The American Kafir

2012/04/08

Iran lawmaker: Country can produce nuclear weapons but will never do so

Source FoxNews

Iran lawmaker: Country can produce nuclear weapons but will never do so

| Associated Press

TEHRAN, Iran –  Iran has the knowledge and scientific capability to produce nuclear weapons but will never do so, a prominent lawmaker has said.

Gholamreza Mesbahi Moghadam is a parliamentarian not a government official and his views do not represent the Iranian government’s policy. It however is the first time that such a prominent Iranian politician has publicly stated that Iran has the technological capability to produce a nuclear weapon.

His assertion published on parliament’s website late Friday suggests that Iran is trying to show unity in its political establishment around its often repeated claims that it seeks world-class technological advances including nuclear expertise, but does not want to develop atomic arms as the U.S. and its allies claim.

The statement comes before planned talks beginning next week with the U.S. and other world powers over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

Moghadam said Iran can easily produce the highly enriched uranium that is used to build atomic bombs, but that it is not Tehran’s policy to go that route.

“Iran has the scientific and technological capability to produce (a) nuclear weapon, but will never choose this path,” he said in remarks carried by the parliamentary website icana.ir.

The U.S. and its allies accuse Iran of using its civilian nuclear program as a cover to develop nuclear weapons. Iran denies the charges, saying its program is peaceful and geared toward generating electricity and producing medical radioisotopes to treat cancer patients.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has repeatedly insisted that his country is not seeking nuclear weapons, saying that holding such arms is a sin as well as “useless, harmful and dangerous.”

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has also asserted that if Iran one day decides to build nuclear weapons, it will do so openly and won’t fear anybody. However, he has also emphasized that Iran has no intention to weaponize what he describes as a peaceful nuclear program.

Director of U.S. National Intelligence James Clapper asserted in a January report to the Senate Intelligence Committee that Iran has the means to build a nuclear weapon but has not yet decided to follow through.

U.S. intelligence officials say they generally stand by a 2007 intelligence assessment that asserts Iran stopped comprehensive secret work on developing nuclear arms in 2003. But Britain, France, Germany, Israel and other U.S. allies think such activities have continued past that date, a suspicion shared by the IAEA, which says in recent reports that some isolated and sporadic activities may be ongoing.

However, the IAEA says there is no evidence to prove that Iran’s nuclear materials have been diverted towards weapons.

Iran says it is enriching uranium to about 3.5 percent to produce nuclear fuel for its future reactors and also to around 20 percent to fuel a research reactor that produces medical isotopes to treat cancer patients. Uranium has to be enriched to more than 90 percent to be used for a nuclear weapon.

The U.N. nuclear agency has also confirmed that centrifuges at the Fordo site near Iran’s holy city of Qom are churning out uranium enriched to 20 percent, and says uranium enriched to that level can more quickly be turned into weapons-grade material.

Moghadam, the lawmaker, said that Iran has the means to produce 90-plus percent enrichment.
“There is a possibility for Iran to easily achieve more than 90 percent enrichment,” icana.ir quoted Moghadam as saying.

2012/03/19

Islamic Jihad seeks ‘balance of terror’ with Israel

Article Link YNet News

Islamic Jihad seeks ‘balance of terror’ with Israel

Group’s military wing leader Abu Ibrahim says ‘our rockets are not meant to kill Israelis, but to make them suffer as we do’; claims group in possession of weapons that could hit beyond Ashdod

Gaza militant group Islamic Jihad seeks to create a “balance of terror” with Israel, a senior member of its military wing has told AFP in an exclusive interview.

Speaking shortly after a truce ended a four-day flare-up in violence between Gaza terror groups and Israel, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad’s Al-Quds Brigade hailed the fact that it forced “a million Israelis to hide in shelters.”

The leader, who goes by the nom-de-guerre of Abu Ibrahim, also warned that the Brigades possesses long-range weapons that could hit Tel Aviv and could be used in its next conflict with the Jewish state.

“What we seek with our rockets is not to kill Israelis, but to maintain a balance of terror,” he told AFP during the interview, conducted at a secret location, flanked by armed bodyguards.

“The fact that a million Israelis were stuck inside shelters and suffered as our people do is more important for us than deaths.”

‘PRC operates with full freedom’

The latest violence between Israel and Gaza militants began on March 9, when the Israeli Air Force assassinated the commander of the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC) group.

In response, militants led by the Al-Quds Brigades fired a barrage of rockets into southern Israel over the course of four days, bringing life in much of the region to a standstill.

Around 250 rockets were fired from Gaza, according to Israel, with around 60 of them intercepted by the Iron Dome missile defense system.

The rockets hit throughout southern Israel, with some reaching around 40 kilometers (24 miles) inside the country. One struck just north of Gedera, which is only about 25 kilometers from the center of Tel Aviv, whose metropolitan area is home to nearly half the Jewish state’s population of 7.84 million.

Abu Ibrahim warned that the Brigades had weapons that could hit beyond the town of Ashdod, which lies some 35 kilometers (20 miles) north of Gaza.

“If the occupation targets any leader of any Palestinian group whatsoever or any citizen, the Brigades will respond with force and expand the reach of the response beyond Ashdod,” he said.

The group possessed “thousands” of rockets and had expanded its arsenal by exploiting “the opportunities offered by the (Arab) revolutions, particularly the fall of the Egyptian regime,” he added.

Still, he said, “it is not easy to transport sophisticated weapons into Gaza,” adding that 70% of its rockets “are made locally by a specialized section.”

“We now have guided missiles similar to Grads and we used them during the last conflict.”

Continue Reading The Entire Article at YNet News

Related stories:

2011/12/01

Obama Administration Bans Knowledge of Islam

Source Article Link: FrontPageMag

Obama Administration Bans Knowledge of Islam

By Raymond Ibrahim

The Obama administration’s censoring of photographs of the late Osama bin Laden, lest they “offend” Muslims, is one thing; but what about censoring words, especially those pivotal to U.S. security?

Weeks earlier, the Daily Caller revealed that “the Obama administration was pulling back all training materials used for the law enforcement and national security communities, in order to eliminate all references to Islam that some Muslim groups have claimed are offensive.”

The move comes after complaints from advocacy organizations including the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and others identified as Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the 2004 Holy Land Foundation terror fundraising trial.  In a Wednesday Los Angeles Times op-ed, Muslim PublicAffairs Council (MPAC) president Salam al-Marayati threatened the FBI with a total cutoff of cooperation between American Muslims and law enforcement if the agency failed to revise its law enforcement training materials.  Maintaining the training materials in their current state “will undermine the relationship between law enforcement and the Muslim American community,” al-Marayati wrote.  Multiple online sources detail MPAC’s close alignment with CAIR.  In his op-ed, Al-Marayati demanded that the Justice Department and the FBI “issue a clear and unequivocal apology to the Muslim American community” and “establish a thorough and transparent vetting process in selecting its trainers and materials.”

Accordingly, after discussing the matter with Attorney General Eric Holder, Dwight C. Holton said “I want to be perfectly clear about this: training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for.  They will not be tolerated.”

Even before these Muslim complaints and threats, President Obama alluded to censoring words when he said soon after taking office: “Words matter … because one of the ways we’re going to win this struggle [“war on terror”] is through the battle of [Muslims’] hearts and minds” (followed by oddities like commissioning NASA to make Muslims “feel good” about themselves).

As if there were not already a lamentable lack of study concerning Muslim war doctrine in the curriculum of American military studies—including in the Pentagon and U.S. Army War College—the administration’s more aggressive censorship program will only exacerbate matters.  Last year’s QDR, a strategic document, does not mention anything remotely related to Islam—even as it stresses climate change, which it sees as an “accelerant of instability and conflict” around the world.

This attempt to whitewash Islam certainly has precedents, such as a 2008 government memo that not only warned against “offending,” “insulting,” or being “confrontational” to Muslims, but tried to justify such censorship as follows:

Never use the terms “jihadist”  or “mujahideen” in conversation to describe the terrorists. A mujahed, a holy warrior, is a positive characterization in the context of a just war. In Arabic, jihad means “striving in the path of God” and is used in many contexts beyond warfare. Calling our enemies jihadis and their movement a global jihad unintentionally legitimizes their actions [emphasis added].

Aside from the fact that the above definitions are highly misleading, the notion that the words we use can ever have an impact on what is and is not legitimate for Muslims is ludicrous:  Muslims are not waiting around for Americans or their government—that is, the misguided, the deluded, in a word, the infidel—to define Islam for them. For Muslims, only Sharia determines right and wrong.

The U.S. government needs to worry less about which words appease Muslims and worry more about providing its intelligence community—not to mention its own citizenry—with accurate knowledge concerning the nature of the threat.

Without words related to Islam, how are analysts to make sense of the current conflict?  What are the goals and motivations of the “jihadists”?  What are their methods?  Who might be “radicalizing” them?  Whom are they affiliated to?  Who supports them?  These and a host of other questions are unintelligible without free use of words related to Islam.

Knowledge is inextricably linked to language. The more generic the language, the less precise the knowledge; conversely, the more precise the language, the more precise the knowledge. In the current conflict, to acquire accurate knowledge, which is essential to victory, we need to begin with accurate language.

This means U.S. intelligence analysts and policymakers need to be able to use, and fully appreciate the significance of, words related to Islam—starting with the word “Islam” itself, i.e., submission to a worldview based on Sharia, a code of law antithetical to Western common law. It means the U.S. military needs to begin expounding and studying Islamic war doctrine—without fear of reprisal, such as when counter-terrorism strategist Stephen Coughlin was fired by the Pentagon for focusing on Islamic doctrine and therefore being politically incorrect. In short, it means America’s leadership needs to take that ancient dictum—“Know thy enemy”—seriously.

2011/11/25

“All-American Muslim”: A Little Taqiyya on the Prairie

Source Link: Family Security Matters

“All-American Muslim”: A Little Taqiyya on the Prairie

By Clare M. Lopez

America’s answer to the Canadian CBC TV series, “Little Mosque on the Prairie,” premiered at The Learning Channel (TLC) on 13 November 201l: “All-American Muslim” is airing as an 8-part series styled as a kind of faux-reality show and follows members of five Shi’ite Muslim families of Lebanese descent in Dearborn, Michigan. The idea is to show that these Muslims are just like any other Americans and to dispel what TLC terms “misconceptions, conflicts and differences they face outside — and within — their own community…” Misconceptions about Islam do, in fact, abound; but it is not likely that “All-American Muslim” will do much to clarify how Islamic supremacism and violence against non-believers derive directly from the doctrine, law, and scriptures of Islam itself. That every Muslim believer does not behave in conformance with such fundamental tenets of the faith is obvious and to be acknowledged with relief. Unfortunately, though, television shows that gloss over the reality of Islamic ideology not only obscure the full truth about Islam from non-Muslims who then remain unprepared to defend against its hostile elements, but also leave no space for Muslims who themselves oppose jihadist terrorism, inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims, misogyny, honor killings, the apostasy death penalty, and vicious hudud punishments. This is why the new TLC series might more accurately be called “A Little Taqiyya on the Prairie.” Taqiyya, of course, is the sanctioned Islamic practice of deceit and dissimulation to defend or promote Islam.

Part of the whitewash at “All-American Muslim” involves some of the program stars themselves. One of the American-born leads, Suehaila Amen, is a devout Shi’ite Muslim who wears the hijab and, just days after the 9/11 attacks, wrote a letter to a Lebanese newspaper, declaring Lebanon her “homeland” and America as a place where “everyone is your enemy.” It is unclear whether Amen knew at the time of the deep involvement of the Iranian terror proxy, Lebanese Hizballah, in the 9/11 attacks. Amen serves as 1st Vice President of the Lebanese American Heritage Club of Dearborn, MI, which has sponsored openly antisemitic, anti-Israel, and pro-Hizballah rallies and whose founder, Ali Jawad, was fired from the 2008 John McCain presidential campaign because of his alleged ties to Hizballah. On 21 June 2011, the Club held a boisterous rally in support of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, even as that dictator’s security forces were gunning down unarmed protestors in the streets. Club members also rallied against former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak and cheered his ouster in February 2011, an event that cleared the way for the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood to power there. Amen also organized fundraising banquets in 2010 and 2011 for the Michigan Chapter of the CAIR Action Network; according to the U.S. Department of Justice, CAIR is the U.S. branch of the HAMAS terror organization, itself an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.

The program’s story line is also problematic on multiple levels. It at once promotes the all-American image of Islam that TLC is looking for and yet subtly reinforces basic Islamic fundamentals. For instance, one of the main characters is the former Roman Catholic, Jeff McDermott, who converts to Islam so that he can marry Shadia Amen, Suehaila’s sister and daughter of one of the five families featured in the program. Not made clear is whether McDermott actually understands that his new faith commands him to wage jihad against his former one. Nor does the program address what would happen to him if he ever has second thoughts about his conversion or decides he’s made a mistake and wants to return to the Catholic faith. Islamic law (shariah) prescribes the death penalty for apostates.

The show’s setting in Dearborn, MI is meant to depict one of the largest Muslim communities in the U.S. and the site of the largest mosque in the country in an unrealistically rosy light. What the producers take care not to divulge to their viewers is the reality that Dearborn is a hotbed of Islamic jihadist support, where in 2009 the FBI shot it out on the streets with jihadis involved in a plot to overthrow the U.S. government, shouts of “Allahu Akbar” are hurled at Christians, and shariah is gaining ground. This is how taqiyya works to obscure what Islam would prefer not be publicized while the air-brushed version gets all the reviews. “A Little Taqiyya on the Prairie” would be a much more accurate name for a show that falls so far short, as this one does, of presenting a truly honest depiction of Islam in America.

America’s answer to the Canadian CBC TV series, “Little Mosque on the Prairie,” premiered at The Learning Channel (TLC) on 13 November 201l: “All-American Muslim” is airing as an 8-part series styled as a kind of faux-reality show and follows members of five Shi’ite Muslim families of Lebanese descent in Dearborn, Michigan.

The idea is to show that these Muslims are just like any other Americans and to dispel what TLC terms “misconceptions, conflicts and differences they face outside — and within — their own community. . . .” Misconceptions about Islam do, in fact, abound; but it is not likely that “All-American Muslim” will do much to clarify how Islamic supremacism and violence against non-believers derive directly from the doctrine, law, and scriptures of Islam itself.

That every Muslim believer does not behave in conformance with such fundamental tenets of the faith is obvious and to be acknowledged with relief. Unfortunately, though, television shows that gloss over the reality of Islamic ideology not only obscure the full truth about Islam from non-Muslims who then remain unprepared to defend against its hostile elements, but also leave no space for Muslims who themselves oppose jihadist terrorism, inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims, misogyny, honor killings, the apostasy death penalty, and vicious hudud punishments. This is why the new TLC series might more accurately be called “A Little Taqiyya on the Prairie.” Taqiyya, of course, is the sanctioned Islamic practice of deceit and dissimulation to defend or promote Islam.

Part of the whitewash at “All-American Muslim” involves some of the program stars themselves. One of the American-born leads, Suehaila Amen, is a devout Shi’ite Muslim who wears the hijab and, just days after the 9/11 attacks, wrote a letter to a Lebanese newspaper, declaring Lebanon her “homeland” and America as a place where “everyone is your enemy.” It is unclear whether Amen knew at the time of the deep involvement of the Iranian terror proxy, Lebanese Hizballah, in the 9/11 attacks. Amen serves as 1st Vice President of the Lebanese American Heritage Club of Dearborn, MI, which has sponsored openly antisemitic, anti-Israel, and pro-Hizballah rallies and whose founder, Ali Jawad, was fired from the 2008 John McCain presidential campaign because of his alleged ties to Hizballah.

On 21 June 2011, the Club held a boisterous rally in support of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, even as that dictator’s security forces were gunning down unarmed protestors in the streets. Club members also rallied against former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak and cheered his ouster in February 2011, an event that cleared the way for the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood to power there. Amen also organized fundraising banquets in 2010 and 2011 for the Michigan Chapter of the CAIR Action Network; according to the U.S. Department of Justice, CAIR is the U.S. branch of the HAMAS terror organization, itself an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.

The Imam featured in the series, Husham Al- Husainy, who marries Jeff, the Catholic who converted to Islam, and Shadia Amen was actually featured on Sean Hannity’s program on Fox News back in 2007. Al-Husainy is a radical Muslim who refused to answer Hannity’s questions regarding Hisballah and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and instead went on an angry ranting spree.

The program’s story line is also problematic on multiple levels. It at once promotes the all-American image of Islam that TLC is looking for and yet subtly reinforces basic Islamic fundamentals. For instance, one of the main characters is the former Roman Catholic, Jeff McDermott, who converts to Islam so that he can marry Shadia Amen, Suehaila’s sister and daughter of one of the five families featured in the program. Not made clear is whether McDermott actually understands that his new faith commands him to wage jihad against his former one. Nor does the program address what would happen to him if he ever has second thoughts about his conversion or decides he’s made a mistake and wants to return to the Catholic faith. Islamic law (shariah) prescribes the death penalty for apostates.

The show’s setting in Dearborn, MI is meant to depict one of the largest Muslim communities in the U.S. and the site of the largest mosque in the country in an unrealistically rosy light. What the producers take care not to divulge to their viewers is the reality that Dearborn is a hotbed of Islamic jihadist support, where in 2009 the FBI shot it out on the streets with jihadis involved in a plot to overthrow the U.S. government, shouts of “Allahu Akbar” are hurled at Christians, and shariah is gaining ground. This is how taqiyya works to obscure what Islam would prefer not be publicized while the air-brushed version gets all the reviews. “A Little Taqiyya on the Prairie” would be a much more accurate name for a show that falls so far short, as this one does, of presenting a truly honest depiction of Islam in America.

Family Security Matters Contributor Clare M. Lopez is a strategic policy and intelligence expert. Lopez began her career as an operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), serving domestically and abroad for 20 years in a variety of assignments. Now a private consultant, Lopez is a Sr. Fellow at the Center for Security Policy and Vice President of the Intelligence Summit. She is also a senior fellow at the Clarion Fund.

2011/11/24

The Islamic Feminism of All-American Muslim

Filed under: Creeping Shari'a, Mainstream Media, Stealth Jihad, Taqiyya — - @ 7:01 pm

Source Link: FrontPageMag

The Islamic Feminism of All-American Muslim

By Daniel Greenfield

Once upon a time there used to be billboards for Virginia Slims cigarettes with the slogans, “You’ve come a long way, baby.” The billboards are gone now, but in their place are billboards for All-American Muslim which substitute the hijab for the cigarette. The same left which was outraged at a company marketing cigarettes as a form of female empowerment is completely supportive of marketing 7th century Islamic misogyny as female empowerment.

“The Fast and the Furious,” the second episode of TLC’s All-American Muslim, plays out like a hijab commercial, along with a pitch for the Ramadan fast. But what is missing is any acknowledgement of the violent means by which the hijab is imposed on Muslim and non-Muslim women around the world. For many women, even in North America, the consequences of not wearing the hijab can be fatal.

Sixteen-year-old Aqsa Parvaz was strangled to death by her father because she refused to wear a hijab… not somewhere in Pakistan, but in Ontario. In that same city, Mohammad Shafia killed his three daughters, ranging in age from 13 to 19, over their refusal to wear hijabs. There is no way to know if Virginia Slims or the hijab killed more women, but we do know that today it is unacceptable to show women smoking, but it is acceptable to promote treating them as chattel.

All-American Muslim had set out to show that Muslims weren’t terrorists, that they are just the neighbors next door. What a pity then that the second episode features a terrorist supporting cleric providing hijab counseling to one of the show’s stars.

Imam Abdul Latif Berry spoke at a 2009 commemoration ceremony for the Ayatollah Khomeini which took place at his own Islamic Institute of Knowledge. And he’s also quite a feminist. His website features an opinion that a husband can deny his wife a divorce if she does not return the dowry and in another appears to justify marital rape.

So, the wife must obey her husband by giving him his physical rights which he asks from her; she has to make herself available to him when he wants her; she has no right to abstain unless she has her period, a medical condition, or a difficulty that keeps her from responding favorably to him. If he demands his right and obliges her, this would not be rape in the Islamic Law, but something basic in the concept of marriage contract. Otherwise, what would marriage be without mating?

What about beating your wife? Imam Abdul Latif Berry has the answer for how to deal with a wife who won’t perform her “marital duties.”

When all peaceful methods have been exhausted and attempts to fix the problem have failed, and if this is the only means for reform, practice disciplinary confrontation with the rebellious wife. Again, Islam poses extreme conditions on this last step. The confrontation must not lead to injury or leave bruises. It must not be done in revenge or be based on hatred which trespasses the set limits, but instead be prescribed like the bitter medicine with calculated dosages to speed reform while still protect from harming the self and others.

What about marrying thirteen year olds?

The girl’s menstrual period is a natural sign that her body qualifies her for fertility, pregnancy, or reproduction. Islam does not contradict the natural aspect of life. Therefore, it does not oppose marriage at a younger age when the girl is naturally ready. However, American civil laws prohibit such marriage but could allow it in some states with parental consent and with the approval of a civil judge after verifying that the girl is qualified to wed.

This is the Islamic feminism that lurks behind the scenes of the placid life of All-American Muslim’s Dearborn, Michigan. When the cameras stop rolling, this is the religious authority that governs the lives of the “All-American Muslims” on the show. A man who praises the Butcher of Tehran and treats marital rape and wife beating as legitimate forms of behavior.

How does TLC feel about promoting a man who preaches such ugly doctrines? We’ll never know until they are actually challenged on it and until the show’s sponsors, which include Wal-Mart, Home Depot and Clinique are actually called upon to explain their relationship with the program.

The presence of Imam Abdul Latif Berry peels back the veil to reveal what is really underneath the smiling faces in their hijabs — a misogynistic religious authority that uses the Koran to demean and subjugate women. And Berry’s presence is a shadow on more than just the episode; it is a shadow on the entire premise of All-American Muslim.

All-American Muslim pretends that we can best learn about Islam, not by looking at a Koran, but at the ordinary lives of Muslims. But devout Muslims are not in charge of their own lives. It is men like Imam Berry who control their lives by controlling their religion.

Americans have grown used to taking decentralized religious authority for granted, but in Islam that is not the case; religious authority is not decentralized. Everything from deciding whether to beat your wife or to divorce her depends on the will and whim of men like Imam Berry.

We cannot understand what Islam in America means without also understanding the role played by Islamic religious authorities who are transforming their mosques into the nucleus of a theocracy. And so by the words of the Koran women are beaten, young girls are married off to older men and Sharia courts reduce women to the status of second-class citizens. All of this happens under the red, white and blue, and all of it is ignored or brushed aside in the name of tolerance.

There are two Islams in America. The ideal Islam and the real Islam. The ideal Islam is the religion of peace that so many Americans wish it could be. But the real Islam is the one that defines rules for beating your wife. And to look away from that Islam is to look away from the honor-killings and the subjugation of women.

2011/10/29

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

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

Source Link: AndrewBostom.org

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

October 27th, 2011 by Andrew Bostom |

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

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

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

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

Ballard noted,

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

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

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

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

2011/06/13

The Choice Is Ours: What will it be?

Source Link: Family Security Matters

A timeless paean for peace, written millennia ago by the biblical Jewish prophet Isaiah, appears ironically on the entrance wall of the building in New York City housing that most unholy, immoral and unjust organization: the United Nations. The delegates from every part of the world walk by it but see and understand it not. The words include:

And they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore. Isaiah 2:4.

On the other hand, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who do not.”

In a perfect world, Isaiah’s words should be paramount. But this is not a perfect world; it never has been. Jefferson knew it, and it may be millennia before it becomes such a world as envisioned by Isaiah. All we can do is strive mightily to bring the world to a better place than it is now. But the first years of the 21st century do not augur well for the human race. It is, therefore, only wise and prudent to maintain personal and national defense against all who harbor ill will and genocidal ambitions against us.

There is suffocating hypocrisy in the United Nations where up is down, day is night and a veritable Kafkaesque worldview exists. There is towering deceit and mendacity in the international corridors of power. Few nations can be trusted. Most act in their own best interests, despite agreements between them. Atrocities in Syria, Libya, the Congo, the Sudan, Iraq, Egypt, Nigeria, Iran, Pakistan and Somalia, to name a very few of the world’s benighted lands, make the very angels in heaven weep.

Liberals and the all-pervasive and pernicious Left would ban guns for personal and legitimate self-defense if they could; and they try mightily to do so. Similarly, the Left eviscerates national defense whenever it comes into power. In the 1930s, Britain let down its guard by slashing its military, despite all the clear and present warnings of German rearmament and the strident war cry spewing from the mouth of Adolf Hitler and his adoring German Nazi sycophants.

Winston Churchill, forced into the political wilderness, saw clearly what was coming and he, almost alone, pleaded in the House of Commons for the British nation to wake up before it was too late. For his efforts he was demonized as a war monger for far too long. And we all know how things turned out: That is those of us who still think.

So do we all have to go forward into the past? Do we all have to decry and vilify those who today warn us against the coming new war; a war that will transcend in human depravity even the horrors unleashed by fascism, Nazism and communism. It is coming, and it is the same ultimate horrific combination of a religion wrapped in an ideology that the same Winston Churchill warned about many years before the rise of the National Socialists (Nazism) and Communism.

Churchill called it, Mohammedanism, and he wrote the following in his book, The River War:

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.

— Sir Winston Spencer Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).

Not only Winston Churchill saw this fundamental danger to Judeo-Christian civilization but so did other luminaries. Here is what John Quincy Adams wrote about the same 7th century force, and its relentless war against non-Muslims:

“In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, […..] Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST- TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE…. Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant … While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.”

The twelve hundred year war that Adams wrote of continues today with greater ferocity, fuelled as it is by vast inflows of capital derived from oil. Atrocities committed in the name of Islam go hand in hand with a stealthy infiltration of Sharia law into every facet of life in the West.

Vast sums of money befoul European and American universities, enslaving their ability to attain and maintain the moral high ground. Instead, insidious examples of moral equivalence abounds in what Michael Savage describes as the “colleges of lower learning.” Anti-Semitism corrodes the very fabric of the halls of academia as one beguiled and besmirched student body after another falls victim to the malignant lies and poison of the immensely well-funded Arab and Muslim student organizations whose limitless coffers are enriched by each of us every time we fill our cars at the gas pump.

The students are the leaders of tomorrow. With few exceptions they are now infected, perhaps terminally, with an aberrant hatred of Jews and of Israel. Remember, the Jews are the canaries in the coal mine and whatever befalls them, eventually befalls all. Everything points to a new dark age with the stench of Arab and Muslim oil suffocating all clarity of thought and, perhaps, finally ushering in the victory that the followers of Islam have sought over those they have impudently called “infidels” since the 7th century. Remember also, even for those who yet mock the Bible, Genesis 12:3 remains an everlasting reproach to those who would curse embattled Israel and its people.

Churchill, Adams, Jefferson all understood the ever present and mortal Islamic threat. They spoke with conviction and knowledge in an age where the debilitating and impoverishing insanity of political correctness had not yet arrived to stifle free speech. There are those today who also warn us. But must we be fated yet again to ignore them and walk blindly into the darkest night of all?

© Victor Sharpe

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Victor Sharpe is a freelance writer, contributing editor, and author of Volumes One and Two of “Politicide: The attempted murder of the Jewish state.”

2011/03/31

America: Beware Giving in to the False Concept of Islamophobia

Source INN
Written By Dr. Phyllis Chesler

We are drowning in anti-Israel propaganda, and still it never stops coming.

Simultaneously, the “Palestinian narrative” appears to us as if in a dream, over and over again, always slightly surreal and yet overly familiar. By now the “Palestinian narrative” is a brand and we have all been hypnotized.  This is not surprising.

For more than 40 years, the Soviet, Arab, and Saudi Lobbies, eventually joined by the Iranian Lobby, have funded the demonization of Israel and the popularization of Palestine. The condemnation of Israel for crimes it has never committed (“ethnic cleansing,” “genocide,” “apartheid”) and the call for a Palestinian one-state solution is echoed, similarly, in films, books, poems, academic papers and lectures; we see and hear this on television, at conferences, at campus demonstrations, in the halls of the United Nations, the European Union, in Parliaments, and, of course, in the Arab and Islamic worlds.

By now, the “Palestinian narrative” has effectively rendered Jews unsafe and unwelcome in Europe. Jews who look “Jewish” or “religious” are not safe on the streets of certain European countries such as England, France, Holland, Belgium, and Scandinavia. European pagan, Christian, and Nazi-era Judeophobia has found a new outlet in the obsessive demonization of Israel, the only Jewish state. This is also the way Europeans hope to appease Muslim immigrants who live in Europe but in parallel universes, who are hostile to the Western enterprise, and who demand the right to be brutally intolerant as a Western civil right.

This same false Palestinian narrative has morphed into a belief that all Muslims—who are, themselves, the largest practitioners of religious apartheid in the world, and who persecute all non-Muslims—are, as Muslims, being persecuted in the West. This may be because Islam is not (yet) dominant in the West.

In my opinion, the success of the “Palestinian” narrative is what has led to the unquestioning acceptance of the false concept of “Islamophobia.”

Those Europeans who have challenged the idea of “Islamophobia” and who have told the truth about Islam in Europe—or who have chosen to leave the Religion of Peace—have put themselves in harm’s way. Either they are sued for blasphemy or defamation—or they must live in exile and with bodyguards. Some have been murdered, even butchered.

What about America? Surely that is not true here.

In 2008, America’s FBI found that 66.1% of religious hate crimes targeted Jews, but only 7.5% of religious hate crimes targeted Muslims. On March 29, 2011, The Center for Security Policy released a revised edition of their groundbreaking longitudinal study, Religious Bias Crimes 2000-2009: Muslim, Jewish and Christian Victims — Debunking the Myth of a Growing Trend in Muslim Victimization. (I have provided a PDF Copy of this study at the bottom of this article) It is based on annual FBI statistics and contradicts the assertions that religious bias crimes against Muslims have increased in America and that the alleged cause is widespread “Islamophobia.” In fact, the study shows that religious bias crimes — also known as hate crimes — against Muslim Americans, have remained relatively low with a downward trend since 2001, and are significantly less than the numbers of bias crimes against Jewish victims.

According to the Center’s analysis, in 2009, Jewish victims of hate crimes outnumbered Muslim victims by more than 8 to 1 (1,132 Jewish victims to 132 Muslim victims). From 2000 through 2009, for every one hate crime incident against a Muslim, there were six hate crime incidents against Jewish victims (1,580 Muslim incidents versus 9,692 Jewish incidents). Even in 2001 when religious bias crimes against Muslims increased briefly for a nine-week period, total anti-Muslim incidents, offenses and victims remained approximately half of the corresponding anti-Jewish totals.”

Nevertheless, American Muslims have alleged rampant “Islamophobia” in America. Countless number of Talking Heads have taken this allegation seriously.

Thus, it is not surprising that CNN just aired a documentary which was titled Not Welcome: The Muslims Next Door.

On camera, the Muslims are all so very…peaceful. There is not one angry or hate-filled Muslim man on camera. Not one. Despite the fact that we have seen hundreds, possibly thousands of angry, frightening, violent Muslim demonstrations, including prayer services, all across America and across the Islamic world, and many hate-filled captured Islamic and Palestinian terrorists on camera, CNN’s chosen Muslim-American men of Murfreesboro, Tennessee, including the Sheikh of the planned Islamic Center, are all soft-spoken, emotional, tearful, non-violent. Except for the Sheikh’s American wifewho converted to Islam, the Muslims on camera are all innocent, good, non-white people.

Soledad O’Brien, CNN’s special anchor, likes them, and, as someone with Afro-Cuban as well as Caucasian Australian parents, perhaps she even identifies with them. In any event, O’Brien questions them very politely, sympathetically.

However, the white, Christian-Americans on camera—all of them, without exception—are portrayed as hateful, cruel, insidious, dislikable, selfish, phobic, and no doubt racist. O’Brien interviews them with barely disguised hostility and contempt.

At issue, according to CNN’s website are America’s post-9/11 fears about radical Islam, terrorism, and “Sharia Law.”  As CNN sees it:

“Murfreesboro, Tennessee has just over 100,000 people, 140+ churches, and one mosque. For decades, Muslims have lived and prayed in Murfreesboro without incident, but last May, when the Muslim community gained county approval to build a new 52,000 square foot Islamic center in town, hundreds of Murfreesboro residents took to the streets in protest…. O’Brien chronicles the dramatic fight to block the mosque project in Murfreesboro and the fight over religious freedom; a fight that would ultimately include protests, vandalism, arson and an explosive lawsuit that would involve the U.S. Department of Justice.”

What’s wrong with Murfreesboro is that it is too damn Christian and too damn white. It is not diverse enough.It is not Middle Eastern enough.

O’Brien, herself a Harvard graduate, dresses as a modern American woman. She has absolutely no comment to make about the fact that most of the adult Muslim women on camera are all wearing long, shapeless dresses and severe hijab—while the Muslim men are all dressed in modern, American style. The Sheikh’s wife insists that women are not “oppressed” under Sharia Law, that she is not oppressed, that no Muslim woman she knows has ever been oppressed, etc.

Interestingly enough, the Sheikh has a foreign accent. One wonders why so many Sheiks have been imported from the Middle East to America. Asra Nomani is a religious Muslim feministwho was born in India and raised in America. Her father founded the mosque of Morgantown, West Virginia. Nomani tried to persuade her mosque to become more woman-friendly. She failed. In a PBSdocumentary about this story, Nomani claimed that when Arab Muslims joined her mosque, her battle to bring it into the 21st century failed. On camera, she says:

“Extremists — mainly Arabs — led by one rather physically and verbally violent Egyptian, Hany Ammar, took over. At that point, I began hearing really scary sermons. An unchaste woman is worthless. The West is on a bad path. We must hate those who hate us. Women should be silent in a mosque. Jews are descendants of apes and pigs.”

Incredibly, on camera, Ammar says: “I pray to Allah that you be punished. May Allah get revenge for Ammar.” Ammar is also heard, but not seen, physically attacking a young moderate Muslim man. Ammar’s wife Mona is even more conservative, more aggressive than he is. She minces no words in expressing her contempt, even hatred for Nomani. Like certain kinds of religious women, she is even more zealous in upholding the patriarchal status quo, more aggressively empowered to strike down any other woman who dares challenge male supremacy or Islamic gender apartheid.

Ultimately, Ammar tries to ban Nomani from the mosque. Eventually, both she and her family leave.

Why do I even bring this in? Because Murfreesboro’s Sheikh Ossama Mohamed Bahloul is also a foreign-born Arab Muslim. All this means is that he may (or may not) be a religious Muslim supremacist or an Islamist. Bahloul is an Egyptian-born graduate of Al-Azhar University in Cairo. He was the Imam of the Islamic Society of Southern Texas, in Corpus Christi, and then the visiting Imam for the Islamic Center of Irving, Texas.

Sheikh Bahloul is not a terrorist, nor did he have anything to do with the trial of the Holy Land Foundation, an organization which raised money for Hamas and was based in a suburb of Dallas, Texas. However, he was summoned from Egypt to work in Texas, and left for Murfreesboro a year after the Holy Land trial began. Texas is known as a hotbed of increasingly fundamentalist Islam. Perhaps Bahloul was chosen for his radical beliefs and for his ability to mask them as something else. After all, his wife is dressed as if they live in Cairo, not in America.

To me, this is a sign and signal of a desire to live in a parallel universe, one in which Muslims are taught that they are superior to non-Muslims; one in which Muslims are taught to hate Jews and other infidels;one in which Muslims are taught that Sharia Law is, indeed, superior to American law. That is why CNN invites Harvard Professor Noah Feldman on. He assures people that “Our constitution prohibits any religion from becoming the law of the land.”

It does. But look at how Sharia law and/or Islamic custom has usurped the law of the land both in Europe and in America, where female genital mutilation, child arranged marriage, polygamy, the burqa and honor killings are pandemic.

An Egyptian father killed his two American daughters in Irving, Texas. Yaser Said came from Egypt, married his American-born wife when she was fifteen years old, honor murdered their daughters in 2008, and then fled. He has yet to be found.

A series of attacks were perpetrated against the building of the mosque. “Not Welcome” was spray painted on the sign which announced the mosque opening, arson was perpetrated, a lawsuit was brought. The graffiti and the arson are unacceptable. But no one who opposes the mosque is given a fair hearing or the slightest respect on camera. And, Sheikh Bahloul may be as clever as he is soft-spoken. In a very emotional but determined voice, pitched precisely to gain sympathy for his causehe says:  “This is America. This is too much.”

Ah, so the Egyptian-born Sheikh understands America and fully knows what his rights are here. Funny, he only arrived here post 9/11. Actually, for all I know, he could have arrived here sooneror more recently. None of his many biographies and interviews share this information with us.

Is he, perhaps, asecret lover of Zion, an admirer of the American way of life, a Sufi-style peaceful Sunni Muslim? He graduated from the most prominent school of Islamic learning in the Sunni world. If he is really a man for the 21st century, he will have to take some very prominent and public stands which prove that this is so.



Phyllis Chesler, Ph.D is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women’s Studies at City University of New York. She is an author, psychotherapist and an expert courtroom witness. She has lectured and organized political, legal, religious and human rights campaigns in the United States and in Canada, Europe, the Middle East and the Far East.

Dr. Chesler’s thirteen books and thousands of articles and speeches have inspired people on many diverse issues. Her books include: Women and Madness; Women, Money and Power; About Men; With Child: A Diary of Motherhood; Mothers on Trial: The Battle for Children and Custody; Sacred Bond: The Legacy of Baby M; Patriarchy: Notes of an Expert Witness; Feminist Foremothers in Women’s Studies, Psychology, and Mental Health; Letters to a Young Feminist; Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman; Women of the Wall: Claiming Sacred Ground at Judaism’s Holy Site; The New Anti-Semitism. The Current Crisis and What We Must Do About It; and The Death of Feminism. What’s Next in the Struggle for Women’s Freedom.

To subscribe to the Phyllis Chesler mailing list, go to http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/list_subscribe.php


View this document on Scribd

2011/03/26

Not In My Name

Source Link: FamilySecurityMatters

Written By Shari Goodman

While speaking to a young Jewish journalist from our local Jewish paper, he mentioned that his office staff will soon be meeting with the leadership of MPAC, (Muslim Public Affairs Council) a Muslim Brotherhood affiliated Islamic front group. He wondered what questions should be asked of them. That evening I could barely sleep. My adrenalin was racing as I thought of the numerous questions that should be posed by not only Jewish American leadership, but by our leaders in the halls of government. In today’s atmosphere of inter-faith kumbayas, would we not be better served if today’s leaders had the courage to ask the tough questions?

Question 1: Why do Muslims follow an Anti-Semitic doctrine that refers to Jews as the “sons of pigs and apes” and why should we Jews respect a doctrine that calls for our demise? In the Hadith Muhammad said: ‘The time [of judgment] will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews and kill them; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: Oh, Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him!” (Bukhari 4.52.176 & 177, and 4.56.791.)

Question 2: Why are the nearly 300 verses that advocate violence towards non-believers not purged from the Koran?

Question 3: Since Taqiyya (deception) is permissable within Islam, how can we in the West trust what you say?

Question 4: The Koran states that Sharia Law supersedes all other laws. Do you agree with the Koran? And if you disagree, how can we trust that you are not practicing Taqiyya?

Question 5: Why has there been no fatwa or decree issued by an Islamic cleric against Osama Bin Laden?

Question 6: Why has there not been a decree or fatwa issued by an Islamic cleric against those Muslims who commit acts of terrorism against the non-believers?

Question 7: We see mass organized street protests against the offenders of Islam. Why have we not seen any massive organized demonstrations by the Muslim community against terrorism committed by Muslims here at home in the name of Islam? A demonstration of “NOT IN MY NAME” would have eased the fears of millions of Americans, but such demonstrations have not been forthcoming.

Question 8: The Muslim Student Association has wreaked havoc on our college campuses against not only Israel, but Jewish students and Jewish organizations have been the target of Muslim wrath. What has MPAC done to address and alleviate the assault on Israel and Jews?

Question 9: Many of our elite universities are the beneficiaries of millions of dollars of Saudi oil money in exchange for biased Middle East public policy departments hostile to the Jewish State of Israel. Do you condone such policy and if not, have you taken a public stand against such practice?

Question 10: The Hamas Charter calls for the destruction of Israel. Do you agree with that Charter? If not, then what steps have you taken to influence Hamas leadership to give up that quest? Any evidence to support your claims…..press releases, letters, etc.?

Question 11: Anti-Semitism today is primarily emanating from the Muslim World. A leading Egyptian Islamic cleric Yusuf al Qaradawi has recently called for the use of violence against Jews and the United States. Have you publicly denounced his comments?

Question 12: The Anti-Semitism we are now witnessing in Europe, not seen since the days of pre-World War II, is a direct correlation to the influx of Islamic immigration to that continent. Is Europe providing a glimpse of what is in store for American Jewry as Muslim continue their influx here at home?

Question 13: Why do Muslim nations prohibit the construction of churches and synagogues within their midst while you continue to build mosques funded by Saudi money here in the United States?

Question 14: Islamic textbooks published with Saudi money are being used here in Islamic schools. Anti-Semitic material has been found in these textbooks. Do you monitor what is being taught and can we see a copy of the textbooks?

Question 15: When we look at a map of the world and the numerous conflicts throughout the globe, we note that just about all of the conflicts are between Muslims and their non-believing neighbors. In India, Thailand, Chechnya, Africa, Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt, etc. we are witnessing the slaughter of Jews, Christians, and Hindus. Consequently, should we in the West not be weary of the danger Muslim immigration poses to the rest of us here at home?

The questions noted must be asked and answered. Words alone are hollow without demonstrable deeds. It is those deeds that shall determine whether we in the West can rest assured that we have nothing to fear from the Islamists among us, and it is only then when we can begin the Kumbaya.

Family Security Matters Contributor Shari Goodman is Chapter Leader at Calabasas-West Valley ACT! For America, Calabasas, Ca. The views expressed here are hers and do not necessarily represent the views of ACT! For America or of Family Security Matters.

2011/03/25

Palestinian Territories: Fayyad Emphasizes Deadline For Formation Of State

“Fayyad’s two-year “Ending the Occupation, Establishing the State”

Just more taqiyya, the Palestinian Government, Hamas and Hizbullah will NEVER recognize Israel as a State. Who is really the Occupier? The Jews have lived in the area for over 3500 years, long before there was even a Religion Ideology called Islam.

“Fayyad said Israel’s settlement expansion policy and military incursions into Palestinian-run West Bank”

My answer to this is the same as above and Fayyad will do nothing about mortars and rockets being propelled into the State of Israel, does he really expect Israel not to protect her citizens??

Source Link: Stratfor

It is important that Israel end its occupation of the West Bank by September, Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad told U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on March 25, DPA reported. Fayyad emphasized to Gates the importance of meeting the September deadline put forth in Fayyad’s two-year “Ending the Occupation, Establishing the State” plan. Fayyad said Israel’s settlement expansion policy and military incursions into Palestinian-run West Bank cities are undermining Palestinian efforts to stabilize the area. Gates emphasized the U.S. commitment to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

2011/02/23

Allen West Tells CAIR “Don’t Blow Smoke Up My Butt”

Filed under: CAIR, Muslim Brotherhood, Radical Islam, Taqiyya — Tags: — - @ 2:38 pm

Ya Gotta Love Allen West. He Tells It Like It Is!!!! Been There Done That CAIR and a Whole Lot More!!! W

 

2011/02/16

The Voice of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood

Islam’s Spiritual ‘Dear Abby’

By Alexander Smoltczyk

He is a hypermarket of dogma, dispensing advice on subjects ranging from mother’s milk to suicide bombing. But few have as much influence on Sunni Muslims as the Muslim televangelist Youssef al-Qaradawi. He says what the Muslim Brotherhood in Egpyt thinks — and he provides clues to how they might act.

This man is a word machine, a one-man talk show that leaves no subject unexamined. Youssef al-Qaradawi has to talk: about former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, about mothers’ milk banks, and about the right of Palestinian women to blow themselves up.

He is a driven man. There are so many decisions to be made in this godforsaken modern age, and yet there is only one mufti, only one Islamic scholar like Qaradawi, who knew the Koran by heart by the time he was 10, only one man who can help the faithful understand the world.

Qaradawi is the father figure of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, the country’s best-organized opposition group. The Brotherhood is sure to play a part in deciding what path Egypt will now take.

The Islamist group asked Qaradawi to be their leader in 2002, but he turned them down. Such a position would have been too limiting. He has a different mission. He feels compelled to talk.

The Al-Jazeera television network has been broadcasting Qaradawi’s program “Shariah and Life” every Sunday for the past 15 years. Some 60 million Muslims watch him as he talks imploringly about the genocide in Gaza or the unique dangers of female masturbation (“the hymen is very sensitive and could tear”).

‘Every Last One of Them’

Qaradawi advocates establishing a “United Muslim Nations” as a contemporary form of the caliphate and the only alternative to the hegemony of the West. He hates Israel and would love to take up arms himself. In one of his sermons, he asked God “to kill the Jewish Zionists, every last one of them.”

In January 2009, he said: “Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by [Adolf] Hitler.”

Will this man encourage his brothers in Cairo to uphold the peace treaty with Israel, should the Muslim Brotherhood become part of a government now that Mubarak has resigned?

The 84-year-old is the president of the International Association of Muslim Scholars and the European Council for Fatwa and Research. He has written more than 120 books and penned countless doctrines, which he distributes internationally via his website IslamOnline.net.

He is a blend of pope and service hotline, a spiritual “Dear Abby” for all instances of doubt in Muslim life.

Should a mothers’ milk bank be established? Especially since the Koran forbids marriage between two people who were nursed by the same woman? “Yes,” says Qaradawi, pointing out that the Koran’s prohibition of incest applies only to the mother’s breast, not its contents.

Hypermarket of Dogmas

He talks about everything, which makes him exhibit A for anyone seeking to demonize Islam. A justification for every stupidity can be found in Qaradawi’s words, as long as one searches long enough. On the other hand, Muslims refer to the search for the appropriate dogma as “fatwa shopping.” To them, Qaradawi is a hypermarket of dogmas.

During a visit to London, then Mayor Ken Livingstone asked the sheikh how he felt about the rights of homosexuals. “He told me that he was against attacks on homosexuals,” Livingstone recalls. But the mufti isn’t opposed to 100 lashes for gays and lesbians if that is the punishment imposed by a Sharia judge, at least according to statements he has made on his program.

It is the responsibility of any scholar to lead the faithful, and only the scholar can interpret the scriptures correctly. This is Qaradawi’s mission.

He attended Al-Azhar University in Cairo, where he met Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. Banna offered an Islamic alternative to the alleged ills of modern life: corruption and gambling, insolent women and provocative writings, alcohol and the neglect of the poorest members of society. In a word: godlessness.

Former Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser imprisoned the sheikh three times because of his Islamist activities. In 1961, Qaradawi went into exile in Qatar, where he still lives today. With the protection of the Emir of Qatar, Qaradawi was able to build his fatwa empire, a realm of schools and various forms of media. “We too are modern,” he said in a SPIEGEL interview, “and we too benefit from the great inventions of the West, from the revolution of the information age.”

Equal Rights

The title of a study recently published about Qaradawi in Denmark refers to him as the first “global mufti.” Qaradawi specialist Jakob Skovgaard-Petersen believes that the TV imam was behind the protests following the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper — unrest which led to the Danish embassy in Beirut being set on fire. The sheikh has been barred from entering the United States since 1999.

The imam has also developed a reputation for himself as a moderate. Many see him as a symbol of an enlightened Islam. When speaking to the Western media, in particular, Qaradawi likes to point to Muslims’ tolerance of non-Muslims and condemns the attacks of al-Qaida.

He also speaks out against the systematic castigation of wives. He calls the practice unwise, saying: “Blows are not effective with every woman, but they are helpful with some.” In other cases, the sheikh insists on equal rights. For example, he says, a woman does not have to ask her husband’s permission to blow herself up in an Israeli café.

Compared with this guardian of the faith, Pope Benedict XVI is positively enlightened.

Otherwise, however, the two elderly men have a few things in common. Qaradawi and the pope were born within the same six months from each other, both in rural areas, one in Lower Egypt and the other in Upper Bavaria. Both feel that the Western world is godforsaken. Both have written enough to fill an entire theological library. And both are determined not to be what they are perceived to be: stern teachers. Qaradawi says that he merely wants to offer “alleviation” in a world of confusion. Benedict XVI says more or less the same thing.

Both Devout and Modern

But many feel that the TV imam is more dangerous than those like the Taliban who teach the Koran to the letter. Qaradawi does not demand anything impossible from his contemporaries. Instead, he stresses that his followers can be devout and modern at the same time.

Critics see Qaradawi’s caution as nothing but a ruse. In the German blog “Die Achse des Guten” (“The Axis of Good”), Christoph Spielberger writes about the “Islamic principle of Taqiyya, or misrepresentation to achieve a higher goal.” According to Islamic tradition, concealing one’s faith is permissible, but only in the face of a massive threat.

The TV imam’s followers in Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood share his intangibility. For some, they are the dyed-in-the-wool Islamists, while others see them as champions of democracy on the Nile.

“There is no question that true democracy must gain the upper hand,” Mohammed Mursi, a Muslim Brotherhood spokesman, wrote recently. “The Brotherhood adheres to its roots in Islamic thought. It refuses to accept any attempt to impose any ideological line on the Egyptian people.”

This sounds good. But as an underground organization, the Muslim Brothers had no opportunity to try out their religious principles on everyday political life, and on tolerance and the balance of interests. They experienced the meaning of human rights firsthand during the years of repression. It changed them.

“Caution is the watchword,” writes Islamic scholar Tariq Ramadan, referring to the tactics of the Muslim Brotherhood. According to Ramadan, its leaders know that “now is not the time to expose itself.”

Now everyone wants to know who the Muslim Brothers really are. The question is as pointless as asking whether Yusuf al-Qaradawi is moderate or not. He is both himself and the opposite of himself, depending on one’s perspective — and the circumstances.

But what is acceptable in quantum physics can be extremely dangerous in the business of politics.

Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan

Source URL: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,745526,00.html

2011/02/11

The Reality of the Muslim Brotherhood

Source: Hudson

by Tarek Heggy
February 11, 2011 at 4:45 am

The Muslim Brotherhood was launched in 1928 to restore a caliphate, a global religious government aimed at fighting the “non-believers” (specifically, Christians, Hindus, and Jews) and at spreading Islam. The group opposed the existence of any secular states in all Muslim societies throughout the Middle East.

The Brotherhood killed Egypt’s Prime Minister Mahmud Fahmi Nuqrashi in 1948 and plotted to kill President Gamal Abdel Nasser in the early 1950s. An offshoot group, Islamic Jihad, led by Ayman al-Zawahiri, later Osama bin Laden’s number-two man, assassinated Egyptian President Anwar Al-Sadat in 1981 and tried to kill President Hosni Mubarak in 1995.

I. Muslim Brothers’ Political Thought

The Brotherhood remains extremely opposed to Western civilization and to a political peaceful settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Hamas is a Palestinian offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.

This group’s political thinking can be summarized as follows:

  • Political Freedoms: Unlike Western democracies, which guarantee the political participation of every citizen regardless of ideology, opinion, or religion, the Muslim Brothers make the political participation of individuals in society subject to the principles of Islamic Sharia.
  • Freedom of Belief: The Muslim Brothers guarantee freedom of belief only for the followers of the three revealed (Abrahamic) religions, otherwise known as “the people of the Book.”
  • Personal Freedoms: While Western democracies guarantee the absolute freedom of the individual as long as it does not impinge on the freedom of others, the Muslim Brothers set freedom of thought within the strict parameters of a moral code derived from the Sharia. They call for the restoration of hisbah, which allows a private citizen to prosecute any individual who commits an act he considers a breach of the Sharia even if the plaintiff himself has not been personally injured by such an act. The right of hisbah was recently exercised by a private citizen in Egypt against the respected intellectual Dr. Nasr Hamad Abu Zayd, whose writings he considered as running counter to the teachings of Islam. The court ruled for the plaintiff, branding Dr. Abu Zayd an apostate and ordering him to divorce his wife on the grounds that a Muslim woman cannot be married to an apostate. Dr. Abu Zayd fled with his wife to the Netherlands.
  • Women’s Rights: In Western democracies, women enjoy the same political rights as men: they can hold public office and participate in political life without any restrictions based on gender. But as far as the Muslim Brothers are concerned, women’s political participation would be limited to municipal elections; there is no question, for example, of a woman ever becoming head of state. To further marginalize women and exclude them from any meaningful role in public life, the Muslim Brothers call for educational curricula to include material that is appropriate for women, tailored to suit their nature and role, as perceived by them. In addition to special curricula for girls, they insist on a complete segregation of the sexes in the classrooms, in public transportation, and in the workplace. The Islamist perception of women as lesser beings was illustrated in Kuwait, where Islamists temporarily blocked passage of a bill granting political rights to women.
  • The Economy: The Muslim Brothers call for the establishment of an economic system based on the respect of private property. At the same time, however, they insist that it be based on the principles of Islamic Sharia, which criminalizes bank interest. They also call for state ownership of public utilities.
  • System of Government: Contrary to the system of government applied in a democracy, which is based on the peaceful rotation of power through elections, the Muslim Brothers call for a system of government based on the principles of Sharia and the revival of the Islamic Caliphate.
  • Civil Society: The freedom of movement enjoyed by civil society organizations in a democracy would, in an Islamist system, be conditional on their adherence to the strictures of Sharia.
  • Government: The Muslim Brothers oppose the notion of a state based on democratic institutions, calling instead for an Islamic government based on the shura (consultative assembly) system, veneration of the leader, and the investiture of a Supreme Guide. In this they are close to Iran’s system.
  • Political Freedoms: While the legislative branch of government monitors the actions of the state to ensure that they conform to the rules of democracy, the actions of the state are monitored by the Muslim Brothers to ensure that they conform to the rules of Islamic Sharia.
  • The Arab-Israeli Conflict: The Muslim Brothers were the first to send volunteers to fight Israel when it was founded in 1948. They have opposed all attempts to reach a peaceful resolution of the conflict, in particular the peace agreements between Egypt and Israel initiated by the late President Sadat. It would be true to say that the Muslim Brothers will never recognize the existence of Israel as legitimate.
  • Religious Minorities: Although the Muslim Brothers of Egypt do not go as far as their counterparts in Saudi Arabia, where the construction of houses of worship for non-Muslims is prohibited, their position on the question of religious minorities include the barring of any non-Muslim from becoming president and the subjection of non-Muslims to the principles of Sharia on which the entire legal system is based.
  • The Legal System: The Muslim Brothers call for the establishment of a constitutional and legal system based on the principles of Sharia, including the application of corporal punishments in the penal code (stoning, lashing, cutting off the hands of thieves, etc.)
  • Violence against Civilians: The Muslim Brothers have never condemned the use of violence against civilians, except if it is directed against Muslim civilians and even that only selectively.

Finally, “progress” in today’s world is realized by two tools, “science and modern management,” two qualities that the Muslim Brothers have neither access to nor interest in.

II. The Necessity to Dialogue

Nevertheless, the harsh and often illegal treatment to which the Muslim Brotherhood is subjected is both unacceptable legally and self-defeating in that it hardens attitudes on both sides. In fact, the only way to resolve this problem with the Islamists is through dialogue, by opening channels of communication and engaging in a frank interchange of views. Debating the issues is the only way to transform a religious party, in the long term, into a civil political party that subscribes to the main tenets of democracy: acceptance of the “Other,” rotation of power, and respect for other religions and for women. The transformation will be complete when political Islam abandons its distorted understanding of our religion — from one rooted in the Middle Ages and reflecting the mentality of Bedouins bred in a harsh and unforgiving desert environment. Civil society is entitled to protect itself from any group that remains locked in a time warp and would have us all retreat with it into a distant past.

As reform in Egypt is a thousand times better than its takeover by any of a number of alternatives, so too is reform in Saudi Arabia a thousand times better than its takeover by alternatives that could plunge the entire region into unprecedented chaos. Maintaining the stability of Saudi Arabia and all its neighbors is imperative. But guaranteeing stability is impossible without a historical operation against the extremists. The question is whether the sane elements in Saudi Arabia will follow a course similar to the one taken by their famous forbear eighty years ago or whether they will continue to coexist with them until the ship sinks with everyone on board.

III. The Requirements of the Dialogue

Dialogue with Islamists should be based on seeking the answers to the following questions:

1. Some of the Muslim Brothers (MBs) now expound the idea that Copts (Egyptian Christians) are “Fully First Class Egyptian Citizens.” Would this imply that a Copt could be, in principle, elected president of Egypt?

2. Would the Muslim Brothers follow the Saudi model of segregating girls from boys in educational institutions such as schools and universities as well as all other organizations?

3. Non-History-Related-Tourism (beach tourism) generates in excess of 75% of Egypt’s tourism revenues. What are the Brotherhood’s views on the sale of alcoholic beverages, gambling, and casinos, and women dressing in any way they choose?

4. What is the Brotherhood’s opinion concerning the peace treaties between Egypt and Israel, and between Jordan and Israel?

5. What do the MBs think of the different forms of economic cooperation between Egypt and Israel (the Qualifying Industrial Zones [QIZ], in which joint enterprises receive special privileges for exporting goods to the United States, for instance?

6. How do the MBs describe the killing of Israeli civilians in Hamas or Islamic Jihad suicide operations?

7. Do the MBs believe that Sayyid Qutb’s doctrine known as al-Hak’imiyya — that government must be based exclusively on Allah’s law and which rejects democracy and human law as apostasy -—is still the basis of their political system?

8. What are the views of the Brotherhood on women holding high government offices — including ministries, the prime ministership, and Supreme Court judgeships?

9. What are the group’s views on the vision of a “two state” solution for Israel and Palestine to live peacefully next to each other? Would they then accept and recognize the right of Israel to exist? Would they also accept that the Jewish section of Jerusalem is Israel’s capital?

10. Egypt’s legal system since 1883 has been based on the juridical notions of the European legal system. What are the Brotherhood’s plans with this regard? And what do they think of physical punishments, such as the sanctions applicable in Saudi Arabia?

11. Like all modern societies, the Egyptian banking system is based on the notion of interests for lending and savings. Will the Brotherhood keep it?

12. Is Iran a factor of stability (or instability) in today’s world?

Finally, one must know that the Brothers are likely to use taqqiyya [dissimulation], a principle which –according to some clerics such as Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Taymiyya — allows Muslims to lie if so doing assists them in ultimately defeating the infidels.

2011/02/01

WHO IS MOHAMED ELBARADEI? (Update: Jordan’s King sacks cabinet)

Source: Joel Rosenberg

This is not the man we want running Egypt.

>> Here’s the YouTube clip of Neil Cavuto’s interview with me on Fox News on Monday

>> We’ve just posted a new video blog I did on the crises in Egypt and Jordan at www.joshuafund.net.

>> TUESDAY UPDATE: Jordan’s King sacks cabinet, trying to get ahead of the protest movement and show evidence of reform. See column from Friday: Could Jordan be next?

Last week, few Westerners knew the name Mohamed ElBaradei. Today, this well-educated, genteel-sounding, Nobel laureate has suddenly emerged as the face of the protest movement in Egypt. But who is he really, and is he a force for genuine, positive change? Three clues tell us the answer is “no,” ElBaradei is not someone we can trust, and we do not want him running Egypt.

1. ElBaradei is an apologist for Iran. As head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, from 1997 to 2009, the Iranians repeatedly lied to ElBaradei’s face, and he either let them or didn’t know the difference. The Iranians dramatically accelerated their nuclear enrichment program in violation of U.N. resolutions and international law during those 12 years. But ElBaradei never seemed bothered. Iran built three secret nuclear facilities during this time, yet ElBaredei never seemed to notice (until other intelligence agencies called his attention to them). UPDATE: On Monday night, CSPAN ran a presentation ElBaradei made at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard in April. I watched it for awhile and was stunned to hear him say again that he opposes both economic sanctions on Iran and even the last case scenario of a preemptive strike against Iran, saying he things “building trust” and more “negotiations” will actually stop Iran from getting the Bomb. Foolish and shortsighted though these positions are, at least he is consistent. ElBaradei has opposed sanctions on Iran for quite some time. He indicated he doesn’t think the notion of Iran building nuclear weapons is a particularly severe or urgent threat either, consiFor more on this, please read:

2. ElBaredei is anti-Israel. During his tenure at the IAEA, Iranian leaders publicly and consistently called for the “annihilation” of Israel, denied the Holocaust of six million Jews during World War II, said that the Jewish State was doomed to destruction, that the fall of Israel was “imminent,” as was the coming of the Twelfth Imam which would coincide with the destruction of not just Israel but also the U.S. At the same time, the Iranians feverishly accelerated their illegal uranium enrichment program even as they developed ballistic missiles capable of reaching Israel and Europe. Yet in 2009, ElBaradei actually declared that Israel was the greatest threat to the peace and security of the Middle East, not Iran. Moreover, ElBaradei completely missed the fact that the North Koreans were  helping Syria build a nuclear reactor and nuclear research facilities in violation of international law, facilities that could have led the Assad regime to build atomic weapons. Yet when Israel took decisive action to neutralize the Syrian threat since the IAEA was doing nothing, ElBaradei condemned Israel, not Syria.

3. Third, ElBaradei is an apologist for the Muslim Brotherhood. For starters, the Brotherhood is opening supporting ElBaradei and saying they want to form a “unity” government with him, and he’s welcoming their support. What’s more, in an interview on CNN on January 30, 2011, ElBaradei flatly denied that the Muslim Brotherhood is a fundamentalist Islamic organization, claiming that this was “a myth that was sold by the Mubarak regime.” He went on to deny that if the Brotherhood gained control of the Egyptian government they wouldn’t create a Radical Islamic regime that would be similar to what happened in Iran in 1979. To be sure, the Brotherhood are Sunni Radicals and the Ayatollah Khomeini was a Shia Radical. But aside from those theological differences, the Brotherhood has been one of the most anti-Western, virulently jihadist organizations in the Middle East for decades. They have believed and taught that Islam is the answer, and violent jihad is the way. This was true of its founder Hassan al-Banna. This was true of its intellectual leader Sayyid Qutb in the 1950s and 1960s. This is true of its most famous and deadly disciples, Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri, an Egyptian national. It remains true with the Hamas terror movement in Gaza, which is an offshoot of the Egyptian Brotherhood. I document all this in my non-fiction book, Inside The Revolution.

Here’s the transcript of the stunning interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria (or watch this video — this portion begins at 7:12 minutes into the clip):

CNN’s FAREED ZAKARIA: Mohamed, one of the visions that haunts Americans is of the Iranian revolution, where a dictator, pro-American dictator, was replaced by an even worse regime that was even more anti-American and more threatening to the region.  People worry about the Muslim Brotherhood.  Are you confident that a post-Mubarak Egypt will not give rise to some kind of Islamic fundamentalist force that will undermine the democracy of Egypt?

MOHAMMED ELBARADEI: I’m quite confident of that, Fareed.  This is a myth that was sold by the Mubarak regime, that it’s either us, the ruthless dictators, or above them the al Qaeda types. You know, the Muslim Brotherhood has nothing to do with the Iranian model, has nothing to do with extremism, as we have seen it in Afghanistan and other places.  The Muslim Brotherhood is a religiously conservative group.  They are a minority in Egypt.  They are not a majority of the Egyptian people, but they have a lot of credibility because all the other liberal parties have been smothered for 30 years. They are in favor of a federalist state.  They are in favor of a wording on the base of constitution that….every Egyptian has the same rights, same obligation, that the state in no way will be a state based on religion.  And I have been reaching out to them.  We need to include them.  They are part of the Egyptian society, as much as the Marxist party here.  I think this myth that has been perpetuated and sold by the regime has no – has no iota of reality. As you know, Fareed, I’ve worked with Iranians, I’ve worked here.  There is 100 percent difference between the two societies.

ZAKARIA: If there were a democratic government with Muslim Brotherhood participation, do you believe that Egypt would still be at peace with Israel?

ELBARADEI: Of course.  I mean, I – again, the whole issue of peace in the Middle East is an issue which everybody – nobody wants to go to war, Fareed.

For more on the dangers posed by the Muslim Brotherhood:

2010/06/06

Guv endorses imam accused of preaching taking up arms

Guv endorses imam accused of preaching taking up arms

Political heat rising for embrace of controversial Islamic leader

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick is catching political heat for embracing an imam who is alleged to have preached the need to take up arms to defend the rights of Muslims.

After vowing to eliminate racial profiling and guaranteeing Muslims their civil rights, Patrick, a Democrat, hugged Imam Abdullah Faaruuq at the meeting with more than 1,000 Muslims at the Muslim American Society-affiliated mosque at Boston’s Roxbury Crossing.

The newest Boston-area mosque was dedicated last year and is affiliated with the MAS, an Islamic advocacy organization that public policy group Americans for Peace and Tolerance says has known ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

In a controversial video on YouTube, Patrick is embracing the native Bostonian Faaruuq, who preaches at the Mosque for the Praising of Allah:

What’s raising eyebrows is that the YouTube video seems to show Faaruuq urging his followers to take up arms to protest the arrest of terrorism suspect Tariq Mehanna and Faaruuq’s congregation member Aisha Siddiqi.

Mehanna was arrested last October for allegedly planning an attack at a shopping mall and Siddiqi was arrested for allegedly plotting to kill FBI agents.

When asked about his association with Mehanna, Faaruuq said he didn’t know much about the case, but knows the man.

“He went to school here in Boston, I know that he as a degree in pharmacy. I know he was an active Muslim young man. I’ve known him since he was very young. So what else can I know about him?” Faaruuq observed.

“I don’t know much about his personal life. I’ve never slept over at his house or eaten with him. I’ve eaten with him here. I’ve seen how he behaves and he’s very respectful,” the imam continued.

“That’s what I know about him so it’s hard for me to believe some of the things they’ve said about him. I would say that I don’t think he would be involved in those types of things,” Faaruuq said.

“They have a full government. They can be involved in investigating a person’s life. They might know more about him than I do,” Faaruuq said.

“They let him out of jail for a year, but then some other Muslims gave some evidence against him, so I don’t really know. I don’t know the case well enough to speak about the case. I’m talking about the person,” Faaruuq added.

The statements in question are featured in the YouTube video and were the subject of discussion on a Boston talk radio station this week. Faaruuq says his critics have singled out the references to the swords and knives.

“That’s not what I said at all. I urged the Muslims to be friends and protecters of one another. I urged them to be American citizens and to take full part in what goes on in this government and this world as American citizens,” Faaruuq said.

“I said, ‘Take up the pen; the typewriter, the sword, the gun. You can take up a plowshare. You can become a surgeon and do everything you can to contribute to this society in a full way,” the imam said.

He continued by playing down the remarks about learning how to use guns.

“The National Rifle Association is a legitimate association and no one says anything about them advocating people use guns. People who go into the United States Army are taught how to use a gun and how to use a typewriter,” Faaruuq said.

“You have to be a full citizen. I advocate for people to be full Americans. Become surgeons; become firemen. Join the Navy. Learn how to defend this country and to partake in this country as a full citizen,” Faaruuq added.

Faaruuq also claimed that Muslims have served in the military fighting for the United States in every major conflict since the American Civil War.

However, there are few references to Muslims in American history. Writing on the Now Public website, Chantilly, Va., writer Morris Sadek says that contrary to many recent claims, Muslims have made few if any contributions to American history.

Most of the claims about Muslims in American history are on Muslim-hosted web sites. Islam 101 says that Muslims arrived in North America over 100 years before Columbus and about 300 years before the Pilgrims.

In analyzing Faaruuq’s comments, Islam expert and Jihad Watch publisher Robert Spencer says Faaruuq is using a smooth technique that masks his real meaning.

“What he’s doing is using Quranic concepts that deal with jihad without explaining to you that that’s what he’s talking about,” Spencer explained.

“For example, he said early on, that all he wanted to do was teach Muslims to be friends and protecters of one another. That is something that is in the Quran twice,” Spencer continued.

“In chapter three, verse 28 and chapter five, verse 51. In 3.28 it says, ‘Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers. If any do that, in nothing will there be help from God,'” Spencer quoted.

“In 5.51 it says, ‘O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protecters; they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you who that turns to them is of them,'” Spencer continued.

“In other words, Muslims can pretend to be friends and protecters of unbelievers to deceive them in order to advance Islam,” Spencer explained.

“Five, verse 51 specifically says that Muslims aren’t to take Jews and Christians as their friends and protecters. So when he said to you that was teaching Muslims to be friends and protecters of one another, he’s actually telling you that he’s telling them to cut off from the larger society, to have contempt for it and to work to replace the laws and customs of the society they are in with Islamic law,” Spencer explained.

Spencer says the Imam’s comments about Tariq Mehanna are an admission that he was Mehanna’s spiritual leader.

“I would certainly think that to speak with such obvious affection and regard for this man in such detail, I think it’s clear that they had some kind of a close relationship, certainly,” Spencer stated.

Spencer adds that Faaruuq’s words encouraging Muslims to be active in society have another meaning.

“When he was saying that all he was saying is that Muslims should be active in society, and there were certain ways to do that, by the pen, by the sword and by the gun, and that’s the statement that got him in trouble with 96-9 (one of Boston’s three talk radio stations), that those are different forms of jihad,” Spencer observed.

“There is no doubt that in Islamic theology there is jihad of the pen and jihad of the sword and those are distinct from one another. Yes, they all have the same goal, the goal is to impose Islamic law over the society in question,” Spencer added.

However, there is more.

“What the guy is telling you is that he is preaching jihad. And he just knows that his non-Muslim hearers are not going to understand what he’s saying when he’s just putting it in terms of just being active in society and just working for justice by the pen and by the sword,” Spencer explained further.

“Since he’s hearkening back to these concepts, then the context of what he’s saying becomes clear,” Spencer stated.

“His followers will hear what he’s saying and they will understand it in terms of what they’ve been taught and what they know about Islamic theology. They will understand it as meaning that he’s telling them to strive hard in the way of Allah. In other words, he’s telling them to wage jihad,” Spencer said.

Spencer added that he believes that Patrick’s endorsement of Islam at the recent mosque gathering is likely the product of political naivete.

Patrick’s office refused comment saying, “We’re not going to make any statement on this issue.”