichai agency’s campaign was well conceived and professionally executed, the fact is that over the past 20 years, hiring PR firms to conceive and implement public campaigns has become standard operating procedure in Israel. And yet, it is hard to think of any such campaign that succeeded as overwhelmingly as the terrorists-for-Gilad campaign did.

For instance, the Council of Jewish Communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza paid a king’s ransom for its public relations campaign against the withdrawal from Gaza and northern Samaria. The council’s leaders mobilized more than a million Israelis to take part in the campaign that lasted for more than a year. And yet, they failed to accomplish their mission.

Other campaigns were successful in forcing the government’s hand. But they still didn’t enjoy anywhere near the support levels that the Gilad-for-murderers deal did. The campaigns for the Oslo accords with the PLO, for the withdrawal from southern Lebanon, for the release of hostages or bodies in return for terrorists, and for the withdrawal from Gaza and northern Samaria were all successful. But they were carried out in the face of a divided public.

As the polls show, the consensus formed around the cause of Schalit’s release at all costs does not owe to public approval of terrorist-forhostage swaps. So what formed this consensus?

In Schalit’s case, the reason that the PR campaign worked so well is because the media and the national security community – the two national institutions that are supposed to be the watchdogs of Israel’s national interests against the advertising executives – opted to behave like lapdogs.

Speaking to Globes, the PR executives were unanimous in their judgment that the success of the campaign was due to the media’s total mobilization on behalf of the cause.

As Gil Samsonov put it, “The first target audience was the media, which were mobilized, and everyone did their jobs while minimizing the opposition.”

Yair Geller added that Schalit is “lucky that the abduction happened at a time when the media are the strongest power…. The media left the government no option not to act.”

The executives are correct that the media are the strongest force in Israeli society. Their power owes to the fact that the major media organs are ideologically uniform and therefore act consistently as a pack.

It was the media’s overwhelming support for the Oslo process, for the withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza, and for previous hostages-for- terrorist swaps that forced the hand of the government time after time. It was similarly the media’s opposition to the PR campaign against the withdrawal from Gaza that doomed it to failure.

By choosing sides, the media ensure there is no substantive public debate about the controversial campaigns they support. Rather than debate the substance of an issue, the media, together with PR firms, personalize disputes.

In the case of the Lebanon withdrawal, the media cast the debate as one between indifferent IDF commanders and concerned mothers of soldiers. The Gaza withdrawal was cast as a dispute between Ariel Sharon, a wise grandfather who loved the country and was democratically elected, and settler zealots who wanted IDF soldiers to die so they could keep their profitable farms and fancy villas. Hostages-for-murderers swaps are cast as battles between innocent soldiers and evil politicians who would let them die.

In all cases, the threat posed by surrendering to Israel’s enemies is ignored or glossed over.

By barring a real debate on the most contentious issues of the day, for the past two decades the media have been able to dictate policy on the most contentious issues facing the country. Still, none of these media victories were won with the consensus support enjoyed by the Schalit campaign.

What distinguished the Schalit campaign from those that preceded it was not the media mobilization but the complicity of the IDF, Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) and Mossad. In all the other campaigns, the security services either opposed the campaigns or stood on the sidelines.

In an interview with Haaretz this past Sunday, Col. Ronen Cohen, who recently retired from IDF Military Intelligence, said the IDF never tried to put together an operation to rescue Schalit. In his words, Schalit’s prolonged captivity “was a resounding failure of the IDF…. The IDF never took responsibility for the soldier and did not even set up a team to deal with bringing him back.”

As a consequence, the IDF gave the government no choice other than to pay a ransom for Schalit.

According to PR executive Geller, the IDF’s abdication of its responsibility to rescue Schalit was influenced by the media’s full mobilization on behalf of the PR campaign. “That [Schalit] was not hurt in a rescue operation is due, among other things, to the high value that the media placed on him.” The IDF was too afraid of media criticism to risk a rescue raid.

Even in the face of the IDF’s abdication of responsibility to save Schalit, the previous heads of the IDF, Shin Bet and Mossad all opposed the swap as dangerous, and so Israel rejected it.

But, in the end, the media won out. Defense Minister Ehud Barak replaced the security bosses with successors who agreed to subordinate their professional judgment to the media’s demands. They all adopted the demonstrably false position that releasing 1,027 terrorists would not endanger Israel. This is what enabled the public consensus to form.

It is possible that now that Schalit and the terrorists are free the media will permit a debate on the wisdom of future deals. For instance, a debate has already begun on mandatory capital punishment for terrorist killers.

But there are more pressing issues that need to be resolved today if we want to prevent the public from being manipulated again into adopting positions wholly at odds with reason and the national interest. The first issue is that of the media.

Given the media’s unchecked power to repeatedly manipulate public opinion to adhere to its radical ideological agenda, it is essential that the government and Knesset step in and reform the media market. Broadcast licensing procedures for television and radio must be deregulated. Television and radio must be open to competition. Broadcasters should be allowed to broadcast whatever they want whenever they want, and the market should dictate who rises and who falls. This is the only way to protect the public against manipulation, and the government from blackmail.

Then there is the IDF. To fix what has clearly become broken in the IDF we must have a serious public discussion about its irresponsible, unprofessional behavior throughout Schalit’s period of captivity. The public must be made aware of the apparent leadership crisis at the top ranks of the IDF in order to force the government to enact necessary changes in personnel and compel serving commanders to change their behavior.

The internal contradiction at the heart of the consensus for ransoming Schalit for terrorists renders it likely that the unanimity now surrounding the deal will evaporate soon. But to prevent PR firms and the media from successfully manipulating the public and blackmailing politicians in the future, we must check the power of the media and hold the IDF accountable for its failures today. Otherwise, it is only a matter of time before the public again is convinced to support policies that it knows endanger the country.

The Sharia-Math of Public Beheading

Source Article Link: Family Security Matters

The Sharia-Math of Public Beheading

Written By Hasan Mahmud


On October 7th, 2011 eight Bangladeshis were publicly beheaded in Saudi Arabia for the crime of murdering an Egyptian in 2007. The execution created a virtual tsunami of support and protest worldwide. The proud declaration of the Saudi ambassador in Bangladesh that his country follows “Allah’s Law” was immediately addressed by nybangla.comwith a video of Saudi prince in a nightclub, acting in a decidedly unIslamic fashion (see below). This occurs at a time when there is raging debate transpiring the world over, about the legitimacy of capital punishment. Many countries have abolished it. Creating theological awareness in the Muslim masses about its anti-Islamic nature can help its elimination.

References from the Quran and Prophet Mohammed’s statements, quoted below, show that like many Sharia laws the rule of public beheading has some apparent legitimacy from Islamic scripture.

  1. Death sentence is allowed – 5:33.
  2. Beheading is allowed by the words “Smiting Neck” – 8:12 and 47:4.
  3. Blood money can be paid for unintentional killing of a Muslim – 4:92.
  4. Punishment of intentional killing of a Muslims is consignment to hell– no worldly punishment ismentioned – 4:93.
  5. “Life for life, eye for eye, nose or nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equalfor equal”.  Forgiveness is encouraged – 5:45, 2:178.
  6. Punishment in public is instructed – 24:2.
  7. The Prophet is reported to have publicly beheaded adult captives of Banu Quraiza by the  verdict of Sa’ad b. Mu’adh – (Banu Quraiza had already agreed to comply with his judgment)- Sahih Bukhari 4-280, 5- 148, Sahih Muslim 4368, 4369, 4370, Sirat of Ibn Hisham, Ibn Ishaq page 464 etc.

Let’s note that the Quran and Sahi Bukhari 9-21 encourage forgiveness and other options such as exile and forbids killing without “good reason.” This does not adequately explain what that exactly could be. According to Sharia law an intentional murder can be adjudicated in 3 ways:-

(1)   If the family of the victim pardons then the murderer is acquitted.

(2)   If the family of the victim accepts Blood-Money then the murderer is acquitted.

(3)   If the family of the victim does not agree to pardon or take Blood-Money then the murderer is sentenced to public execution.

This law shows sympathy to the victim’s family and grants a right which none, not even the State, can supersede. On the other hand we see in secular democracies that a governor or president at times “pardons” convicted murder who face a death sentence, without even consulting the victim’s family. This can be heart-breaking for the victim’s family to see the convicted murderer of their beloved one roaming around proudly! But this law has some devastating impact also – see below #5. The law of public-beheading and the killer’s acquittal by forgiveness or payment (the principle of “compoundability”) are problematic in our time for these theological and practical reasons.

(1)   This law is the reason for the increased number of honor killings. When a woman is killed by her father or brother for alleged relationship or anything else, the family members “pardon” the killer because they don’t want to lose another member of the family by death sentence of the court.

(2)   This law will create havoc among people if applied in many Third World countries. There are criminals/ killers who are enormously rich, well connected, politically powerful, and brutish in nature, and have pet brutish young cadres under their command to boot. They will be free to kill because they are in a position to threaten and force the poor helpless family of the victims to “Pardon” them with or without Blood-money and the State cannot do anything.

(3)   Verses 5:33, 8:12 and 47:4 were revealed in a context of war; these can not be stretched to cover personal murder.

(4)   Verse 24:2 is about adultery, it cannot be stretched to murder.

(5)   This law discriminates against women because if the victim has son/s, his daughter/s cannot pardon the murderer – (Sharia the Islamic Law – Dr. Abdur Rahman Doi – page 235).

(6)   The Banu Quraiza incident has always been debated – there are good references against it. There are enormous problems and violence in all secondary sources of Islam. Although Hadiths and Sharia law stipulate that denying them turns a Muslim into an apostate (this is sheer blackmailing in the name of Islam), we must apply our right to accept or reject any or all of them totally or partially to achieve sustainable peace.

(7)   Above all and most importantly, the institution of Sharia law totally ignores the Islamic dynamics of updating social laws while keeping the value or the spirit of the Quranic and Prophetic injunctions intact.  Even Sharia-leaders admit that many of the Quranic dicta are contextual and cannot be applied today. Examples include slavery, Jizya tax for non-Muslims etc. Some are already updated such as some rituals of Hajj, zakat or Islamic Tax (originally it was given to a State-fund) etc.

Public beheading might have been necessary in the past in which the society consisted of unenlightened people or there was no better way of carrying out the death sentence. We don’t need it anymore.  More human ways are developed to punish a criminal. Even if death sentence to murderers is accepted, it must not be by beheading and in public. Moreover, people who believe that public beheading reduces murder cases are utterly wrong. Public beheading measurably failed to reduce murder cases.  As the BBC reports, last year (2010) 26 criminals were beheaded in Saudi. This year until October, 56 people have already been beheaded – more are coming up. So, all this law manages to do, is defame Islam and Muslims.

Criminal laws reflect the nature and magnitude of intellectual resistance to crimes. Lest we forget – “Language of protest shows the nature of the protester”.

Family Security Matters Contributor Hasan Mehsud is a member of AILC (American Islamic Leadership Coalition). He can be contacted at hasan.mahmud@hotmail.com.

Older Posts »