The American Kafir


The Genocide that Obama Refuses to Prevent

Source Article Link: FrontPageMag

The Genocide that Obama Refuses to Prevent

By Daniel Greenfield

On Holocaust Remembrance Day, Obama unveiled an “Atrocities Prevention Board” to, in his own words, “prevent and respond to mass atrocities”.  The “Atrocities Prevention Board” is notable mainly for what it is not and his speech was notable for the topic that it avoided. Genocide.

While Obama mentioned ‘atrocities’ twelve times in his speech, he only mentioned ‘genocide’ three times and one of those times he was quoting from the mission statement of the Holocaust Museum. The list of examples from his own policies contained only one example of genocide, the mass murder program carried out by the Sudanese government.

Tellingly Obama described this actual genocide as a ‘conflict’ rather than an atrocity and urged both sides to negotiate, a sharp contrast with his next three examples, in Cote D’Ivorie, in Libya and in Uganda, where he clearly placed the blame on three leaders and described military and pseudo-military actions that he had taken to end the violence.

President Omar al-Bashir, whom he urged in his speech to have the “courage” to negotiate and make peace, is wanted by the International Criminal Court on charges of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. There is no comparison between the actions of Gaddafi or Gbago and those of Bashir. Yet Obama ignored actual genocide, and defiled the Holocaust Memorial Museum by using it as a stage for whitewashing one of the world’s worst ruling mass murderers.

Obama was equally unwilling to call out Iran’s mass murdering thugs, Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, by name. He briefly mentioned that his administration would continue to apply diplomatic pressure on Iran to prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but refused to make the connection to the events of the day.

“The uniform shout of the Iranian nation is forever ‘Death to Israel,” President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has said that, “The Zionist regime is a cancerous tumor on this region that should be cut off. And it definitely will be cut off.”

Mohammad Hassan Rahimian, the personal representative of the Supreme Leader, appeared on Hezbollah’s Al-Manar television to boast that, “We have manufactured missiles that allow us, when necessary, to replace (sic) Israel in its entirety with a big holocaust.”

Israel holds the largest Jewish population in the world. The threat to destroy it is an open threat of genocide. But while Obama repeated his false claim that the entire population of the Libyan city of Benghazi had been at risk, motivating him to act, there was no acknowledgement that Israel does actually a face a threat of genocide.

At an event commemorating the attempted extermination the Jewish people, Obama spoke at length about the plight of the Syrian rebels, who are dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, a group whose spiritual leader has praised Hitler for carrying out the Holocaust and called for the extermination of the Jews.

“The last punishment was carried out by Hitler…” Yusuf al-Qaradawi had said of the Holocaust. “This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hands of the believers.”  And at the Holocaust Museum, all Obama could think of was how to put Qaradawi’s cronies into power in Syria, as he had already put them into power in Egypt.

There is no genocide in Syria. At best there are “atrocities”, a vague word that can mean just about anything. Nor is there any actual threat of genocide. Not in Syria or Libya or Egypt, or any of the other places that Obama intervened. The only place in the Middle East that lies under the shadow of genocide is the Jewish State.

There is no serious prospect that the majority of Arabs will be wiped off the face of the earth. Nor the majority of Persians or Turks. There is only one group in the Middle East whose extermination is called for in every Muslim capital, whose murder is preached in mosques, whose massacre is written in blood on the pages of Islamic scripture.

Mohammed began his rise to power with the persecution of the Jews. He ended it with the ethnic cleansing of Jews and Christians and his successors have perpetuated his crimes, generation after generation, teaching their children to hate and kill, grooming them with cartoons and songs to make genocide seem virtuous.

Today there are more Jews living in Germany than there are in the Muslim nations of the Middle East. There are more Jews living in Poland, where over 90 percent of the Jewish population was exterminated during the Holocaust, than there are in Iran. Within a generation the Muslim world was emptied of Jews more comprehensively than even Poland and the Ukraine had been after the Holocaust.

Not satisfied with an ethnic cleansing that Hitler could only envy, the Muslim world dreams of a final orgy of death, the genocidal vision so often quoted by its Imams and incorporated into the Hamas charter, “The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him said, ‘The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!’”

You can read the rest of the article at FrontPageMag

All Emphasis added


‘Destroy All the Churches’

Source NRO

‘Destroy All the Churches’

By Clifford D. May

Abdulaziz ibn Abdullah Al al-Sheikh, grand mufti of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Imagine if Pat Robertson called for the demolition of all the mosques in America. It would be front-page news. It would be on every network and cable-news program. There would be a demand for Christians to denounce him, and denounce him they would — in the harshest terms. The president of the United States and other world leaders would weigh in, too. Rightly so.

So why is it that when Abdulaziz ibn Abdullah Al al-Sheikh, the grand mufti of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, declares that it is “necessary to destroy all the churches in the Arabian Peninsula,” the major media do not see this as even worth reporting? And no one, to the best of my knowledge, has noted that he said this to the members of a terrorist group.

Here are the facts: Some members of the Kuwaiti parliament have been seeking to demolish churches or at least prohibit the construction of new ones within that country’s borders. So the question arose: What does sharia, Islamic law, have to say about this issue?

A delegation from Kuwait asked the Saudi grand mufti for guidance. He replied that Kuwait is part of the Arabian Peninsula — and that any churches on the Arabian Peninsula should indeed be destroyed, because the alternative would be to approve of them. The grand mufti explained: “The Prophet (peace be upon him) commanded us, ‘Two religions shall not coexist in the Arabian Peninsula,’ so building [churches] in the first place is not valid because this peninsula must be free from [any other religion].” In Saudi Arabia, of course, non-Islamic houses of worship were banned long ago, and non-Muslims are prohibited from setting foot in Mecca and Medina.

There’s more: The inquiring Kuwaitis were from the Revival of Islamic Heritage Society (RIHS). That sounds innocent enough, but a little digging by Steve Miller, a researcher at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, revealed that ten years ago the RIHS branches in Afghanistan and Pakistan were designated by the United Nations as associates of — and providers of funds and weapons to — “Al-Qaida, Usama bin Laden or the Taliban.”

The U.S. government has gone farther, also designating RIHS headquarters in Kuwait as “providing financial and material support to al Qaida and al Qaida affiliates, including Lashkar e-Tayyiba” which was “implicated in the July 2006 attack on multiple Mumbai commuter trains, and in the December 2001 attack against the Indian Parliament.” Such activities have caused RIHS offices to be “closed or raided by the governments of Albania, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cambodia, and Russia.”

This should be emphasized: Al al-Sheikh is not the Arabian equivalent of some backwoods Florida pastor. He is the highest religious authority in Saudi Arabia, where there is no separation of mosque and state, and the state religion is the ultra-orthodox/fundamentalist reading of Islam known as Wahhabism. He also is a member of the country’s leading religious family.

In other words, his pronouncements represent the official position of Saudi Arabia — a country that, we have been told time and again, changed course after 9/11 and is now our ally and solidly in the anti-terrorism camp.

None of this might have come to light at all had it not been for Raymond Ibrahim, the Shillman fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an associate fellow at the Middle East Forum. He was the first to call attention to the grand mufti’s remarks, based on reports from three Arabic-language websites, Mideast Christian News, Linga Christian Service,and Asrare, also a Christian outlet. It occurred to me that perhaps these not entirely disinterested sources had misunderstood or exaggerated. So I asked Miller, who reads Arabic, to do a little more digging. Calls to the State Department’s Saudi desk and the Saudi embassy proved fruitless, but he did find the mufti’s comments reported in a well-known Kuwaiti newspaper, Al-Anba, on March 11.

All this stands out against the backdrop of the most significant news story the mainstream media insist on ignoring: the spreading and intensifying persecution of Christians in Muslim-majority countries (an issue I’ve written about before, here for example, and which Ibrahim has written about, most recently here). Churches have been burned or bombed in Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Indonesia, and the Philippines. The ancient Christian communities of Gaza and the West Bank are shrinking. In Pakistan, Asia Bibi, a Christian woman, is facing the death penalty for allegedly “insulting” Islam. In Iran, Youcef Nadarkhani, sits on death row for the “crime” of choosing Christianity over Islam.

This week, as Nina Shea reported, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) released its 14th annual report identifying the world’s worst persecutors. Of the 16 countries named, twelve have Muslim majorities or pluralities.

Why are the reporters covering the State Department and the White House not asking administration officials whether they are troubled by Saudi Arabia’s senior religious authority meeting with supporters of al-Qaeda and telling them that, yes, Christian churches should be demolished? Why have reporters covering the U.N. decided these issues are of no concern to the so-called international community? How about the centers for “Islamic-Christian understanding” that have been established — with Saudi money — at such universities as Harvard and Georgetown? Do they suppose there is nothing here to understand — no need for any academic scrutiny of the Saudi/Wahhabi perspective on church-burning and relations with terrorist groups?

My guess is that all of the above have persuaded themselves that there are more pressing issues to worry about, such as the worldwide epidemic of “Islamophobia” and the need to impose serious penalties on those responsible. I understand. I really do.

— Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.


Videos-Nazi Collaborators: Islam and The Third Reich


Nazi Collaborators The Grand Mufti, Islam and The Third Reich (Part 1)

Nazi Collaborators- The Grand Mufti, Islam and The Third Reich (Part 2)


‘They Stole Our Land’ vs. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem

Source Link: FrontPageMag

‘They Stole Our Land’ vs. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem

Posted By David Meir-Levi

The cornerstone argument in the Arab narrative against Israel is that the Zionists in the 19th and early 20th centuries came to the Land of Israel and stole Arab land.  This is a very simple assertion, easy to visualize, seemingly logical and amenable to a brief presentation: after all, Zionists did come from Europe to what was then Palestine, and the Arabs were already living there.  So obviously when the Jews came they took Arab land.

Although there exists voluminous evidence to the contrary in Arab and Turkish and British sources indicating the exact opposite, it is difficult to present this contrary evidence and explain its importance in as brief and simple a manner as is done with the Arab assertion.  There are too many variables: Arab demographics, Jewish demographics, Zionist agrarian reclamation technology, land purchases, crown land vs. privately owned land, absentee landlords, etc.  This imbalance puts the advocate on behalf of Zionism and Israel at a disadvantage, even though the evidence supporting the Israeli narrative and contradicting the Arab narrative is vast and thoroughly vetted.  For an excellent compilation and analysis of this evidence, see Kenneth Stein, The Land Question in Palestine, 1917-1939 (University of North Carolina Press, 1984, reviewed here and here).

However, there is one testimony from an unimpeachable source stating that the Jews stole no land, but rather bought land in vast quantities from willing sellers who were the legal owners of the land that was sold.  This unimpeachable source is so unarguably innocent of any pro-Israel or pro-Jewish or pro-Zionist sentiment that there can be no rational question regarding the veracity of his testimony.  That source is the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the Hajj Mohammed Effendi Amin el-Husseini (1895 to 1974).

El-Husseini was a key figure in the creation of the concept of Palestinian nationalism and the most high-profile leader of violent and incendiary opposition to Zionism from the 1920’s onward, until the creation of the State of Israel rendered his leadership irrelevant.  He used his powerful political and religious position as the Grand Mufti (supreme religious leader) of Jerusalem to promote Arab nationalism, incite violence against the British, and preach Jew-hatred and the annihilation of the Jews of British Mandatory Palestine.  He was an ally of Hitler before and during World War II, recruited Muslim legions in Bosnia to serve on the eastern front in Hitler’s Weirmacht, and developed full-blown plans for concentration camps in Palestine in imitation of the German “final solution.”   During the 1948 Israel-Arab war, he represented the Arab Higher Committee and rejected the UN partition plan of November 29, 1947 (for a brief biography of el-Husseini and a list of book-length biographies see here).

As the highest official representative of the Arabs of British Mandatory Palestine, el-Husseini was interviewed by the Palestine Royal Commission led by Earl William Robert Wellesley Peel, hence known as the Peel Commission.

The Peel Commission was a Royal Commission of inquiry sent to British Mandatory Palestine in November of 1936 for the purpose of examining and reporting on the causes of the Arab-Jewish violence in Palestine and suggesting possible resolutions.  After months of research and interviews of major Zionist and Arab leaders, the Commission published its report in July of 1937.  The report recommended a partition plan for separate Arab and Jewish states; but this plan was never implemented, although the Zionists accepted it, due to vociferous Arab opposition.

The Peel Commission report had some very salutary things to say about the Zionists and their impact on the land and on Arab society and economy. One of the most important for debunking Arab anti-Israel accusations is:

“The Arab population shows a remarkable increase since 1920, and it has had some share in the increased prosperity of Palestine. Many Arab landowners have benefited from the sale of land and the profitable investment of the purchase money. The fellaheen (Arab peasants) are better off on the whole than they were in 1920. This Arab progress has been partly due to the import of Jewish capital into Palestine and other factors associated with the growth of the (Jewish) National Home. In particular, the Arabs have benefited from social services which could not have been provided on the existing scale without the revenue obtained from the Jews…Much of the land (being farmed by the Jews) now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased…There was at the time of the earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land.” The land shortage decried by the Arabs “…was due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population.” (Chapter V in the report).

El-Husseini’s interview on January 12, 1937 was preserved in the Commission’s notes and referenced, although not published, in the full report.  It has been summarized by a number of scholars, including Kenneth Stein, The Land Question in Palestine 1917-1939 (Univ. of North Carolina Press, 2009) and Howard M. Sachar, A History of Israel from the Rise of Zionism to our Time (Alfred A. Knopf, 1976); and a detailed analysis with quotations from the interview can be found in Aaron Kleiman’s The Palestine  Royal Commission, 1937 (Garland Publications, 1987, pp. 298ff.).

The selections from the interview presented below can be found on line here and here.  Sir Laurie Hammond, a member of the Peel Commission, interviewed the Mufti about his insistence to the Commission that Zionists were stealing Arab land and driving peasants into homelessness.  He spoke through an interpreter.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Would you give me the figures again for the land. I want to know how much land was held by the Jews before the Occupation.

MUFTI: At the time of the Occupation the Jews held about 100,000 dunams.

SIR L. HAMMOND: What year?

MUFTI: At the date of the British Occupation.

SIR L. HAMMOND: And now they hold how much?

MUFTI: About 1,500,000 dunams: 1,200,000 dunams already registered in the name of the Jewish holders, but there are 300,000 dunams which are the subject of written agreements, and which have not yet been registered in the Land Registry. That does not, of course, include the land which was assigned, about 100,000 dunams.

SIR L. HAMMOND: What 100,000 dunams was assigned?  Is that not included in, the 1,200,000 dunams? The point is this. He says that in 1920 at the time of the Occupation, the Jews only held 100,000 dunams, is that so? I asked the figures from the Land Registry, how much land the Jews owned at the time of the Occupation. Would he be surprised to hear that the figure is not 100,000 but 650,000 dunams?

MUFTI: It may be that the difference was due to the fact that many lands were bought by contract which were not registered.

SIR L. HAMMOND: There is a lot of difference between 100,000 and 650,000.

MUFTI: In one case they sold about 400,000 dunams in one lot.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Who? An Arab?

MUFTI: Sarsuk. An Arab of Beyrouth.

SIR L. HAMMOND: His Eminence gave us a picture of the Arabs being evicted from their land and villages being wiped out. What I want to know is, did the Government of Palestine, the Administration, acquire the land and then hand it over to the Jews?

MUFTI: In most cases the lands were acquired.

SIR L. HAMMOND: I mean forcibly acquired-compulsory acquisition as land would be acquired for public purposes?

MUFTI: No, it wasn’t.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Not taken by compulsory acquisition?


SIR L. HAMMOND: But these lands amounting to some 700,000 dunams were actually sold?

MUFTI: Yes, they were sold, but the country was placed in such conditions as would facilitate such purchases.

SIR I HAMMOND: I don’t quite understand what you mean by that. They were sold. Who sold them?

MUFTI: Land owners.


MUFTI: In most cases they were Arabs.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Was any compulsion put on them to sell? If so, by whom?

MUFTI: As in other countries, there are people who by force of circumstances, economic forces, sell their land.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Is that all he said?

MUFTI: A large part of these lands belong to absentee landlords who sold the land over the heads of their tenants, who were forcibly evicted. The majority of these landlords were absentees who sold their land over the heads of their tenants. Not Palestinians but Lebanese.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Is His Eminence in a position to give the Commission a list of the people, the Arabs who have sold lands, apart from those absentee landlords?

MUFTI: It is possible for me to supply such a list.

SIR L. HAMMOND: I ask him now this: does he think that as compared with the standard of life under the Turkish rule the position of the fellahin in the villages has improved or deteriorated?

MUFTI: Generally speaking I think their situation has got worse.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Is taxation heavier or lighter?

MUFTI: Taxation was much heavier then, but now there are additional burdens.

SIR L. HAMMOND: I am asking him if it is now, the present day, as we are sitting together here, is it a fact that the fellahin has a much lighter tax than he had under the Turkish rule? Or is he taxed more heavily?

MUFTI: The present taxation is lighter, but the Arabs nevertheless have now other taxation, for instance, customs.

LORD PEEL: And the condition of the fellahin as regards, for example, education. Are there more schools or fewer schools now?

MUFTI: They may have more schools, comparatively, but at the same time there has been an increase in their numbers.

The Hajj Amin el-Husseini, the intractable opponent of Zionism, a Jew-hater on par with Hitler, admitted under questioning that no Arab land was stolen; no Arabs were wiped out, no villages destroyed.  Rather, the Jews bought hundreds of thousands of dunam (about ¼ of an acre) of land from willing sellers, often from absentee Arab landowners.  Moreover, thanks in part to the Zionists and the British, the quality of life for Palestine’s Arab peasantry was vastly improved, with less taxation, more schools, and an increase in Arab population.

The next time someone spouts the Arab line about how Zionists came and stole Arab land and drove Arabs out, just quote the Mufti.



Seeing Real Life Sharia in Action: Calling it something else.

This is a very lengthy article but well worth the read….W

Review of: Silenced: How Apostasy and Blasphemy Laws are Choking Freedom Worldwide
By: Paul Marshall and Nina Shea
Publisher: Oxford University Press, 480 pp.
ISBN: 0199812284

Source Article Link: Family Security Matters

Seeing Real Life Sharia in Action: Calling it something else.

Written By Alyssa A. Lappen
“Apostasy is, in principle, subject to sharia hudud rules, which means that the punishment—death—is believed to be fixed by divine order and not subject to judicial discretion…,” write Paul Marshall and Nina Shea in chapter two of Silenced: How Apostasy and Blasphemy Laws are Choking Freedom Worldwide (p. 23), without further explanation.

Silenced falls far short of the landmark study it might have been, had the authors honestly addressed foundational Islamic principles, history and texts that support offending modern codes, and stated the stupefyingly consistent and pervasive use of sharia laws throughout Muslim history. Specifically, hudud refer to Islamic behavioral limits thought divine since Mohammed established the creed. Sharia’s heavenly status and its stubborn exercise rest squarely on Koran (considered sacred and immutable) and sunnah, or “traditions.” The latter includes hadith and sira, Mohammed’s recorded speech and deeds; and his life (usually, the Ibn Ishaq biography). Apostasy—rejecting Islam—is but one offense to divinity. Adultery similarly requires capital punishment, and theft demands amputation.

To assert that hudud are rarely enforced, or fearing them is “lunacy,” as do Sadiq Reza and other Islamic law professors, is sheer absurdity. But readers of Silenced will not learn here that the horrors the book describes represent unadulterated use of classical hudud and sharia laws, as always practiced.

Three Muslim essayists

Abdurahman Wahid (Gus Dur).

In order “to show that such temporal punishments are not required by Islam,” the authors deliberately avoid discussing the history of apostasy and blasphemy laws and “systematic treatment in Islamic jurisprudence and theology” (p. 287). They leave that topic to “three noted Muslim scholars” whose essays they include. The Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) party provided the forward by the late Indonesian president, reputed Muslim reformer Abdurahman Wahid (1940-2009). Wahid misleadingly casts the “original” meaning of apostasy (as named in the index), and its required punishment—death—as only

“the legacy of historical circumstances and political calculations stretching back to…early …Islam, when apostasy generally coincided with desertion from the caliph’s army and/or rejection of his authority and thus constituted treason…. [E]mbedding (i.e. codification) of [its] harsh punishments…into Islamic law [is] a…byproduct of these circumstances, framed [by] human calculations and expediency, [not] the eternal dictate of Islam sharia on the issue….

“The…development and use of the term sharia to refer to Islamic law often lead those unfamiliar with [it] to conflate man-made law with its revelatory inspiration, and…to elevate to Divine [status] products of human understanding, … necessarily conditioned by space and time.

Wahid further attempts to distinguish sharia and its purported embodiment of “perennial values” from Islamic law. He says the latter resulted from “itjihad (interpretation),” depends on circumstance (al hukm yadur ma’a al’illah wujudan wa ‘adaman) and must be “continuously reviewed” to adapt and prevent Islamic law from obsolescence, rigidity and failing to connect with contemporary Muslim lives and sharia‘s own “perennial values.” He thus claims that Islam’s greatest fiqh (jurisprudence) scholars, were “deeply grounded in tassawuf,” Islamic mysticism, and balanced “the letter of the law with the spirit” of accommodation to differing culture and practice across the Maghreb, Sahara, sub-Saharan Sahel region, southern Africa, Persia, Asia, the East Indies and the former Roman empire.

Reformer or not, Wahid headed an Islamic party, co-founded in 1926 Java by his grandfathers, both members of its sharia council, which purveyed strict Islamic law, according to Dr. Andrew Bostom. It required that members follow one of four Sunni schools of (Islamic) law—of “Muhammad bin Idris As-Shafi, Imam Malik bin Anas, Imam Abu Hanifa or Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal—and to do everything beneficial to Islam.” Al-Shafi’i (d. 820) himself interpreted Koran 2:217 “to mean that the death penalty should be prescribed for apostates,” the scholar Ibn Warraq explains in Leaving Islam. [1]

Moreover, all Sunni sharia schools had closed the “gates of itjihad,” freedom to interpret, 500 years ago. Lately, a few conservative Sunnis favor its reinstatement. Yet the Shi’a kept “benefits of ijtihad” alive, and witnessed no modern reforms, notes analyst and retired U.S. Army officer W. Patrick Lang. Iran maintains draconian sharia-based laws. Its current-day effects are detailed in chapter three.

Unsuccessful reformists

Ultimately, Wahid failed to improve Indonesia’s political landscape. Educated at Islamic schools, he joined NU at his grandfathers’ behest and took over in 1984, planning a secular “religious movement” to give social progress to all. He opposed Islamic supremacism. Muslims reacted violently. In 1998, as Suharto stoked anti-Chinese riots, Wahid sought calm to no avail. Hardline Muslims burned Chinese homes and shops, raped hundreds and killed at least 1,000—just as they had 100,000 ethnic Chinese in the mid-1960s. Wahid opposed East Timor’s secession, although before its 2002 independence, he apologized for Indonesia’s 1978 occupation and atrocities. Yet jihadis continued to attack Javanese and Maluku Christians (often with military aid), raided dozens of villages, forced thousands to convert and killed at least 5,000. Genocide has raised Indonesia’s Muslim population to nearly 90% of its total.

The late Muslim reformer Nasr Hamid Abu-Zayd (1943-2010) wrote “Renewing Quranic Studies in the Contemporary World.” Although director of the International Institute of Quranic Studies (IIQS), he was declared an apostate by Egypt’s Court of Cassation (its highest). He fled. His marriage was forcibly dissolved. He viewed Koran from an “objective historical perspective,” asked how it “was transmitted, propagated, codified, and ultimately canonized,” and sought “interpretive diversity.” He condemned blasphemy and apostasy laws projecting Koran as “eternal and uncreated,” and opposing modern concepts and life principles of freedom, justice, “human rights and dignity of man….”

Indeed, apostasy and blasphemy laws embedded in 1400 years of Islamic jurisprudence prohibit such thoughts. In Sept. 1978, the fatwa council at Cairo’s al-Azhar University, the closest Muslim equivalent to the Vatican, issued an official ruling on the case of an Egyptian emigre and convert to Christianity:

…This man has committed apostasy; he must be given a chance to repent and if he does not then he must be killed according to Shariah.

“As far as his children are concerned, as long as they are children they are considered Muslim, but after they reach the age of puberty, then if they remain with Islam they are Muslim, but if they leave Islam and they do not repent they must be killed and Allah knows best.”[2]

Finally, a chapter on reform of classical Muslim apostasy and blasphemy laws came from Maldives-native Abdullah Saeed, the Sultan of Oman Arab and Islamic studies professor at Australia’s University of Melbourne. He includes an internet fatwa by Muhammad Salah al-Munajjid on punishment of a murtadd, referencing the classical Bukhari hadith, “if someone changes his religion, kill him.” Like Wahid, Saeed insists on the socio-political genesis of apostasy’s prescribed punishment that specified those “in a state of war against Muslims.” It was more “akin to treason” than a simple matter of changing one’s belief. He also argues that “clear textual proofs that guarantee certainty of knowledge (‘ilm qat’i) were lacking in this debate.” If any, his second thought would most likely gain limited acceptance by Muslim jurists in 2011. Ordinary Muslims and non-Muslims in Islamic regions increasingly oppose classical apostasy laws and other religious restrictions, he writes, increasingly pressuring them to comply with human rights standards like the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. Yet Saeed’s own homeland banned the 2004 book on apostasy, co-authored with his brother and former Maldives attorney general Hasaan Saeed, on which he based this chapter.

How ready are Muslim jurists to change? The evidence suggests, not very.

Harsh reality

The hopes of Muslim reformers put them sharply at odds both with present-day reality and age-old Islamic conventions. Usefully, the book does catalog myriad effects of current legal codes for eight Muslim nations and regions, mostly penalties for allegedly criticizing or rejecting Islam. In Part II, chapters note dozens of cases that ended in execution, murder, or exile. Readers little aware of legal doctrines ruling Muslim nations, regions and groups likely will find their dire results quite shocking.

Saudi Arabia, “perhaps the most repressively controlled Muslim country in the Sunni world,” often victimizes citizens and foreigners, alike. Not for over 300 years have North American courts routinely tried people for witchcraft. But sorcery charges often precede Saudi death sentences, as for Lebanese Shi’a TV psychic Ali Hussain Sibat after his May 2008 Medina pilgrimage. In prison for 30 months, he won (with foreign help), a new trial and alternative, deportation.

But few escape. In Sept. 2011, Sudanese Abdul Hamid al-Fakki was beheaded for alleged “witchcraft and sorcery.” A sharia court in 2008 condemned an illiterate and ill Fawza Falih for allegedly causing a man’s impotence. In 2011 officials admitted she had choked on food and died in prison last year.

Under the Saudi takfir principle (p. 30-31), Muslims may likewise accuse others of leaving Islam—and often do. Those letting men and women to mix at school or work are infidels. “Either he retracts or he must be killed,” said sheikh Abd al-Rahman al-Barrak in Feb. 2010. “He who casts doubt about their infidelity leaves no doubt about his own infidelity,” wrote Grand Mufti Bin Baz in a 2005 Saudi government brochure at its U.S. embassy, of an unnamed European cleric who had said “declaring Jews and Christians infidels is not allowed,” instantly making the cleric a murder target. Similar Saudi tracts denounce “innovative imams” as “heretics [whose] prayers are invalid.”

Egypt also commonly alleges apostasy, despite contrary claims by sharia law professor Reza. “Islamic jurisprudence is the principle source of legislation,” Anwar el-Sadat added to constitution Article 2 in 1971 (p. 62). Thus Muslims often use the hisba doctrine to legally prosecute those considered “harmful to Islam,” chiefly against traditionally repressed religious minorities like Coptic Christians. In fact, penal code article 98 (f) criminalizes “ridiculing or insulting heavenly religions,” facilitating frequent charges of blasphemy and apostasy from Islam—the only faith to which Egypt applies the statute.

In Jun. 1992, days after al-Azhar University clerics listed free thinker Farag Foda first among “helpers of evil,” two al-Jama’at al-Islamiyya members shot him dead. Foda sought to separate mosque and state. He exposed Islamic atrocities from first caliph Abu Bakr to the end of Abbasid Arab caliphate. And at Cairo’s Jan. 1992 book fair, he debated orthodox clerics whose fatwas he had mocked (including that against Salman Rushdie). At their trial, Muslim Brotherhood cleric Mohammed al-Ghazali defended Foda’s killers, noting that any Muslim could kill an apostate (p. 74).

Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, instituted in 1980 under Zia al Haq, have also abetted minority persecution. State sharia courts value male non-Muslim testimonies at half that of Muslims, and of non-Muslim women, one fourth (p. 86). Hundreds of Christians have been prosecuted, far more proportionately than their two percent of the population. Believing Christians natural blasphemers, Muslims easily act on cues to attack, murder, and burn homes and churches. They target Hindus, Sufis and even Muslims, stoning men for alleged blasphemy, or for simply stating what a Westerner considers common sense.

Conditions vary only slightly elsewhere in the Muslims world, and the authors supply a long list of atrocities committed against victims of blasphemy or apostasy accusations. Such charges and attacks occur almost as regularly as clockwork—precisely because they track classic sharia, a key point the authors omit.

Apostasy goes global

Part III reviews parallel efforts at the United Nations to globally bar “defamation of religion,” a thinly veiled attempt to shield Islam alone from criticism. The chief culprit is the 57-nation Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a Saudi-based and funded organization founded in 1969 (as the Organization of the Islamic Conference). Here again, the book focuses on modern, Western hate-speech statutes and the real-world effects of limits that resulted from worldwide OIC pressure—not the foundational sharia law upon which the OIC built its frighteningly successful campaign.

The names and events that fill this 113-page section have also filled the pages of savvy online news magazines and channels for well over a decade now, and will be familiar to most who have paid more than glancing attention to the innumerable attacks on genuinely open-minded, free-thinking individuals of all persuasions. If nothing else, it is useful to have brief but well-documented studies of dozens of cases all in one place. Readers are reintroduced to Satanic Verses author Salman Rushdie, whose Norwegian publisher William Nygaard was in 1993 shot three times but survived. Also reported: the unusual genesis of 12 cartoons of Mohammed published in late 2005 by Denmark’s Jyllands Posten and the global repercussions. After illustrators refused to sign their own work for Kare Bluitgen’s biography of Mohammed for children, editor Flemming Rose commissioned the cartoons in protest of self-censorship in a Western democracy. Within weeks, the newspaper required security protection.

As I reported in Feb. 2006, Muslim Brotherhood and Hizb Ut Tahrir cleric Issam Amayra had the previous spring had incited Muslims in Denmark—from Jerusalem’s al Aqsa Mosque—to launch jihad there. [3] A jihad plot began months before Flemming Rose dreamed of commissioning Mohammed cartoons. Jyllands Posten merely supplied the excuse to trigger global riots. In Jan. 2006, trigger it the OIC did. Violent “reaction” to the cartoons went viral after the paper refused to back down and Denmark’s prime minister refused to meet with Muslim ambassadors. A call by Muslim Brotherhood “spiritual leader” Yusuf Qaradawi for a U.N. Resolution against “affronts to prophets” set off thousands of Mideast “demonstrations,” Pakistani attacks on Christians and on and on. As recently as Jan. 2010, a Somali man attacked the home of cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, then 74.

Victims in the West

In addition to additional Muslim reformers, the book covers several other cases of apostates, Christian converts and former Muslim critics, including the especially heroic Ibn Warraq and former Syrian physician Wafa Sultan (280-286), most of them fairly. It cannot go without comment, however, that the authors seriously insult Dr. Sultan:

“She maintains that many verses in the Koran say that you must kill those who do not believe in Allah,” they write (p. 283). Or, Koran may not say it, she just thinks so.

To set the record straight, Koran 2:217 states:

“They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: “Fighting therein is a grave (offense); but graver is it in the sight of God to prevent access to the path of God, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members.” Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein.”

If commentary by the founder of Sunni Islam’s Shafi school (cited above) insufficiently explains its classical meaning, consider the exegesis on 2:217 by 13th century Maliki jurist Qurtubi (d. 1273):

“Scholars disagree about whether or not apostates are asked to repent. One group say they are asked to repent and, if they do, they are not killed. Some say they are given an hour and others a month. Others say they are asked to repent three times, and that is the view of Malik [founder of the Maliki school of Islamic Law]..It is also said they are killed without being asked to repent.”[5]

Additionally, Islamic jurists routinely cite Koran 4:89, which states:

“They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of God (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;” 

Baydawi (d. 1316) writes on 4:89: “Whosoever turns his back from his belief [irtada], openly or secretly, take him and kill him wheresoever ye find him, like any other infidel.” [6]

The OIC role

One hopes Silenced will spur readers to question the founding purpose of the OIC, which the authors do not detail. The Saudis established the it in 1969 to follow classical sharia and Muslim Brotherhood principles, and in 1973 created the Islamic Development Bank to advance the “Islamic way of life.” Its biggest project: the 1990 Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, which 57 members signed.

Significantly, the preamble opens with the ummah‘s keen awareness of “the place of mankind in Islam as viceregent of Allah on Earth,” a clear reference to Koran 3:110 and expected Islamic supremacy:

Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors.[4]

Not coincidentally, the OIC convened for the so-called Cairo declaration shortly after the Feb. 1989 fatwa of Iran’s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, calling upon Muslims worldwide to track down U.K. citizen Salman Rushdie and execute him. Members agreed, the declaration would serve as their guide on “human rights.” These rights, its preamble specified, reaffirm the “civilizing and historical role of the Islamic ummah [nation]” divinely made “as the best community” to give “humanity a universal and well-balanced civilization” and to establish “harmony between” temporal and the afterlife and fulfill Muslim “expectations…to guide all humanity,” confused by conflicting beliefs and ideologies.

The OIC Cairo declaration proposed to contribute to global assertion of “human rights, to protect man from exploitation and persecution, and to affirm his freedom and right to a dignified life,” but only in accordance with sharia. Briefly, it supports the opposite of “human rights” in the West: unequal rights.

The OIC, then, functions chiefly as a rising barricade—dangerously invisible to Western leaders, journalists and educators—to cow and herd free-thinking Western democracies on every continent into ever-tightening iron-clad boundaries to guard Islam against free speech, which the authors understand, despite their seemingly wishful thinking.

The book paints a global landscape, exposing a decades-long campaign to silence Islam’s internal and external critics via modern legal principles that clearly offend basic human rights. Example after example shows Muslims, through acts, expressing the belief that their creed, alone, is beyond criticism. Their actions suggest that many Muslims feel specially licensed to demand “cultural respect,” plus suppress infidels in their homelands, and everywhere else. Particularly those wanting equal human rights for all, even freedoms of faith and speech—free enough to criticize Muslim theology and Islam.

Further examples continue to accumulate daily. In Iran, Christian pastor Yousef Nadarkhami, now 32, has lived precariously under a sword of Damocles since his 2009 arrest for apostasy—and converting from Islam at age 19. In 2010, he was convicted of apostasy and sentenced to death, though Iran now claims he was sentenced for rape. The mainstream press has remained largely silent over this outrage, albeit among many in Iran. Meanwhile in Paris, Islamic thugs bombed the office of satire magazine Charlie Hebdo (a Gallic version of Britain’s Private Eye) after its latest cover changed its name to Charia Hebdo and listed Mohammed as a “guest editor” to mock Tunisian and Libyan Islamic law. Yet Daily Beast (in the U.S.) headlined the satirical cover—not the bombing—as “shocking.” I’m choking.

Sadly, however, Silenced does not address the most important fact: Egregious violations of basic human rights, heretofore, have stemmed directly from Islamic texts—the Koran, hadith and sira—not only “human interpretation” thereof. In the Koran itself (3:110) originated the claim that Muslims are the best of peoples, notes Australian writer Geoff Dickson. [4] Muslim jurist Ibn Kathir (1301–1373) in his tafsir (exegesis) explains the verse to mean:

“You are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind; you enjoin Al-Ma`ruf (all that Islam has ordained) and forbid Al-Munkar (all that Islam has forbidden), and you believe in Allah. And had the People of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) believed, it would have been better for them; among them are some who have faith, but most of them are Fasiqun (rebellious).”

Theoretically anything is possible. So, theoretically, is Islamic reform. But the rest of humanity meanwhile deserves and needs the truth about Islamic expansionism and irredentism, including where and how those beliefs and practices originated.


[1] “…But whoever of you recants and dies an unbeliever, his works shall come to nothing in this world and the next, and they are the companions of the fire forever.” As cited from Samuel Zwemmer, The Law of Apostasy in Islam, pp. 33-35, (see also—Law of Apostasy.pdf), in Ibn Warraq, ed., Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out, (Amherst: Prometheus, 2003), pp. 17, 35. Verse 2:217:

“They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: “Fighting therein is a grave (offense); but graver is it in the sight of God to prevent access to the path of God, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members.” Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein.”

[2] Pamela Geller, “Exhibit A, the document: fatwa (death penalty) for apostasy,” Atlas Shrugs, Sept. 21, 2009, (first viewed 9/21/2009).

[3] Jonathan Dahoah Halevi, director of Orient research Group in Toronto, Canada, translated Issam Amayra’a April 2005 sermon from the Arabic.

[4] Koran 3:110, as translated by Yusuf Ali, Yet Another Quran Browser, (last viewed 11/3/2011).

[5] From Tafsir Al Qurtubi: Classical Commentary of the Holy Qur’an (Volume 1), translated by Aisha Bewley, p. 549, as cited by Dr. Andrew G. Bostom in his Sharia versus Freedom: The Legacy of Islamic Totalitarianism. (Amherst: Prometheus, forthcoming).

[6] From Samuel Zwemer, The Law of Apostasy in Islam, London, 1924/1925, p. 33, as cited by Bostom, in the forthcoming Sharia versus Freedom, id. Contributing Editor Alyssa A. Lappen is a U.S.-based investigative journalist, with a focus on the Middle East and Islam. A former Senior Fellow of the American Center for Democracy (2005-2008), she previously covered the economy, business and finance, as a Senior Editor at Institutional Investor (1993-1999), Working Woman (1991-1993) and Corporate Finance (1991); and an Associate Editor at Forbes (1978-1990).

She contributes regularly to Family Security Matters, the Terror Finance Blog and International Analyst Network and her work appears frequently in Pajamas Media, Front Page Magazine, American Thinker, Right Side News, the Washington Times and many other Internet and print journals.

Ms. Lappen is also an accomplished poet, whose work has won several awards and honorable mentions, and appeared in dozens of books and (print and online) literary journals, including the 2007, second edition of Blood to Remember: American Poets on the Holocaust and issues of Wales‘ notable Seventh Quarry: Swansea Poetry Magazine.


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. 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 Imani is the author of the riveting book Obama Meets Ahmadinejad and the thriller Operation Persian Gulf.


Spotlight On Iran

Source Article Link: Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center

Spotlight on Iran

Highlights of the week

  • Confusion in Iran over Palestinian UN bid.
  • Strong criticism for decision to release two Americans.
  • Iran and the cyber challenge: second Cyber ​​Hezbollah conference held in Tehran .
  • Barbie doll continues to anger conservatives as school year begins .
  • Pictures of the week: school year begins in Iran.

Confusion in Iran over Palestinian UN bid

The Iranian media reactions to the Palestinian UN bid exemplified the confusion in Tehran over the Palestinian appeal for international recognition of independent statehood within the June 1967 borders.

Earlier this week the Asr-e Iran website discussed the complexity of the Iranian stance on the Palestinian UN bid and the contradictory positions of top Iranian officials on the issue. Support for the Palestinian appeal for recognition could be interpreted as dropping the demand for the liberation of the entire Palestine and reinforce Abu Mazen’s status. On the other hand, by opposing the Palestinian bid, Iran can be seen as siding with the United States and Israel.

According to Asr-e Iran, the complexity of the Iranian stance was reflected in the statement made ​​by President Ahmadinejad in New York, saying that Iran recognizes the establishment of an independent Palestinian state as a first step towards the complete liberation of Palestinian territory.

Earlier this week two members of the Majles National Security and Foreign Policy Committee voiced reservations about the Palestinian UN bid. Majles member Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh branded the Palestinian UN bid as an American-Israeli conspiracy designed to divert the attention of the region’s nations from the anti-American and anti-Zionist uprisings in the Arab world. Majles member Parviz Sarvari argued that, with the Palestinian UN bid, Israel seeks to transform the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into one that is purely domestic (Palestinian) and reinforce the position of Mahmoud Abbas.

The conservative daily Jomhuri-ye Eslami was also critically opposed to the potential recognition of an independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. Abu Mazen’s plan is tantamount to recognition of Israel’s existence and it serves the purpose of the Zionists to gain recognition from the Palestinian people.

According to the daily, the Palestinian UN bid is an American-Zionist conspiracy to free Israel from the threat posed to its existence by the developments in the Arab world, and the ostensible opposition of the United States and Israel to the Palestinian appeal is just a tactic for the furtherance of that conspiracy. The daily said that the struggle against Israel must continue until the complete liberation of Palestine.

A different approach to the Palestinian UN bid could be seen in an editorial published by the daily Shargh. The reformist newspaper argued for unconditional support for the Palestinians’ rights on the international scene, saying that support for the independence of Palestine also serves Iran’s national interests.

Strong criticism for decision to release two Americans

This week government critics strongly criticized the decision to release Shane Bauer and Josh Fattal, the two Americans imprisoned in Iran on charges of espionage for the United States. They were released from a Tehran prison last Wednesday on $ 1 million bail after more than two years in custody.

Majles Research Center chairman Ahmad Tavakoli criticized the fact that the release of the two Americans coincided with President Ahmadinejad’s visit to New York for the UN General Assembly meeting. The timing, Tavakoli said, was chosen to let the president portray himself as the “champion of the foreign policy scene” even at the cost of dishonoring Iran and compromising the country’s interests. Tavakoli also found fault with the Foreign Ministry for not using the mediation services of such countries as Oman and Venezuela, which mediated the release of the Americans, to secure the release of the Iranians held by the United States.

The criticism surrounding the release of the two Americans intensified as a result of the statements they made ​​after being released. Speaking at a press conference in Oman, Bauer and Fattal described the harsh conditions of imprisonment throughout their custody, and said they had heard the screams of other detainees held in the same prison. According to the daily Resalat, the statements made ​​by the two Americans show that they did not deserve the generosity and compassion of the Iranian government. The indecency and derision shown by the two “American spies” towards the Iranian people and government are proof that the humanitarian considerations of Iranian politicians always receive barbaric reactions.

Iran and the cyber challenge: second Cyber ​​Hezbollah conference held in Tehran

Last weekend the second conference of the Cyber ​​Hezbollah organization was held in Tehran. Established in June 2011, the organization’s objectives include coordinating between pro-regime activists operating in cyberspace, providing them with instruction on cyber warfare, and organizing various online activities.

The conference was held on the occasion of the Holy Defense Week, marking the beginning of the Iran-Iraq War, and was titled “Clicks of Resistance”. Fars News Agency reported that the aim of the conference was to show appreciation for jihad and resistance activists operating in cyberspace as well as bloggers whose blogs are dedicated to jihad and sacrifice.

The main lecture of the conference was given by Dr. Hassan Abbasi, head of the Center for Doctrinal Analysis for Security without Borders and one of the major theoreticians of the radical faction in the conservative camp and the Revolutionary Guards. Abbasi warned about the close monitoring of Iranians’ web traffic by Western intelligence services, particularly the American National Security Agency (NSA). The Iranian online presence, according to Abbasi, is like an operation in enemy territory. He called for the use of existing online tools against the enemy, based on the principles of asymmetrical warfare.

Abbasi added that the United States intends to carry out a massive September 11-like cyber attack on Iran, and that Cyber ​​Hezbollah activists must act cautiously to foil the plot of the enemies and not give them any pretext to take action against Iran.

Meanwhile, Passive Resistance Organization chief Gholam-Reza Jalali announced this week that cyberspace is one of the key focus areas of his organization in dealing with enemy threats. He specified the actions taken this past year to improve cyber preparation, including the establishment of a Cyber ​​Defense Headquarters under the Armed Forces General Staff and the launch of a cyber defense study program in Tehran’s Imam Hossein University. In addition, 500 cyber defense drills are expected to take place this week to identify weak spots in the country’s executive systems.

The first national cyber defense conference is scheduled to take place in Iran in late January 2012.

Barbie doll continues to anger conservatives as school year begins

As the school year begins in Iran, the popularity of Western characters, particularly the Barbie doll, with Iranian children is once again cause for concern among the country’s conservative circles.

Last weekend the website Eqtesad-e Penhan (“Hidden Economy”) strongly condemned the extensive use of Western culture characters on school bags and stationery used by school children. The website reported that most Iranian pupils now purchase schoolbags and stationery with such characters as Barbie, Spiderman, Shrek, Tom and Jerry, Cinderella, and so forth, even though they are usually expensive.

The website criticized the culture and education authorities for not taking the necessary steps to encourage local manufacturers to produce stationery carrying original Iranian prints. According to the website’s editors, the Barbie doll is taking over the souls of Iranian children and promoting the objectives of the country’s enemies.

Confusion in Iran over Palestinian UN bid

The Iranian media reactions to the Palestinian UN bid exemplified the confusion in Tehran over the Palestinian appeal for international recognition of independent statehood within the June 1967 borders.

Earlier this week the Asr-e Iran website discussed the complexity of the Iranian stance on the Palestinian UN bid and the contradictory positions of top Iranian officials on the issue. According to the website, this complexity was reflected in the statement made by President Ahmadinejad to journalists in New York, saying that Iran recognizes the establishment of an independent Palestinian state as a first step towards the complete liberation of Palestinian territory.

On one hand, Iran has always stressed the need to liberate all of Palestine, and it is not willing to accept most of historic Palestine remaining in Israel’s possession. Support for the Palestinian appeal for recognition, Asr-e Iran said, could be interpreted as dropping the demand for the liberation of the entire Palestine and being willing to settle for a smaller Palestine within the 1967 borders. Such support may also reinforce the status of Abu Mazen vis-à-vis Hamas, Iran’s partner. On the other hand, by opposing the Palestinian bid, Iran can be seen as siding with the United States and Israel, two countries that oppose the Palestinian demand (Asr-e Iran, September 24).

The reformist daily E’temad also argued that the Palestinian UN bid poses a problem for Iran, since supporting it means recognizing the existence of the State of Israel. Iranian officials must make a decision about Iran’s stance on the issue and address the implications stemming from it with regard to UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338. If Iran recognizes a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, it may be perceived as a change in its regional policy. On the other hand, opposing the Palestinian UN bid may weaken Iran’s political position among the nations of the region.

The government of Iran hopes, according to E’temad, that the United States will veto the Palestinian appeal. Such a veto will derail what is for Iran a problematic plan and weaken the position of the United States in the Middle East. The daily argued that recognition of a Palestinian state by the UN will signal a new age for the region, whose significance will outweigh even that of the recent developments in the Arab world. It is a development that will require Iran to reexamine its regional policy (E’temad, September 25).

Meanwhile, two members of the Majles National Security and Foreign Policy Committee voiced reservations about the Palestinian UN bid. Majles member Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh branded the Palestinian UN bid as an American-Israeli conspiracy designed to divert the attention of the region’s nations from the anti-American and anti-Zionist uprisings in the Arab world. The popular Islamic uprisings in the region have entered their anti-Zionist phase, Falahatpisheh said, and will likely turn against the American presence in the region in the third phase. The Palestinian UN bid was designed to create differences of opinion among the region’s nations and divert their attention from the anti-Zionist and anti-American campaign to the issue of the establishment of an independent Palestinian state (Fars, September 24).

In an editorial published by the Majles member in the conservative daily Resalat, Falahatpisheh argued that, in any case, the United States and Israel will not allow the establishment of an independent Palestinian state that will turn into a base for the mobilization of anti-Zionist movements in the Middle East. The actors working behind the scenes of the Palestinian UN bid want to sway the revolutionist and anti-Zionist movements in the region from their chosen path and strengthen Israel (Resalat, September 25).

Majles member Parviz Sarvari also voiced reservations about the Palestinian UN bid, saying that it will only strengthen the regional position of Israel and the United States. He argued that, with the Palestinian UN bid, Israel seeks to transform the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into one that is purely domestic (Palestinian) and reinforce the position of Mahmoud Abbas in light of the increasing support for Hamas among Palestinians (Fars, September 24 ).

The conservative daily Jomhuri-ye Eslami was also critically opposed to the potential recognition of an independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. An editorial titled “Only one government in Palestine” said that if the proposal brought up by Mahmoud Abbas had included a statement calling for just one state and government in Palestine, his plan could have been defended. As it currently stands, however, his proposal includes recognition of the existence of a Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel, and the establishment of two states and two governments in Palestine. The plan, therefore, is illegitimate, and the Palestinian people do not accept it.

Adopting Abu Mazen’s plan is tantamount to recognizing Israel’s existence, which serves the purpose of the Zionists to gain recognition from the Palestinian people. In addition, it promises to the Palestinians sovereignty in just one small part of Palestinian land. Such a plan goes against history, which proves that “Canaanite Arabs” were the rulers of Palestine as early as in 2500 BC, and that it was only 700 years later that the Jews came to Palestine from Egypt, only to leave once again. The establishment of a state named Israel for the Jews is a Zionist conspiracy created less than one hundred years ago with the support of the United States and the other colonial powers, primarily Britain. The Jews have no right for sovereignty in Palestine. According to the daily, the Palestinian UN bid is an American-Zionist conspiracy to gain control of the storm that is shaking the foundations of the “Zionist regime” in light of the developments in the Arab world. The best way to protect Israel is through Abu Mazen’s initiative to establish a Palestinian state, which will make recognition of the Zionist regime possible by deceiving public opinion. Jomhuri-ye Eslami said that the threat made by the United States to veto the Palestinian appeal and PM Netanyahu’s opposition to Abu Mazen’s initiative are just a tactic for the furtherance of the conspiracy, whose long-term goal is the implementation of Abu Mazen’s plan, which will help the Zionist regime out of its current predicament.

The correct policy towards the Palestinian issue is based on the principle that all of Palestine belongs to the Palestinians, and that Zionists do not belong there. The struggle against the Zionist regime must continue until the complete liberation of Palestine, where only one government should rule based on the wishes of the Palestinian people, the daily said (Jomhuri-ye Eslami, September 25).

A different approach to the Palestinian UN bid could be seen in an editorial published by the daily Shargh. The reformist daily argued for unconditional support for the Palestinians’ rights on the international scene, saying that support for the independence of Palestine also serves Iran’s national interests. International recognition of two independent states, Israel and Palestine, will have no significant change as far as Iran is concerned, seeing as Israel is already recognized by most countries in the world and Iran’s position towards it will not change. Even if the establishment of an independent Palestinian state will not solve all the issues of the Israeli-Arab conflict, it will boost the Palestinians’ ability to realize their demands and rights (Shargh, September 26).

Another editorial published by Shargh criticized President Obama’s position on the Palestinian appeal for international recognition. The daily argued that there’s no difference between Obama and Bush, and that both presidents are willing to ignore the wrongs committed by the Jews against the Palestinians to get more votes. Any person or government that for any reason or argument opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state can never be called “a friend of Palestine”, Shargh said (Shargh, September 25).

Strong criticism for decision to release two Americans

This week government critics strongly criticized the decision to release Shane Bauer and Josh Fattal, the two Americans imprisoned in Iran on charges of espionage for the United States. They were released from a Tehran prison last Wednesday on $ 1 million bail after more than two years in custody.

Majles Research Center chairman Ahmad Tavakoli, considered one of the president’s major opponents in the conservative camp, criticized the fact that the release of the two Americans coincided with President Ahmadinejad’s visit to New York for the UN General Assembly meeting. The timing, Tavakoli said, was chosen to let the president portray himself as the “champion of the foreign policy scene” even at the cost of dishonoring Iran and compromising the country’s interests. Tavakoli expressed his regret that the judiciary, which made the decision to release the two Americans, blindly obeyed the president and the executive branch, saying that this undermined the independence and status of the judiciary. If “compassion” was indeed the reason for the release, as stated in an announcement released by the Foreign Ministry, Tavakoli wondered, why did the release take place just before President Ahmadinejad’s trip to New York? Tavakoli criticized the Foreign Ministry for not using the mediation services of such countries as Oman and Venezuela, which mediated the release of the Americans, to secure the release of the Iranians held by the United States (Fars, September 24).

Strong criticism for decision to release two Americans

Alef, a website affiliated with Ahmad Tavakoli, said in an editorial published after the release of the two Americans that it was inappropriate for someone charged in court with espionage to be released on bail and leave Iran. Even if the decision to release them was based on national interests, the least that could be done was to let the Iranian public know about it and avoid releasing the Americans on bail. The website added that the conduct of the judiciary in the affair has a negative impact on the public trust of the judiciary at a time when it is required to address sensitive issues, such as the recently-exposed large embezzlement in Saderat Bank (Alef, September 25).

The criticism surrounding the release of the two Americans intensified as a result of the statements they made after being released. Speaking at a press conference in Oman, Bauer and Fattal described the harsh conditions of imprisonment throughout their custody, and said they had heard the screams of other detainees held in the same prison. The Iranian media said that this is how grateful the two Americans are for the mercy and compassion Iran showed by releasing them.

Tabnak, a website affiliated with the pragmatic conservative bloc, said that while the government and the president released the two Americans based on “humanitarian” considerations, the pair created an anti-Iranian atmosphere at their press conference, where they made “their false claims “. The two young people gave the journalists irrelevant answers probably prepared for them in advance, the website claimed. While it is only natural that “spies” should make such claims, the decision to release them was not natural. Tabnak criticized the international media for putting an emphasis on the Americans’ claims against Iran while completely ignoring Iran’s good will and the humanitarian measure that was its decision to release them (Tabnak, September 16).

The conservative daily Siyasat-e Rooz also addressed the statements made by the two Americans after their release, saying that it was to be expected that the United States would use them for propaganda after the release, and that the necessary preparations should have been made for that possibility. By releasing the Americans, Iran’s authorities intended to show their good will and the compassion of Islam, but the result was just the opposite (Siyasat-e Rooz, September 27).

The daily Resalat said that the statements made by the two Americans after their release show that they did not deserve the generosity and compassion of the Iranian government. The president made a mistake when he decided to act towards their release on the eve of his trip to New York and before legal proceedings against them were complete, said an editorial published by the daily. The indecency and derision shown by the two “American spies” towards the Iranian people and government are proof that the humanitarian considerations of Iranian politicians always receive barbaric reactions (Resalat, September 27).  

Iran and the cyber challenge: second Cyber ​​Hezbollah conference held in Tehran

Last weekend the second Cyber ​​Hezbollah conference was held in Tehran. Cyber ​​Hezbollah is an organization whose establishment was first reported several weeks ago. The conference was held on the occasion of the Holy Defense Week, marking the beginning of the Iran-Iraq War (September 1980), and was titled “Clicks of Resistance”. Fars News Agency reported that the aim of the conference was to show appreciation for jihad and resistance activists operating in cyberspace as well as bloggers whose blogs are dedicated to jihad and sacrifice, and who attract considerable interest.

During the conference, Cyber ​​Hezbollah member and spokesman Soheil Karimi read a statement emphasizing the need to spread the culture of sacrifice also in cyberspace (, September 22).


The main lecture of the conference was given by Dr. Hassan Abbasi, head of the Center for Doctrinal Analysis for Security across Frontiers, affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards. Abbasi is considered one of the major theoreticians of the radical faction in the conservative camp and the Revolutionary Guards.

Abbasi warned about the close monitoring of Iranians’ web traffic by Western intelligence services, particularly the American National Security Agency (NSA). Addressing students who use the internet, he said that even though they currently do not possess important information that can be of interest to foreign intelligence services, they must exercise caution on the web, because someday they will have important and sensitive information that can be exposed by those who follow their online activity. He noted that the NSA is the organization that actually controls the world wide web.

Abbasi said that the major concern is that a considerable part of the information on young Iranian men and women and their activity is currently online. While this doesn’t mean that the internet is to be avoided, one should surf the web wisely and remember that it is monitored by Iran’s enemies, who wage a war against Muslim society and the religion of Islam. Iran’s online presence, Abbasi said, is like an operation in enemy territory, and the principles of asymmetrical warfare should also be applied in cyberspace-that is, existing online tools should be used against the enemy.

Abbasi added that the United States intends to carry out a massive September 11-like cyber attack on Iran. He warned that the United States is looking for excuses to instigate wars across the globe to rescue its declining economy. Accordingly, Cyber ​​Hezbollah activists must act cautiously to foil the plots hatched by the enemies and not give them any pretext to take action against Iran. They must also act in the cultural sphere against American websites and spread the message of the Muslim world in cyberspace (Fars, September 23).

Ya Lesarat, a weekly affiliated with the radical conservative organization Ansar Hezbollah, reported the launch of Cyber ​​Hezbollah in early September. According to the report, the organization was established in June 2011 as a spontaneous collaboration of pro-regime activists who worked against regime opponents in cyberspace during the 2009 riots. The organization held its first conference in August 2011. A memorandum released by Cyber ​​Hezbollah after its establishment specified its goals and objectives, which include coordinating between pro-regime activists operating in cyberspace, offering them courses and training, holding meetings aimed to acquaint the activists with cyber warfare tactics, and mobilizing the activists for various online activities (Ya Lesarat, September 1).

Meanwhile, Passive Resistance Organization chief Gholam-Reza Jalali discussed the efforts made by his organization to deal with cyber threats. Speaking at a press conference for Holy Defense Week, Jalali announced that cyberspace is one of the key focus areas of the Passive Resistance Organization in dealing with enemy threats.

Jalali specified the actions taken this past year to improve cyber preparation, including the establishment of a Cyber ​​Defense Headquarters under the Armed Forces General Staff, which works together with the intelligence and telecommunications ministries and the National Security Supreme Council, and the launch of an experimental cyber defense study program in Tehran’s Imam Hossein University. In addition, he said that 500 cyber defense drills are expected to take place this year to identify and correct weak spots in the country’s executive systems (IRNA, September 26).

Iran’s English-language Press TV network recently reported that the first national cyber defense conference is scheduled to take place in Iran on January 25-26, 2012. Sa’id Ghazi Maghrebi, the scientific secretary of the conference, reported that the conference will provide a platform for cyber experts to present articles and give lectures on cyber defense (Press TV, September 15).

Barbie doll continues to anger conservatives as school year begins

As the school year begins in Iran, the popularity of Western characters, particularly the Barbie doll, with Iranian children is once again cause for concern among the country’s conservative circles.

Last weekend the website Eqtesad-e Penhan (“Hidden Economy”), which operates on behalf of the Anti-Smuggling Headquarters, strongly condemned the extensive use of Western culture characters on school bags and stationery used by school children ( , September 21).

According to a report published on the website, most Iranian pupils now purchase school bags and stationery with such characters as Barbie, Spiderman, Shrek, Tom and Jerry, Cinderella, and so forth, even though they are usually expensive.

A stationery business owner said in an interview to the website that nearly 70 percent of all stationery sold on Iranian markets is made in China and features prints of Western characters. The immense popularity such prints enjoy with children has also led Iranian stationery manufacturers to use prints of Western characters on the school bags and stationery they produce. One trader said that even religious families purchase Barbie school bags for their children.

The Hidden Economy website criticized the culture and education authorities for not taking the necessary steps to encourage local manufacturers to produce stationery carrying original Iranian prints. The Barbie doll has forced itself into the lives of Iranian girls and is silently promoting the objectives of Iran’s enemies, the editors of the website complained. It appears on school bags, chocolates, clothes, and watches, and is taking over the souls of Iranian children. In a year declared by the Supreme Leader as the “year of economic jihad”, one could expect that those in charge of cultural activity in the country would collaborate with local manufacturers to improve local products and encourage the use of Iranian and Islamic characters and images to promote Iranian culture and Islamic beliefs among the future generation.

Barbie doll continues to anger conservatives as school year begins

In previous years, conservative circles also complained that school children in Iran still prefer to buy school bags and stationery adorned with characters taken from Western culture.

In an attempt to combat the increasing influence of Ken and Barbie, several years ago Iran developed the dolls Dara and Sara as an original substitute. The design and distribution of the dolls, a modestly-dressed brother and sister pair, was aimed to promote traditional Islamic and Iranian values ​​and better cope with the market penetration of American dolls, viewed as yet another means of introducing perverse and immoral American culture. It soon became clear, however, that these dolls could not capture the hearts of Iran’s children, and that American dolls still dominate the country’s toy market

Pictures of the week: school year begins in Iran

school year begins in Iran

school year begins in Iran

school year begins in Iran

school year begins in Iran

school year begins in Iran


Christian Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani faces potential execution

Source Link: Washington Post

Christian Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani faces potential execution


Just days after Iran released two Americans accused of spying, an Iranian court has upheld the apostasy conviction and execution sentence of Christian Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani.

The 11th branch of Iran’s Gilan Provincial Court has determined that Nadarkhani has Islamic ancestry and therefore must recant his faith in Jesus Christ. Iran’s supreme court had previously ruled that the trial court must determine if Youcef had been a Muslim before converting to Christianity.

However, the judges, acting like terrorists with a hostage, demanded that he recant his faith in Christ before even taking evidence. The judges stated that even though the judgment they have made is against the current Iranian and international laws, they have to uphold the previous decision of the 27th Branch of the Supreme Court in Qom.

View this document on Scribd

When asked to “repent” by the judges, Youcef stated, “Repent means to return. What should I return to? To the blasphemy that I had before my faith in Christ?” The judges replied , “To the religion of your ancestors, Islam.” To which he replied, “I cannot.”

It is reported that Youcef was able to see his children for the first time since March and was in good spirits speaking of how he longed to serve the church upon his release.

Pastor Youcef will be brought to the court for two additional “hearings” on September 27th and 28th for the sole purpose of being called upon to recant his Christian faith. The ACLJ’s sources report that although Pastor Youcef’s attorneys will attempt to appeal the case, there is no guarantee that the provincial court will not act on its own interpretation of Sharia law and execute pastor Youcef as early as Wednesday.

Technically, there is no right of appeal, and under Iran’s interpretation of Hadith and Sharia law, Pastor Youcef is to be given three chances to recant. He has already been asked to recant twice, and will be asked to do so again Tuesday. If he does not recant his Christian faith, he could be executed at any time.

We are continuing to press for the international community to take note of Youcef’s situation and call for his unconditional release. We are also continuing to work with members of Congress and are urging the State Department to get involved to save the life of this Christian pastor.

There is still time to save this pastor’s life.

Please share Youcef’s situation with anyone you know and pray for his release and the safety of his attorney, a brave Muslim who has been sentenced to nine years in prison and banned from practicing law by the Iranian government.

UPDATE: Today, Firouz Sadegh-Khandjani, a Member of the Council of Elders for the Church of Iran and a close personal friend of Youcef, called into my radio show from Iran to provide an update on Pastor Youcef. You can listen to the interview here.


The Durban Perversion

Source Link: FrontPageMag

The Durban Perversion

Written By Joseph Klein

September 23, 2011

Literature available at the first Durban conference

The United Nations hosted a full-day celebration on September 22nd commemorating the tenth anniversary of one of its greatest embarrassments since its founding: the adoption of the so-called Durban I Declaration and Programme of Action. This Declaration was the final outcome document of the 2001 anti-Semitic, anti-Western hatefest known formally as the UN World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. It singled out the Palestinians as the victims of alleged Israeli racism. And the Holocaust deniers who were running Durban I refused to include any reference to the twentieth century’s most vile example of racism, genocide and crimes against humanity.

The “Durban III” self-congratulatory anniversary conference resulted in a consensus reaffirmation of the Durban I Declaration and Programme of Action, as well as the Outcome Document of the Durban II Review Conference adopted in 2009 – the conference Iranian President Ahmadinejad opened with an attack on Israel, which he called the most racist country in the world.

Expecting the anti-Israel, anti-Western agenda to continue at the Durban III conference, thirteen nations decided to boycott the conference – New Zealand, Canada, Australia, United Kingdom, Austria, Germany, Italy, France, the Netherlands, Bulgaria, Poland (which is currently heading the European Union), Israel, and the United States. However, that left 180 UN member states that took no such action against this obscene perversion of the concepts of true anti-racism, tolerance and human rights.

Anne Bayefsky, Hudson Institute senior fellow and director of the Touro College Institute on Human Rights & the Holocaust, correctly pointed out that there is a direct link between the UN’s Durban III gathering on September 22nd and the General Assembly address of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas the following day seeking full state recognition and membership in the United Nations.

“It’s clear that this is intended to be a one-two action: You label Israel racist, and then the next day you say you don’t have to negotiate with it,” Bayefsky said. “Durban is not about combating racism, it is about demonizing Jews and the Jewish state.”

Durban III continued the propaganda campaign waged by the Palestinians and their friends in the United Nations to delegitimize Israel. However, at first glance, if one did not know its historical context, the Durban III final statement would seem perfectly benign. Its surface message is that racism and related acts of intolerance and discrimination occur on a daily basis all around the world. It calls for increased action and accelerated implementation of measures to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.

The authors of the statement made it as plain vanilla as possible in order to attract as many supporters as they could. Iran did not play a visible role in the planning of the conference this time. Its minister of foreign affairs, Ali Akbar Salehi, filled in at the conference for President Ahmadinejad, who saved his vile remarks for a speech he delivered to the UN General Assembly on the same day as Durban III. Ahmadinejad predictably repeated his golden oldies from past UN speeches, including his Zionist conspiracy theories and questioning who was behind 9/11.

But Ahmadinejad knew that Durban III would achieve its sinister objectives by stealth – reaffirming previous anti-racism world conference declarations going back to 1978 that had expressly promoted the Palestinians’ false narrative that they were the victims of Israeli racism and apartheid. This was just a few years after the UN General Assembly had equated Zionism with racism. While that toxic resolution was revoked in 1991, the campaign to delegitimize the right of Jews to have a single state of their own in their own historic homeland continues.

The first World Conference to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination was held in Geneva back in 1978.  In its Declaration and Programmes of Action, this conference concluded that “[A]partheid, the extreme form of institutionalized racism, is a crime against humanity and an affront to the dignity of mankind and is a threat to peace and security in the world.” While it focused attention on the apartheid regime of South Africa, this document specifically linked Israel to that regime and condemned “the insidious propaganda by the Government of Israel and its zionist and other supporters against the United Nations organs and against Governments which had advocated firm action against apartheid.”   One paragraph accused Israel of practicing “diverse forms of racial discrimination against Palestinians affecting all aspects of their daily lives in a manner which prevents their enjoyment of their elementary human rights on a basis of equality.”

This declaration, written in 1978, decried “the cruel tragedy which befell the Palestinian people 30 years ago and which the (sic) continue to endure– manifested in their being prevented from exercising their right to self-determination on the soil of their homeland, in the dispersal of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, the prevention of their return to their homes…”

The second World Conference to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination, also held in Geneva, took place in August 1983 and repeated the same rhetoric. It called for “the cessation of all the practices of racial discrimination to which the Palestinians and other inhabitants of the Arab territories occupied by Israel are subjected.”

In 1997, the UN General Assembly called for a World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, to take place no later than 2001.

Iran led the planning for the United Nations’ 2001 Durban I Conference. The Durban I Declaration, which the UN member states participating in Durban III just reaffirmed, referenced all the prior anti-Israel declarations from the previous UN-sponsored world conferences against racism mentioned above.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation and its allies in the non-aligned movement held sway at Durban I, and the Palestinians were singled out as victims of racism. In fact, the “anti-racist” Durban I conference turned into a racist hatefest against the Jewish state. It was marked by vitriolic displays of anti-Semitism, which were so bad that the United States walked out of the conference.

Iran headed up preparations for the equally biased follow-up Durban II Review Conference in 2009. Several delegates, mostly from the European Union, walked out during Ahmadinejad’s speech. Most delegates, however, not only remained for the speech, but applauded at its conclusion. Fortunately, the United States, along with Australia, Canada, Germany, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Poland, had boycotted the whole conference, rightly sensing in advance that something like this would happen.

It is this litany of lies that the Durban III conference has decided to reaffirm. The common theme running through the litany is that Israel’s “neo-colonialist” Zionist regime should be isolated by the international community for committing alleged “racist crimes” against the “oppressed” Palestinian victims.

Nevertheless, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay voiced their strong support for this perversion of human rights and platform for the world’s worst human rights abusers, which has characterized the whole Durban process from the start.

With a straight face, Navi Pillay actually said that the Durban I Declaration and Programme of Action, as well as the outcome of the 2009 Durban II Review, provide a “comprehensive framework to address the scourge of racism.” Did she bother to take a look at the list of dictatorships that were given a forum to spew their hate and hypocrisy? Does she really consider, for example, that the racist Arab regime of Sudan, which has embarked on a campaign of murdering, ethnically cleansing and enslaving millions of indigenous black Africans – a campaign that continues today – is committed to addressing the scourge of racism? Apparently the organizers of the Durban III conference thought so, since Sudan was given the honor of addressing the conference on behalf of the Group of African States. Since Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmad Al-Bashir was facing arrest on warrants issued for five counts of crimes against humanity (murder, extermination, forcible transfer, torture and rape) and two counts of war crimes (pillaging and intentionally directing attacks against civilians), it would have been a bit risky for him to make a personal appearance.

The honors went to Rahamtalla Mohamed Osman Elnor, Sudan’s undersecretary, ministry of Foreign Affairs, who complained about  – what else — the transatlantic slave trade.  He said that the African Group for whom he spoke welcomed the actions undertaken to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the end of the transatlantic slave trade and the establishment of a permanent memorial at United Nations Headquarters.

The Sudanese undersecretary also threw in apartheid, colonialism and what he called the “new and emerging forms of slavery such as human trafficking.”

If only the United Nations would have had the moral courage to have invited to the Durban III podium, instead of Bashir’s mouthpiece, a heroic Sudanese refugee and survivor of child slavery in Sudan. Kudos to Anne Bayefsky for organizing a conference of sanity and truth across the street on the same day as the Durban III circus, at which this Sudanese refugee, Simon Deng, was given an opportunity to speak.

At the counter-Durban III conference, titled “The Perils of Global Intolerance: The United Nations and Durban III,” Mr. Deng told of how he was nine years old when he was enslaved by an Arab family. He was forced to work around the clock, beaten, and subject to harsh living conditions for three years. Mr. Deng was not alone. Hundreds of thousands of Sudanese have been kidnapped and sold into slavery. Here was a living demonstration of the “emerging forms of slavery such as human trafficking,” perpetrated within Sudan by the racist Arab government and population, which Sudan’s undersecretary so piously condemned at the Durban III conference.

Mr. Deng managed to escape permanent enslavement, but thousands of other blacks in Sudan remain in slavery. The UN, he said, knew about the Arab enslavement of black Sudanese and the Arab government’s policy of apartheid against the black population, but chose to do nothing. His fellow blacks and other persecuted minorities were abandoned by the UN, Mr. Deng said, in favor of giving the racist Arabs a global platform to persistently push their false accusations of Israeli racism against the Palestinians.

By ignoring the true victims of racism, such as Simon Deng, and providing a platform to the racists themselves to excoriate Israel and other democracies, the United Nations has forfeited whatever moral authority and legitimacy it may have had at its founding.


Muslims denounce bill to ban ‘foreign laws’- “Don’t Let The Door Hit Ya, Where The Good Lord Split Ya!!!”

If you will not adapt to the American way of life then all I can say is:

Don’t Let The Door Hit Ya, Where The Good Lord Split Ya!!!

Researched and Written By Walt Long

If individuals want to immigrate to the United States of America to escape from a country that is applying brutal Islamic Shari’a Law, why do they come to the United States? If the Muslim’s in this article choose Shari’ah Law then stay in your originated country you immigrated from. Many of us would buy you a one way ticket back to the very same Islamic Shari’ah Law Country you escaped from.

For centuries people have come to America, left their homeland property and their origin countries laws behind them. They have adapted and live with the precious freedom allowed under the Process of American Law.

After the article I am going to point out some Shari’a Laws which the Muslim’s in this article want to apply here in the United States.

Article Source: Detroit News

Muslims denounce bill to ban ‘foreign laws’

Community leaders call state rep’s plan divisive, unnecessary

Oralandar Brand-Williams/ The Detroit News

Detroit —Opposition is mounting among Muslims against pending legislation that would ban Michigan courts from considering “foreign laws” — including Sharia, or Islamic law.

Muslim and community leaders gathered Tuesday in Midtown to denounce legislation from state Rep. Dave Agema, R-Grandville, as divisive, unnecessary and mean-spirited.

“This plan goes against our country’s core values of accepting people from all races and walks of life,” said state Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Detroit, who is Muslim. “We simply cannot move forward with this plan.

“It’s racism at its core.”

Similar measures are under consideration in 25 other state legislatures, and supporters say the protections are needed. The Michigan bill doesn’t mention Sharia, but watchdog groups say they’ve identified 50 cases nationwide that could be influenced by the religious rules. Most involved divorce or child custody.

Another sponsor of the Michigan bill, Rep. Martin Knollenberg, R-Troy, said the legislation is necessary because “we shouldn’t allow other laws to usurp the state constitution.”

He scoffed at critics who called the bill racist: “Where does it say (in the bill) it’s anti-Muslim?”

Agema last week called the accusations of bigotry “hogwash.”

A House committee has yet to take up discussion of the bill. The Council of American-Islamic Relations’ Michigan chapter announced Tuesday it would sue if it becomes law. Gov. Rick Snyder’s office hasn’t done an analysis of the measure, said his spokeswoman, Geralyn Lasher.

“We don’t know if this is an issue taking place or whether there is a need” for a law, she said.

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee also encouraged members Tuesday to contact their state representatives and urge them to oppose the bill.

(313) 222-2027


Qur’an (9:29)“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”


Modern jizya table


Bukhari (83:37)“Allah’s Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate.”

News Articles:

Christianity, Religious Freedom Violated By Blasphemy Laws

Christian woman sentenced to death in Pakistan ‘for blasphemy

Islamic Countries Are Top Persecutors of Christians

Adultery, Homosexuality and Non-Marital Sex

Punishment For Non-Marital Sex

Malaysia begins caning women for adultery

Video Shows Taliban Stoning Woman to Death

Woman stoned to death in north Afghanistan

Iran: Pregnant woman to be stoned to death

The Hadith and homosexuality:

The Hadith are collections of sayings attributed to Muhammad. records a fatwa (religious ruling) concerning an Iranian man who had been convicted of raping and then killing his 16-year-old nephew. The fatwa does not appear to differentiate between consensual homosexuality and homosexual rape; both are linked to adultery. Their ruling stated:

“Homosexuality, moreover, is an abomination and a grave sin. In Hadith, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, clarifies the gravity of this abomination by saying: “Allah curses the one who does the actions (homosexual practices) of the people of Lut.” repeating it three times; and he said in another Hadith: “If a man comes upon a man then they are both adulterers.” Here, he considered homosexuality tantamount to adultery in relation to the Shari’ah punishments because it is an abomination on the one hand and the definition of adultery applies to it on the other hand…..As for lesbians, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said about them: ‘If a woman comes upon a woman, they are both Adulteresses‘.”

Articles on Homosexuality under Shari’ah Law:

Iran: Two More Executions for Homosexual Conduct

Iraq: Stop Killings for Homosexual Conduct

Saudi Arabia-The Kingdom in the Closet


Bukhari (81:780)The Prophet said, “The hand should be cut off for stealing something that is worth a quarter of a Dinar or more.”

Bukhari (81:792) – Narrated Aisha: “The Prophet cut off the hand of a lady, and that lady used to come to me, and I used to convey her message to the Prophet and she repented, and her repentance was sincere.”

Abu Dawud (38:4373) – The Prophet (peace be upon him) had a mans hand cut off who had stolen a shield.

Articles about stealing:

Islamic Militants in Somalia Cut Off Convicted Thief’s Hand

Iranian Man gets hand cut off for stealing…Candy!!!

Saudi man’s hand cut off for stealing at Mecca – AP Online


Religion is Fire

Religion is Fire

Source Link:

Written By Amil Imani

Fire, arguably, is important to life after air, water, and food. Fire, broadly defined, is energy. And energy runs the world. It fuels the body, operates the mind, heats homes, and runs endless machines and instruments.

When energy is put to good use, it is the boon of mankind. And when it is misused or abused it is the bane of humanity. Therefore, credit or blame rests with the user of energy.

Religion is a special case of energy in the same way that steam is a derivation of fire. Steam engines move mass in physical space. Religion, emotional energy, propels people’s mind in the metaphysical realm.

Civilized societies have rules and regulations, albeit many of them flawed and imperfect, which regulate energy use. The fire of religion must also be contained in such a manner to do whatever good it may be able to do and prevent it from becoming a consuming wildfire.

There are those who have no use for religion. These people have perhaps seen so much burning and scorching by religion that they have abandoned it or have even taken active positions fighting it.

There are also those who don’t seem to be able to make do without a religion of some sort, preferably a “divine” religion. These people value the warmth that the religious fire gives them, the assurance it provides that the cold earth is not their end, and the promise that there is an eternal life of bliss after death. It is only fair that the “fire” that keeps the religionist warm not set ablaze the home of the non-religious.

Some questions for religionists:

  • A belief qualifies as “divine” religion because someone claims it is?
  • A belief becomes religion because millions believe in it?
  • Should religion and state interlace? Which religion? The religion of the majority in any given country?
  • Should being a religionist confer the person preferential status over the non-religious?
  • Should religionists have complete freedom to practice their belief, even when they infringe on the rights of others?
  • Should religionists have the right to vilify as heathen the people of other persuasions and those of no religious belief?
  • Should religionists have the right to force their belief on others?
  • Should religionists actively engage in the subjugation or elimination of the non-religious?

In civilized societies, it is granted that what is good for one person must also be good for the next. This is egalitarianism. Egalitarianism levels the playing field, where every human being must abide by the same rules of fair play. No one has a claim to special privileges for himself and his group.

With respect to religion, it matters not that someone claims that he is the emissary of the Creator; that he is bringing binding teachings from the Lord. There is no objective way of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the claim. The claimant may be a charlatan, mentally disturbed, or indeed an emissary of the divine. What really matters is that the claimant and his claim serve the cause of the good for all of mankind and completely shun causing contention and strife among people.

The moment a religious founder begins claiming special privileges for himself and his followers, he launches a discriminating totalitarianism. This is indeed the case with Islam. Even a cursory glance at Islam’s past, as well as its present, establishes unequivocally its discriminating totalitarianism nature.

Islam is out of control fire and the jihadists are its arsonists. The generality of Muslims do their part by spreading throughout the world and setting up the conditions that would welcome the arsonists, feed and shelter them, and support them in igniting the Islamic fire.

This is exactly what is happening all over Europe where the naïve natives have deluded themselves into the fraud of multiculturalism. A generous social entitlement system in Europe, well-paying job opportunities, and higher standards of living are magnets to the horde of Muslims fleeing Islamic failed states. Ironically, these same Muslim expatriates quickly forget why they had to leave their miserable plights in their homelands and what the main cause of their misery is. The culprit is the pathological nihilistic belief of never-mind-this-world and do Allah’s biding for gaining admission to his unimaginably magnificent pleasure paradise of the afterlife.

Islam believes in the rule of Islam, Caliphate to the Sunnis and Imamate to the Shias. Hence, to Muslims, all other forms of governments represent the handiwork of the Satan and the infidels. Therefore, one and all non-Islamic systems of government must be purified by the Islamic fire.

But marrying religion with government is stoking fire with explosive. In free democracies, governments are accountable to the people and serve at 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 eighteen or so countries which rank among the highest nations of the world on every index of misery.

The Islamic fire fueled by immense oil income is raging in certain regions of the world, smoldering in others, and ready to ignite in yet other parts of the world. It is imperative for the free people of the world to abandon all illusions about Islam and put out its fire, once and for all. Multiculturalism, let and let live, is a delusion of kind-hearted naïve people. Islam, as fractured as it is, is a non-compromising mono-culture: a cruel culture of a primitive people handed down to Muhammad some 1400 years ago.

Secularists and most non-Muslim religious people respect the legitimate rights of the religionists, whereas Muslims recognize little or no rights for others. You can readily establish the validity of this assertion by looking at some eighteen or so Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and so on.

Warning to free men and women: Remain a spectator at your own peril. It is imperative that you take a stand and do your part at falsifying the fraud of Islam and do all you can to prevent the Islamic fire from devouring our civilized democratic secular system. 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 Imani is the author of the riveting book Obama Meets Ahmadinejad and the upcoming thriller Operation Persian Gulf.


Religious Imprinting and Jihadism

Filed under: Iran, Islamic Clerics, Jihad, Radical Islam — Tags: — - @ 3:44 pm

Source Link: FSM

Written By Amil Imani

Konrad Lorenz, animal ethologist (1903 – 1989), whose experiments showed how easily birds could become “imprinted.”

Religious belief is emotional at its core. And emotions are not governed by logic or reason. Becoming religious is similar to imprinting, most dramatically seen in ducklings. During a critical period of time after hatching the ducklings become imprinted on any moving object—be it the mother duck, a mechanical duck, or a moving human. It doesn’t matter. The ducklings simply follow the initially moving object.

Religion, for most part, is infused into the mind of children from the moment of birth. Early childhood is the time that children are most imprintable. The strength and permanence of this imprinting process depend on a variety of influences. Over time, some people retain the initial imprint and strengthen it, some adopt a middle course, and some might even discard it altogether. A significant number in any religious faith becomes extremely committed to the extent that they are willing to kill others and themselves in the service of their religion.

The human mind is a battleground of contending forces where the two most powerful are reason and emotion: where reason assesses life and produces measures that are adaptive, to the best of its ability; while emotion, by-and-large, operates on feelings. Ordinarily, an uneasy truce prevails between the two generally incompatible powers.

In many situations, the clash between dictates of reason and promptings of emotion result in intra-psychic conflicts. In any given case, the conflict may settle by one party getting its way, reaching a compromise, or a deadlock producing paralysis of inaction.

Beliefs, as is the case with all living and non-living complex systems, are targeted by forces that aim to break them down. In the case of beliefs, any threatening event, particularly when severe, produces great anxiety in the believer.

Anxiety produces aversive reaction. The mind deals with anxiety by a mix of chemical and psychological measures. On the psychological side there are defense mechanisms such as rationalization and denial. Both these measures reduce the debilitating impact of anxiety by the person literally misleading himself. Rationalization supplies faulty reasoning by telling the person that the bad thing, or the threat, is not all that bad; while denial completely refuses to admit it exists. Alcoholism, for instance, is known as the disease of denial since the alcoholic denies that he is an alcoholic even in the face of irrefutable objective evidence.

Religious beliefs’ emotional underpinning spawns fanaticism in some of the adherents, since fanaticism is seen as a reflection of one’s true loyalty and strong faith.

Beliefs, be they religious or otherwise, are tied to a central figure such as a prophet, a philosopher, or a social reformer. Particularly in religion, the central figure and his high disciples occupy a rarefied, nearly superhuman, sphere.

It is a human tendency to find a source or a person to whom he can attribute powers and qualities that he himself yearns for, yet he lacks—a father surrogate. People age, but the insecure child within remains at the core of many. It is the child within that attaches himself to an omnipotent father figure.

The founder of a religion presents to the child within the lost father he no longer has or he never had. It is for this reason that the founder of a religion is held at the highest esteem and his edicts are obeyed wholeheartedly by his followers. The believers’ degree of devotion is in direct proportion to the hierarchy of the religious authorities.

In the case of the 12-Imamate Shi’a Islam, for instance, the Imams filled the void that was created by Muhammad’s death. Hence, the Imams are revered with a degree of devotion only one notch below Muhammad himself. In time, the Imams also died. Yet the need for a tangible father-figure remained. The Shiites filled that void by transferring their attachments to a cadre of religious authorities ranging from the highest-ranking Grand Ayatollahs, followed by Ayatollahs, the Hujat-ul-Islams (Islamic adjudicators), and all the way down to the village mullah.

Attributing special powers and capabilities to the father surrogate not only compels the person to ward off anything that threatens to undermine his belief, but to do what he can to further solidify it. This process of protecting one’s belief and shoring it up frequently results in strong emotional attachment to the leader. In a real sense, people see the person as an omnipotent father figure—their savior—who would guide them and minister to their needs not only in this world, but also in the afterlife.

As is the case in all attachments, a price must be paid. The price is often commensurate with the degree of attachment. A religious fanatic is a rigidly-attached believer who is captive of his own emotional excesses. This emotional excess, given the right context, will overrule the dictates of reason and compels the fanatic to carry out any abhorrent act demanded of him rather than sever his emotional fixation on the righteousness of his belief and the authority of his belief leaders.

Islam is an intensely emotional authoritarian system of belief. Hence, Islam induces powerful emotional imprinting in a large percentage of its adherents. It is from this segment of the Muslims that the fanatic jihadists arise and pose existential threat to the “other.” The jihadists are rigidly-imprinted foot-soldier Islamic automatons that have little choice but to carry out the fatwa and dictates of their high-ranking religious leaders such as the Ayatollahs in the case of the Shi’a and Muftis for the Sunni.

For as long as Muslim high priests retain their stranglehold on the masses of Muslims, generation after generation of father-figure seeking jihadists will turn to them, revere them, and carry out their violent decrees obediently. Contributing Editor Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and a pro-democracy activist residing in the United States of America. Imani is a columnist, literary translator, novelist and essayist who has been writing and speaking out for the struggling people of his native land, Iran. He maintains a website at Amil Imani is the author of the smashing book Obama Meets Ahmadinejad.


Former Muslims Excluded From King Hearings

Source Link: FrontPageMag

Written By Nonie Darwish

I have admiration and respect for Congressman Peter King and I salute him for holding hearings on the “Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and that Community’s Response.” However, as a former Muslim I have not seen anyone testifying on our behalf in the hearings. At least one former Muslims should have been there to tell America of our plight. To tell them why we left Islam right here in America. How we had to choose between Islam and loving America. How radicals and jihadists followed us right here after we immigrated to the US to try to force us back into the same old culture of jihad, hatred and anti-Semitism — that we had escaped from in the first place. How radicals who want to deny us our freedom of religion under the US constitution threaten our lives and civil rights daily.

Most former Muslims in the US started by going to mosques but we soon discovered a political and jihadist agenda. In mosques I was told not to assimilate in America, to have more children and to wear Islamic clothes even though I never wore it in the Middle East before coming to the US. We were encouraged to pray wherever we wanted and do that with assertion even if we have to inconvenience others at airports, baseball games or at work. We soon found out that many mosques in America, as they are in the Middle East, are more of a political organization than a place of worship. We noticed that the more pious Muslims in the mosque were the ones seeking confrontation with American culture, such as getting offended if Americans have dogs or alcohol when riding cabs with Muslim taxi drivers.

Muslims are told openly in mosques that they have a mission in America and that is to make Islam the law of the land. Lying to America and getting offended to cover up the jihadist aspiration was encouraged, and became a perfected art and a religious obligation, which further alienated Muslims from American culture.

Many of us former Muslims have left the religion precisely because of the radicalization we confronted in America. But when we dared to stop going to mosques and left Islam altogether our lives turned into a nightmare. Many former Muslims contact me looking for shelter after their lives have been threatened. Just a couple of days ago I was contacted by a young 21 year old Muslim man telling me he left Islam years ago and has to hide the Bible from his family and friends after his own brother told him he was going to kill him if he does not return to Islam.

I receive testimony after testimony of former Muslims, some of whom are American converts who decided to leave Islam and are afraid for their lives. Many of us have to move from one apartment to another so we are not found by those who threaten our lives. Just last year, we all heard of the plight of the 17 year old apostate Rifqa Bary who had to flee her home after her life was threatened by her father and her local mosque. There are many Rifqa Barys in America where radical Islam is working under the radar to silence and force some of us to return to Islam or else.

I am also in contact with apostates in the Middle East. A student from Yemen told me that when he applied for a scholarship to come to the US, financed by Saudi Arabia, his application was rejected because he believes he was not radical in his Islamic views enough. He complained to me that the ones who won the scholarship were extreme Islamists and that tells us something about the kind of people we are giving student visas to.

How can former Muslims live in peace in America when there are Muslim scriptures sold and bought in all mosques telling Muslims that it is OK to kill apostates, meaning those who left Islam? The tragedy of apostasy from Islam has taken the lives of some in the West and caused mental and physical abuse for many and is never documented as a religious hate crime. Part of the jihad doctrine obliges Muslims to do internal jihad, by forcing Sharia on Muslim citizens. Sharia books in mosques across the US tell Muslims they will be forgiven for murder of an apostate and an adulterer, thus making vigilante street justice and honor killing acceptable religiously.

Muslim groups and their American appeasers are up in arms against the King hearings and are claiming that their civil rights are being violated. I wonder whose civil rights are violated in America? Is it Muslims or former Muslims?

Nonie Darwish is the author of “Cruel and Usual Punishment; the Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law” and founder of Former Muslims United.


Obama Asks Terrorism Help — from Muslim Brotherhood Spinoff

Source Link: Floyd Reports

Written by Ben Johnson

As more sober minds consider ways to keep the Middle East from falling into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood, Barack Obama is “fighting terrorism” by reaching out to the leader of one of the Brotherhood’s American creations. In the process, a White House official revealed that radical Muslims frequently advise the White House office headed by the president’s top adviser and alter ego, Valerie Jarrett.

Preemptive Groveling

Flush with instances of American Muslims supporting Islamic jihad, Rep. Peter King is set to launch his investigation into the radicalization of U.S. mosques, imams, and the faithful they serve later this week. Barack Obama, ever keen to reach out to the Muslim community, decided to get ahead of this by sending a deputy to plead with the extremists for cooperation. On Sunday, Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough spoke to a Sterling, Virginia, mosque some believe is a model of moderate Islam: the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS), led by imam Mohamed Magid. Indeed, McDonough began by thanking Magid by name.

Although the Sudanese-born imam presents himself as an ecumenical, anti-terrorism leader active in “interfaith” outreach, his current associations — and those of others at his mosque — present a different picture.

A Dangerous Mosque

This author exposed ADAMS’s radical connections nearly seven years. At the time, ADAMS’s chairman was Ahmad Totonji, an Iraqi-born citizen of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia who was named as a defendant in a $1 trillion lawsuit filed by more than 600 relatives of people who died in the 9/11 attacks. He served as Vice President of the Safa Group and the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), which officials have linked to al-Qaeda, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Sami al-Arian. (Al-Arian served more than five years in prison after pleading guilty to conspiracy to aid terrorism, and he is currently under house arrest awaiting his contempt trial, which has been mysteriously stalled.) ADAMS’s legal counsel, Muhammed Ashraf, was the attorney for Abdurahman Alamoudi, who is now serving 23 years in prison for laundering money for Muammar Qaddafi in a plot to kill a Saudi prince.

Magid was on the premises of ADAMS’s Herndon, Virginia, offices when federal agents stormed the facility in March 2002. The “Grove Street Addresses” provided the homes of more than 100 interlocking Muslim organizations that the government accused of providing material support for terrorism. After the raid, Magid assembled a “community building” meeting at ADAMS attended by a variety of extremists.

FBI Snitch, Reagan Euglogizer?

Somehow, this record got Magid invited to speak at Ronald Reagan’s funeral in 2004.

Since the federal raid, Magid has alleged that he works with the FBI to track down extremists. How telling Time magazine about one’s status as a federal snitch is supposed to further his mission is anyone’s guess. Yet Magid’s services appear to be less-than-robust. According to Time, “So far as Magid knows, no terrorist has tried to infiltrate the mosque.”

It is not only Magid’s mosque that cements his ties to extremists and terrorists — or the most influential advisers in the Obama administration.

An Unindicted Co-Conspirator

Magid is current president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). The U.S. government listed ISNA as an unindicted co-conspirator in its trial of the Holy Land Foundation (HLF), which abused its charitable status “to promote and move forward Hamas’s agenda of the destruction of the State of Israel and establishment of an Islamic state in its place.” (In 2008, HLF was convicted of 108 charges, proving it funneled $12.4 million to Hamas.)

According to federal prosecutors at the HLF trial, “The evidence introduced at trial, for example, established that ISNA and NAIT [North American Islamic Trust] were among those organizations created by the U.S.-Muslim Brotherhood” (Emphasis added.) The Brotherhood’s most distinguished alumnus is al-Qaeda’s number two in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri. The MB currently appears poised to take a leadership role in the post-Mubarack Egyptian government, at the behest of the Obama administration (and some pseudoconservatives). Federal prosecutors say ISNA and NAIT “were intimately connected with the HLF and its assigned task of providing financial support to Hamas.”

Even these substantial ties around not ISNA’s only connections to Islamic radicalism. Its board of directors includes yet more. One director, Faizul Khan, personally knew the Ft. Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan for more than 10 years. The London Telegraph reports Khan said the jiahdist, who was known to have spouted extremist rhetoric long before the tragic shooting, “never seemed controversial.”

The president of ISNA Canada, Mohamed Bekkari, is embroiled in a financial scandal. In January, an audit published in Canadian media alleged the organization had mismanaged more than $600,000 in charitable donations to the poor. One of the five pillars of Islam requires faithful Muslims to pay Zakat, giving 2.5 percent of their income to the needy. The Toronto Star reports an audit revealed “of about $810,777 collected over four years, only $196,460 went to aid the poor.”

ISNA published the book by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the leader behind the Ground Zero Mosque, calling for a dawa (conversion) of America to begin on the rubble of the Twin Towers. When Americans recoiled, ISNA VP Azhar Azeez said their opposition came “out of ignorance. People who are opposing the mosque have never, ever interacted with Muslims in their lives.”

One of the featured speakers at the oh-so-moderate ISNA’s 46th annual convention was Cat Stevens, now Yusuf Islam, who defended the Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa against Salman Rushdie.

Such a record of extremism has earned ISNA access to the Obama administration’s inside track for radicals, extremists, and America-haters.

Valerie Jarrett Begs ISNA for Advice

Despite the organization’s role in a trial that exposed the America support system for  terrorism, the Obama administration forged close ties with ISNA from its opening moments. Valerie Jarrett invited then-ISNA president Ingrid Mattson to give a Muslim prayer at the president’s inauguration. Jarrett keynoted ISNA’s 46th annual convention — the same one addressed by Cat Stevens — and tried to get them involved in the White House’s website.[1]

In his address Sunday, McDonough let slip that radicals such as those in the audience had an inside track to advise Jarrett. McDonough said, “Over the past two years, I — along with my White House colleagues — have benefited from the advice of many of your organizations through our Office of Public Engagement.” OPE is headed by Jarrett, In the spring of 2009, OPE officials, including Jarrett herself, would host a “cultural policy summit” that included the most extreme elements of the Left.[2] One of its attendees, Sally Kohn, confirmed that the Obama administration uses far-Left groups to spread covert propaganda.

Access to OPE, and thus Jarrett, is not token privilege. In July 2009, Obama told New York Times reporter Robert Draper, “I trust her completely…She is family.” He authorized Jarrett “to speak for me, particularly when we’re dealing with delicate issues.” When asked, he admitted he runs every decision by her. An Obama 2008 campaign official told the New York Times, “If you want him to do something, there are two people he’s not going to say no to: Valerie Jarrett and Michelle Obama.”

Jarrett put it in a more creepy way: “We have kind of a mind meld.”

She has the president’s ear. We now know ISNA radicals have her ear.


1. Out of fairness, the coddling of ISNA is not entirely new. Steve Emerson of The Investigative Project on Terrorism reported the Justice Department co-sponsored ISNA’s 2007 national convention with taxpayer dollars. At the time, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-OK, tried to cut off funding for future ISNA events.

2. A characteristic example is the invitation of someone calling herself “Rha Goddess,” who boasts that she is the “former International Spokeswoman for the Universal Zulu Nation.” The current spokeswoman wasn’t available?


The New Middle East

Source Link: CarolineGlick.Com

demo khomeini.jpg

A new Middle East is upon us and its primary beneficiary couldn’t be happier.

In a speech Monday in the Iranian city of Kermanshah, Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ Politburo Chief General Yadollah Javani crowed, “Iran’s pivotal role in the New Middle East is undeniable. Today the Islamic Revolution of the Iranian nation enjoys such a power, honor and respect in the world that all nations and governments wish to have such a ruling system.”

Iran’s leaders have eagerly thrown their newfound weight around. For instance, Iran is challenging Saudi Arabia’s ability to guarantee the stability of global oil markets.

For generations, the stability of global oil supplies has been guaranteed by Saudi Arabia’s reserve capacity that could be relied on to make up for any shocks to those supplies due to political unrest or other factors. When Libya’s teetering dictator Muammar Ghaddafi decided to shut down Libya’s oil exports last month, the oil markets reacted with a sharp increase in prices. The very next day the Saudis announced they would make up the shortfall from Libya’s withdrawal from the export market.

In the old Middle East, the Saudi statement would never have been questioned. Oil suppliers and purchasers alike accepted the arrangement whereby Saudi Arabian reserves – defended by the US military — served as the guarantor of the oil economy. But in the New Middle East, Iran feels comfortable questioning the Saudi role.

On Thursday Iran’s Oil Minister Massoud Mirkazemi urged Saudi Arabia to refrain from increasing production. Mirkazemi argued that since the OPEC oil cartel has not discussed increasing supplies, Saudi Arabia had no right to increase its oil output.

True, Iran’s veiled threat did not stop Saudi Arabia from increasing its oil production by 500,000 barrels per day. But the fact that Iran feels comfortable telling the Saudis what they can and cannot do with their oil demonstrates the mullocracy’s new sense of empowerment.

And it makes sense. With each passing day, the Iranian regime is actively destabilizing Saudi Arabia’s neighbors and increasing its influence over Saudi Arabia’s Shiite minority in the kingdom’s Eastern Province where most of its oil is located.

Moved by the political unrest in Bahrain and Yemen, Saudi regime opponents including Saudi’s Shiite minority have stepped up their acts of political opposition. The Saudi royal family has sought to literally buy off its opponents by showering its subjects with billions of dollars in new subsidies and payoffs. But still the tide of dissent rises.

Saudi regime opponents have scheduled political protests for March 11 and March 20. In an attempt to blunt the force of the demonstrations, Saudi security forces arrested Tawfiq al-Amir, a prominent Shiite cleric from the Eastern Province. On February 25 al-Amir delivered a sermon calling for the transformation of the kingdom into a constitutional monarchy.

Iran has used his arrest to pressure the Saudi regime. In an interview with Iran’s Fars news agency this week, Iranian parliamentarian and regime heavyweight Mohammed Dehqan warned the Saudis not to try to quell the growing unrest. As he put it, the Saudi leaders “should know that the Saudi people have become vigilant and do not allow the rulers of the country to commit any possible crime against them.”

Dehqan continued, “Considering that the developments in Bahrain and Yemen affect the situation in Saudi Arabia, the [regime] feels grave danger and interferes in the internal affairs of these states.”

Dehqan’s statement is indicative of the mullahs’ confidence in the direction the region is taking. In testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee on Tuesday US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acknowledged that Iran is deeply involved in all the anti-regime protests and movements from Egypt to Yemen to Bahrain and beyond.

“Either directly or through proxies, they are constantly trying to influence events. They have a very active diplomatic foreign policy outreach,” Clinton said.

Iranian officials, Hizbullah and Hamas terrorists and other Iranian agents have played pivotal roles in the anti-regime movements in Yemen and Bahrain. Their operations are the product of Iran’s long running policy of developing close ties to opposition figures in these countries as well as in Egypt, Kuwait, Oman and Morocco. These long-developed ties are reaping great rewards for Iran today. Not only do these connections give the Iranians the ability to influence the policies of post-revolutionary allied regimes. They give the mullahs and their allies the ability to intimidate the likes of the Saudi and Bahraini royals and force them to appease Iran’s allies.

THIS MEANS that Iran’s mullahs win no matter how the revolts pan out. If weakened regimes maintain power by appeasing Iran’s allies in the opposition – as they are trying to do in Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Algeria, Bahrain, Oman and Yemen — then Iranian influence over the weakened regimes will grow substantially. And if Iran’s allies topple the regimes, then Iran’s influence will increase even more steeply.

Moreover, Iran’s preference for proxy wars and asymmetric battles is served well by the current instability. Iran’s proxies – from Hizbullah to al Qaida to Hamas – operate best in weak states. From Hizbullah’s operations in South Lebanon in the 1980s and 1990s, to the Iranian-sponsored Iraqi insurgents in recent years and beyond, Iran has exploited weak central authorities to undermine pro-Western governments, weaken Israel and diminish US regional influence.

In the midst of Egypt’s revolutionary violence, Iran quickly deployed its Hamas proxies to the Sinai. Since Mubarak’s fall, Iran has worked intensively to expand its proxy forces’ capacity to operate freely in the Sinai.

Recognition of Iran’s expanded power is fast altering the international community’s perception of the regional balance of forces. Russia’s announcement last Saturday that it will sell Syria the supersonic Yakhont anti-ship cruise missile was a testament to Iran’s rising regional power and the US’s loss of power.

Russia signed a deal to provide the missiles to Syria in 2007. But Moscow abstained from supplying them until now – just after Iran sailed its naval ships unmolested to Syria through the Suez Canal and signed a naval treaty with Syria effectively fusing the Iranian and Syrian navies. So too, Russia’s announcement that it sides with Iran’s ally Turkey in its support for reducing UN Security Council sanctions against Iran indicates that the US no longer has the regional posture necessary to contain Iran on the international stage.

Iran’s increased regional power and its concomitant expanded leverage in international oil markets will make it impossible for the US to win UN Security Council support for more stringent sanctions against Tehran. Obviously UN Security Council sanctioned military action against Iran’s nuclear installations is out of the question.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration has failed completely to understand what is happening. Clinton told the Congress and the Senate that Iran’s increased power means that the US should continue to arm and fund Iran’s allies and support the so-called democratic forces that are allied with Iran.

So it was that Clinton told the Senate that the Obama administration thinks it is essential to continue to supply the Hizbullah-controlled Lebanese military with US arms Clinton claimed that she couldn’t say what Hizbullah control over the Lebanese government meant regarding the future of US ties to Lebanon.

So too, while Palestinian Authority leaders burn President Barack Obama in effigy and seek to form a unity government with Iran’s Hamas proxy, Clinton gave an impassioned defense of US funding for the PA to the House Foreign Relations Committee this week.

Clinton’s behavior bespeaks a stunning failure to understand the basic realities she and the State Department she leads are supposed to shape. Her lack of comprehension is matched only by her colleague Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ lack of shame and nerve. In a press conference this week, Gates claimed that Iran is weakened by the populist waves in the Arab world because Iran’s leaders are violently oppressing their political opponents.

In light of the Obama administration’s refusal to use US military force for even the most minor missions – like evacuating US citizens from Libya – without UN approval, it is apparent that the US will not use armed force against Iran for as long as Obama is in power.

And given the administration’s refusal to expend any effort to protect US interests and allies in the region lest the US be accused of acting like a superpower, it is clear that US allies like the Saudis will not be able to depend on America to defend the regime. This is the case despite the fact that its overthrow would threaten the US’s core regional interests.

AGAINST THIS backdrop, it is clear that the only way to curb Iran’s influence in the region and so strike a major blow against its rising Shiite-Sunni jihadist alliance is to actively support the pro-democracy regime opponents in Iran’s Green movement. The only chance of preventing Iran from plunging the region into war and bloodshed is if the regime is overthrown.

So long as the Iranian regime remains in power, it will be that much harder for the Egyptians to build an open democracy or for the Saudis to open the kingdom to liberal voices and influences. The same is true of virtually every country in the region.

Iran is the primary regional engine of war, terror, nuclear proliferation and instability. As long as the regime survives, it will be difficult for liberal forces in the region to gain strength and influence.

On February 24, the mullahs reportedly arrested opposition leaders Mir Hossain Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi along with their wives. It took the Obama administration several days to even acknowledge the arrests, let alone denounce them.

In the face of massive regime violence, Iran’s anti-regime protesters are out in force in cities throughout the country demanding their freedom and a new regime. And yet, aside from paying lip service to their bravery, neither the US nor any other government has come forward to help them.

No one has supplied Iran’s embattled revolutionaries with proxy servers after the regime brought down their Internet communications networks. No one has given them arms. No one has demanded that Iran be thrown out of all UN bodies pending the regime’s release of the Moussavis and Karroubis and the thousands of political prisoners being tortured in the mullahs’ jails. No one has stepped up to fund around-the-clock anti-regime broadcasts into Iran to help regime opponents organize and coordinate their operations.

Certainly no one has discussed instituting a no fly zone over Iran to protect the protesters.

With steeply rising oil prices and the real prospect of al Qaida taking over Yemen, Iranian proxies taking over Bahrain, and the Muslim Brotherhood controlling Egypt, some Americans are recognizing that not all revolutions are Washingtonian.

But there is a high likelihood that an Iranian revolution would be. At a minimum, a democratic Iran would be far less dangerous to the region and the world than the current regime.

The Iranians are right. We are moving into a new Middle East. And if the mullahs aren’t overthrown, the New Middle East will be a very dark and dangerous place.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.


U.S. Airmen Shot in Germany

U.S. Airmen Shot in Germany

March 3, 2011 | 1924 GMT
Click on image below to watch video:
Vice President of Tactical Intelligence Scott Stewart explains why attacks similar to the March 2 shooting at the Frankfurt airport are likely to occur in the future.

Editor’s Note: Transcripts are generated using speech-recognition technology. Therefore, STRATFOR cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.

Here at STRATFOR, we’re looking at the March 2nd shooting at the Frankfurt airport which claimed the lives of two U.S. airmen and wounded two others.

The assailant in this case was a 21-year-old ethnic Albanian from Kosovo by the name of Arif (or Arid) Uka. Uka has been living in Germany for many years, and it appears that he was radicalized in Germany and not his native Kosovo. Uka worked at the airport in Frankfurt, and it appears he used his access to that facility in order to conduct the surveillance he required to conduct this attack.

Uka has told the German authorities that the attack was something that he had planned and executed alone, and certainly from the M.O. of the attack, it is consistent with what we would expect to see from a lone-wolf attacker. This attack is very similar to lone-wolf shootings that we’ve seen in the past, such as the July 2002 attack at the El Al ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport. It is also very similar to shootings we saw in 2009 at an Army recruiting office in Little Rock, Ark., as well as the shootings on Fort Hood. Uka used his position at the airport to find a time when the airmen were vulnerable in transit. He selected a spot that was outside of the security cordon of the Frankfurt airport, and it was also before the airmen would have reached Ramstein Air Force Base, which would have been a more secure environment.

We’ve seen ethnic Albanians involved in other radical activity. Indeed, we saw a group of Albanians plotting to attack Fort Dix in the United States a couple years ago. However, by and large ethnic Albanians tend to be moderate and more tolerant than some of the Wahhabi/Salafi Muslims in other parts of the world. It’s not surprising that a Kosovar outside of his homeland, specifically in Germany, would be radicalized. We have seen other Muslims, such as the Hamburg cell that went on to conduct the 9/11 attacks, radicalized during their stays in Germany.

We’ve been anticipating more of these sorts of simple attacks using readily available weapons like what we saw in Frankfurt yesterday. We believe that the endorsement of figures such as al-Wahishi of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and Adam Gadahn will tend to lead more grassroots jihadis to conduct these types of attacks — attacks that are simple, straightforward and hard for them to mess up in the planning and execution.


Portrait of Sheikh Dr. Yusuf Abdallah Qaradawi Senior Sunni Muslim Cleric, Affiliated With the Muslim Brotherhood

View this document on Scribd


Bedouin Smugglers Abuse Africans Held for Ransom, Israel Group Says

Islam and Slavery have gone hand in hand since the birth of Islam by Mohammed who would take the losing groups he battled, kill the men and make slaves of the women and children, sold them or traded them for other items. I have posted 2 white pages concerning this phenomenon of Islam as well as a well written book titled Islam Undressed, it gives you a lot of information concerning Islam, all are on the bottom of this article in a PDF Format. W

Source Link: NY Times


TEL AVIV — About 1,000 African migrants trying to cross the Sinai Desert from Egypt into Israel have been systematically beaten, raped and held captive for ransom in the past year by the Bedouin smugglers they hired to help them make the journey, an Israeli advocacy organization said Tuesday.

Testimony collected by the Hotline for Migrant Workers in a new report depicts a network of torture camps in the northern reaches of the desert where the migrants, mostly Eritrean, are sometimes held for months in abusive conditions, while their Bedouin captors press their families abroad to send thousands of dollars in ransom money.

“I was a virgin when I arrived in the desert,” said a 21-year-old Eritrean woman cited in the report, who was held for six months. “During the first few times that I was raped, I cried and resisted, but that didn’t help. They wouldn’t leave me alone. After that I stopped resisting. Only when the $2,800 arrived did the smugglers unchain me.”

In their accounts in the report and in person, the migrants recall a pattern of abuse, including gang rapes and beatings with electric rods and heavy sticks. Often, they said, they were shackled together in groups as their armed captors kept them under guard. At one of the camps, captives were given T-shirts with numbers printed on them and were referred to by those numbers.

Physical torture typically accompanied the captors’ extortion calls, usually by satellite phone.

“The most painful moments were when they called my family as they beat me and I cried out,” said Avraham Asmara, a 25-year-old Eritrean man who was held for a month before escaping and crossing the border three weeks ago. “I was always thinking about what my family was thinking and feeling when they heard me like this.”

At a news conference, Mr. Asmara said he had paid $3,000 to his smugglers to take him across the desert, but was taken captive. His family members in Eritrea sold their home and belongings to send his captors $8,000 of the $10,000 ransom they demanded, he said.

There is concern among Israeli human rights officials that the upheaval in Egypt will make it even more difficult to crack down on the kidnappings, which they say started last year. The Bedouins and Egyptian authorities have had tense relations for years, with the Bedouins complaining of discrimination and harsh treatment. The vast, sparsely populated Sinai Desert has long been something of a lawless no man’s land.

Reut Michaeli, executive director of the Tel Aviv-based Hotline for Migrant Workers, voiced concern that when the migrants, including women pregnant from rape, do make it across the border to Israel, they are not provided state-financed medical treatment.

The group Physicians for Human Rights — Israel, which runs a clinic here for migrants, referred 165 women for abortions in 2010 and suspects that about half were raped while in Sinai, according to its report in December.

According to official estimates, about 33,000 Africans, most of them migrant workers seeking better economic prospects but some of them refugees from war in Sudan, have crossed into Israel from Egypt since 2005, setting off a national debate about how to handle the influx. The number rose to about 13,600 last year from fewer than 4,900 in 2009, according to Israeli Parliament figures.

Male migrants who were held captive told of being beaten when they tried to protect the women, and there are also reports that men were raped.

Musa Naiem, 35, from Sudan said the camp where he was held, in sight of a Bedouin village, was a fenced-in pen with three rooms covered by a cloth roof. He and others slept outside in the sand and had no toilets or showers.

Mr. Asmara said he liberated himself and his fellow captives with a handcuff key secretly recovered from the captors by a woman who had been raped. On a day the smugglers were in another room, he unlocked himself and the others. Together they overwhelmed and disarmed their captors and fled into the desert.

It turned out they were only a half-hour’s walk from the Israeli border.

Pulling the small silver key from his wallet, Mr. Asmara turned it in his hand and said: “This is for me to remember. This is the key that helped 50 people find freedom from hell.”

View this document on Scribd

View this document on Scribd

These is a well written book titled Islam Undressed I have posted below. The keyword Slavery are listed by page number where slavery is written about.
…dhimmitude (subordination), slavery, and death.” As Bat Ye’or points out, M… p. 20
…and sold the women and children into slavery. This tactic is a template still in use… p. 63
…who told them God sanctifies murder, slavery, lying, rape, arson, and thievery again… p. 66
…the bombing of hospitals, and slavery. Tens of thousands have been sold into … p. 90
…Tens of thousands have been sold into slavery. The Muslim Government of Sudan in Febr… p. 90
…include kidnapping and ransom, slavery (including sex slavery), or to simply t… p. 114
…and ransom, slavery (including sex slavery), or to simply torture and kill the poo… p. 114
…to enslave them and apply the laws of slavery regarding their sale and manumission; t… p. 115
…of sixteen thousand were carried into slavery, stripped of their cloths, barefoot, th… p. 118
…a process known as ‘devshirme’) into slavery. Once taken and converted to Islam, mal… p. 127
…ill-fated seamen, or sell them into slavery. It was a lucrative for the pirates, an… p. 132
…who told them God sanctifies murder, slavery, lying, rape, arson, and thievery again… p. 161
…belief. FIRST: Polygamy, Divorce, and Slavery, are maintained and perpetuated; – stri… p. 171
…to ignore it, is to capitulate to slavery over freedom, and servitude over prospe… p. 173
…to eventually return them to slavery to their new Muslim masters? No one kno… p. 174
…to escape the misery of its spiritual slavery (visit After all… p. 183
…the ‘father of lies’, ‘the author of slavery’, ‘the king of contentions’, ‘the purve… p. 191

View this document on Scribd

The Threat of Civil Unrest in Pakistan and the Davis Case

By Scott Stewart

On Feb. 13, the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) issued a statement demanding that the government of Pakistan execute U.S. government contractor Raymond Davis or turn him over to the TTP for judgment. Davis, a contract security officer for the CIA, has been in Pakistani custody since a Jan. 27 incident in which he shot two men who reportedly pointed a pistol at him in an apparent robbery attempt.

Pakistani officials have corroborated Davis’ version of events and, according to their preliminary report, Davis appears to have acted in self-defense. From a tactical perspective, the incident appears to have been (in tactical security parlance) a “good shoot,” but the matter has been taken out of the tactical realm and has become mired in transnational politics and Pakistani public sentiment. Whether the shooting was justified or not, Davis has now become a pawn in a larger game being played out between the United States and Pakistan.

When one considers the way similar periods of tension between the Pakistanis and Americans have unfolded in the past, it is not unreasonable to conclude that as this current period plays out, it could have larger consequences for Davis and for American diplomatic facilities and commercial interests in Pakistan. Unless the Pakistani government is willing and able to defuse the situation, the case could indeed provoke violent protests against the United States, and U.S. citizens and businesses in Pakistan should be prepared for this backlash.

Details of the Case

One of the reasons that the Pakistanis have been able to retain Davis in custody is that while he may have been traveling on a “black” diplomatic U.S. passport, not everyone who holds a diplomatic passport is afforded full diplomatic immunity. The only people afforded full diplomatic immunity are those who are on a list of diplomats officially accredited as diplomatic agents by the receiving country. The rest of the foreign employees at an embassy or a consulate in the receiving country who are not on the diplomatic list and who are not accredited as diplomatic agents under the Vienna Convention are only protected by functional immunity. This means they are only protected from prosecution related to their official duties.

As a contract employee assigned to the U.S. Consulate in Lahore, Davis was likely not on the diplomatic list and probably did not enjoy full diplomatic immunity. He was probably considered a member of the administrative or technical staff. Protecting himself during a robbery attempt would not be considered part of his official function in the country, and therefore his actions that day would not be covered under functional immunity. So determining exactly what level of immunity Davis was provided will be critical in this case, and the information provided by the Pakistani Foreign Ministry will have a big impact on the Pakistani judge hearing the arguments.

In all likelihood, Davis was briefed regarding his legal status by his company and by the CIA prior to being assigned to post. He also would have been told that, while he had limited immunity, the U.S. government would do its best to take care of him if some incident occurred. However, it would have been made clear to him that in working as a protective contractor he was running a risk and that if there was an incident on or off duty, he could wind up in trouble. All security contractors working overseas know this and accept the risk as part of the job.

At the time of the shooting, of course, Davis would not have had time to leisurely ponder this potential legal quagmire. He saw a threat and reacted to it. Undoubtedly, the U.S. government will do all it can to help Davis out — especially since the case appears to be a good-shoot scenario and not a case of negligence or bad judgment. Indeed, on Feb. 15, U.S. Sen. John Kerry flew to Islamabad in a bid to seek Davis’ release. However, in spite of American efforts and international convention, Davis’ case is complicated greatly by the fact that he was working in Pakistan and by the current state of U.S.-Pakistani relations.


Over the past few years, relations between the United States and Pakistan have been very strained. This tension has been evidenced not only by public opinion but also by concrete examples. For example, in mid-December, the CIA station chief in Islamabad was forced to leave the country after his name was disclosed in a class-action lawsuit brought by relatives of civilians killed by unmanned aerial vehicle strikes in the Pakistani tribal badlands.

It was no coincidence that the Pakistani lawsuit against the CIA station chief occurred shortly after the head of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence directorate, Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, was accused in a civil lawsuit of being involved in the 2008 attacks in Mumbai. The suit was brought in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn by family members of the American rabbi killed alongside his wife in Mumbai by Pakistan-based Islamist militants.

Like Iraq, Pakistan is a country that has seen considerable controversy over American security contractors over the past several years. The government of Pakistan has gone after security contractor companies like DynCorp and its Pakistani affiliate InterRisk and Xe (formerly known as Blackwater), which has become the Pakistani version of the bogeyman. In addition to the clandestine security and intelligence work the company was conducting in Pakistan, in 2009 the Taliban even began to blame Xe for suicide bombing attacks that killed civilians. The end result is that American security contractors have become extremely unpopular in Pakistan. They are viewed not only as an affront to Pakistani sovereignty but also as trigger-happy killers.

ASIF HASSAN/AFP/Getty ImagesActivists from the Pakistani Islamist party Jamaat-e-Islami during a protest rally in Karachi on Feb. 11

And this is the environment in which the Davis shooting occurred. Even though some Pakistani civilians apparently came forward and reported that they had been robbed at gunpoint by the men Davis shot, other Pakistani groups like the Jamaat-ud-Dawah (JuD) — the successor to the Lashkar-e-Taiba, which was presumably banned by the Pakistani government — have demanded that Davis be hanged. The Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI), an Islamist political party, has also demanded that Davis be hanged and has called for large protests if he is released without a court order. As noted above, TTP spokesman Azam Tarik made a statement demanding that the Pakistani government either hang Davis or hand him over to them. Interest in this issue is not just confined to Islamist groups. There are some right-wing conservative nationalists and even some secular liberals who are asking: “If the United States can give CIA shooter Mir Amal Kansi the death penalty, why can’t Pakistan do the same thing to Davis?”

The result is that the Davis case has aroused much controversy and passion in Pakistan. This not only complicates the position of the Pakistani government but also raises the distinct possibility that there will be civil unrest if Davis is released.

Civil Unrest in Pakistan

Like many parts of the developing world, civil unrest in Pakistan can quickly turn to extreme violence. One example that must certainly be on the minds of the security personnel at the U.S. Embassy and the U.S. consulates in Pakistan is the November 1979 incident in which an enraged mob seized and destroyed the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad. While there were only two Americans killed in that incident — a Marine security guard shot as he stood on the roof of the embassy and an Army warrant officer who died when an apartment building on the embassy compound was torched — the fire that the mob set inside the building very nearly killed all the employees who had sought shelter in the embassy’s inner safe-haven area. Two local Pakistani staff members were also killed in the fire.

The 1979 attack was said to have been sparked by reports that the U.S. government was behind an assault on the Grand Mosque in Mecca by Saudi militants the day before. In reality, the mob that stormed and torched the U.S. Embassy was at least tolerated, if not orchestrated, by the Pakistani government, which was angry that the United States cut off financial aid to the country in April 1979. Not only did the Pakistani government facilitate the busing of large numbers of protesters to the U.S. Embassy, its security forces also stood aside and refused to protect the embassy from the onslaught of the angry mob. The embassy assault was Pakistan’s not-so-subtle way of sending a message to the U.S. government.

But U.S. diplomatic facilities have not been the only targets of civil unrest in Pakistan. Following the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, angry mobs attacked not only security forces but also foreign businesses, banks, shops and gasoline stations in the cities of Karachi, Rawalpindi, Islamabad and Quetta and throughout the province of Sindh, Bhutto’s home province.

Similarly, in February 2006 during the unrest generated by the Mohammed cartoon fiasco, mobs in Islamabad, Peshawar, Karachi and Lahore attacked a wide range of Western business targets. The worst of this violence occurred in Lahore, where a rampaging mob burned down four buildings housing the four-star Ambassador Hotel, two banks, a KFC restaurant franchise and the regional office of Telenor, a Norwegian cell phone company. The protesters also damaged about 200 cars and several storefronts and threw stones through the windows of a McDonald’s restaurant, a Pizza Hut and a Holiday Inn. Lahore, incidentally, is where the Davis shooting occurred.


Based on this history, the current tension between the United States and Pakistan, public sentiment in Pakistan regarding U.S. security contractors and the possibility of groups like JuD and JeI attempting to take advantage of the situation, there is a very real possibility that Davis’ release could spark mob violence in Pakistan (and specifically Lahore). Even if the Pakistani government does try to defuse the situation, there are other parties who will attempt to stir up violence.

Due to the widespread discontent over the issue of U.S. security contractors in Pakistan, if protests do follow the release of Davis, they can be expected to be similar to the protests that followed the Mohammed cartoon case, i.e., they will cut across ethnic and sectarian lines and present a widespread threat.

Physical security measures such as concrete barriers, standoff distances and security cameras can add to a facility’s defenses against a terrorist attack, but they really do not pose much of an obstacle to an angry mob intent on overrunning a property — especially if local and indigenous security forces are unwilling or unable to intervene in a timely fashion and the mob has the time and latitude to assault the facility for a prolonged period. The protesters can scale barriers and their overwhelming numbers can render most security measures useless. Barriers such as hard-line doors can provide some delay, but they can be breached by assailants who possess tools and time.

Additionally, if protesters are able to set fire to the building, as happened at the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad in 1979, a safe-haven can become a death trap, especially if the mob can take control of the secondary escape hatch as it did in that incident, trapping the Americans inside the safe-haven.

Commercial facilities are, by their very nature, far more accessible — and far more vulnerable — to mob violence than diplomatic facilities. A commercial facility can present a tempting soft target to those who wish to attack a symbol of America without tackling a hard target like a U.S. diplomatic facility, which is designed and built to comply with stringent security standards. If a mob storms a hotel, the local staff will be unable to protect the guests, and conceivably could leave the guests to fend for themselves in the confusion and chaos of a riot. Even worse, they could even facilitate attacks against Americans by pointing them out or providing their room numbers.

Any person identified as an American by such an angry mob could quickly find himself or herself in dire danger. While Americans working for the U.S. government can expect to have some security assistance in getting back to the embassy or to another secure location, non-officials may be left to fend for themselves, especially if they are not registered with the embassy. Non-officials are also not required to abide by the same security rules as officials. While many non-officials consider the U.S. State Department’s security rules to be onerous at times, during troubled periods these conservative security rules often serve to keep diplomats out of harm’s way.

Once a mob attacks, there often is little that can be done — especially if the host government either cannot or will not take action to protect the facility being attacked. At that point, the focus should be on preventing injuries and saving lives — without regard to the physical property. In most cases, when a mob attacks a multinational corporation, it is attacking a symbolic target. KFC restaurants, for example, have been frequent targets of attacks in Pakistan because of the company’s association with the United States. In many cases, multinational franchises such as KFC and even some hotels are owned by locals and not Americans, but that does not matter to the mobs, which see nothing but a U.S. symbol.

When an issue such as the Mohammed cartoons, the Bhutto assassination or the release of Raymond Davis spirals into violent protests, the only real precaution that many companies can take is to escape the area and avoid loss of life. The best defense is to use good intelligence in order to learn about the protests in advance, to track them when they occur and then to evacuate personnel before they can be affected by the violence.

U.S. diplomatic facilities and business interests in Pakistan are almost certainly reviewing their contingency plans right now and planning for the worst-case scenario. During such times, vigilance and preparation are vital, as is a constant flow of updated intelligence pertaining to potential demonstrations. Such intelligence can provide time for an evacuation or allow other proactive security measures to be taken. With the current tension between Pakistan and the United States, there might not be much help coming when the next wave of unrest erupts, so keeping ahead of potential protests is critically important.

Read more: The Threat of Civil Unrest in Pakistan and the Davis Case | STRATFOR


Saudi Arabia Contends With the Social Media Challenge

View this document on Scribd
Older Posts »