SOLDIERS OF IDF VS ARAB TERRORISTS

SOLDIERS OF IDF VS ARAB TERRORISTS
Showing posts with label Radical Islam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Radical Islam. Show all posts

Friday, August 5, 2011

YNET: No Muslim ‘radicals’ Those known as ‘radicals’ in West are simply the ones who adhere to Muslim faith

Muslim worshippers Photo: AP


For years we’ve heard Muslims commonly defined by a couple of different terms, “radical” or “moderate.”

Yet what exactly do these terms mean?

Dr. Wafa Sultan, born and raised in the Muslim culture of Syria, who now resides in the US, and is a strong advocate of women’s rights, recently provided some interesting insight on this topic during an interview. What immediately caught my attention was her comment that the term “radical” doesn’t exist in the Muslim world.

No “radicals?” What is she talking about?

“This is a term invented by the West,” according to Dr. Sultan. She also indicated those who suggest Islam has been “hijacked by radicals” were off base. Those whom the West calls “radicals” are quite simply the ones who are adherents to the faith.

Dr. Sultan explained that while there no “radicals” in the Muslim world, there are “moderates.” However, one needs to take note this has nothing to do with Islam itself.

“Islam is Islam,” she explained. A “moderate” Muslim is an individual who has made a personal choice not to be an adherent to the tenets of Islam. A typical way to describe such a person in the west is “secular.”

However, in the Muslim world a “secular” or “moderate” is considered a non-believer or infidel. Such people are routinely subjected to torture and according to Islamic law should be put to death. Islam is also the only religion that mandates the death of someone who decides to leave the faith.

While Dr. Sultan is saying individual Muslims who dilute their personal commitment to Islam, may be called “moderates,” we should not take that to mean Islam itself is moderate. That would be a critical mistake according to Dr. Sultan. And those typically referred to as “radicals” are not considered radical in the Muslim world itself.

A more accurate way to understand the terms from a Western point of view and Muslim point of view is as follows: “Moderate” translates to “infidel”; while “Radical” translates to adherent or believer. One cannot change the Koran for the sake of their individual convenience. It stands alone and obedience is required. In fact Islam means “submission.”

The views expressed by Dr. Sultan would present a challenge to Dr. Zhudi Jasser, President and Founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. Dr. Jasser considers himself to be “devout Muslim.” His organization is attempting to portray Muslims and Islam in a more palatable light. He offers a view of Muslims and Islam that starkly contrasts Dr. Sultan.

For example while speaking with him he told me “we all pray to the same God.” This statement would appear to fly in the face of what Islam itself says. For example the Muslim declaration of belief known as the Shahada says “There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his messenger.”

If as Dr. Jasser suggests we all pray to the same God, why doesn’t the Shahada say “there is no god but God?” The Shahada clearly suggests Allah is both distinctive and superior. Yet Dr. Jasser would have Jews, Christians and Muslims praying to the same God. However it doesn’t appear as though Jews and Christians are welcome in Islam according to the Koran, as these quotes indicate:

Allah stamped wretchedness upon the Jews because they killed the prophets and disbelieved Allah's revelations. 2:61

Allah turned the Sabbath-breaking Jews into apes. 2:65-66

Don't take Jews or Christians for friends. If you do, then Allah will consider you to be one of them. 5:51

Quotes such as these strongly suggest at least two points: Dr. Sultan appears to have an understanding of Islam in its truest sense, while Dr. Jasser, who does seem sincere, appears to try to place a square peg into a round hole.

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Radical Islamists Trying to Take Over Temple Mount Hizb ut-Tahrir organization rallies thousands on Temple Mount calling for Islamic Caliphate rule.

On the 90th anniversary of the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the vast Islamic Caliphate regime which fell in 1921 after WWI, thousands of members of the Radical Islamist organization Hizb ut-Tahrir rallied on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. They called for  Muslims to unite and embrace the Caliphate rulership once more.
The rally took place in early July. Demonstrators flew banners bearing inscriptions such as “The Ummah (Muslims) Want Muslim Caliphates.”  A giant banner was put up in the Al Aksa mosque courtyard on the Temple Mount. Other banners said “No to Democracy, Yes to Caliphates". The crowd controller, using a microphone, soon had the crowd chanting over and over, “O Muslim armies, awaken to help Muslims.”
The Hizb ut-Tahrir (‘Party of Liberation’) website calls for the Muslim armies to forcefully lift the Gaza IDF naval blockade with military action,  making it serve “as a tight noose” around Israel.
Caliphates were a totalitarian system of Muslim government established by Mohammed, who made himself the first Caliph, reigning until 632 C.E. The Caliph was a religious and political leader, who made the Koran's prescriptions, now developed into the legal body known as Sharia law, the law of the land. The Ottoman Empire embraced the idea of a caliphate, and was governed this way until its dissolution.
The Islamic Party of Liberation is a radical Islamic group founded in 1953 in East Jerusalem under Jordanian rule. They are active in Judea and Samaria and in Jordan, with most of their power in the southern Hebron mountain region and in East Jerusalem, where the hard core activists pray in the Temple Mount mosques.
The organization has branches spread across the Arab and Islamic world (primarily Central and South-East Asia), with activity in Islamic communities in Europe, North America, Asia, and Australia.
The ‘Arab Spring’ upheavals seem to have put fresh wind in the sails of Hizb ut-Tahrir, now rallying and openly demanding Muslim unity under one caliphate government. A similar demonstration was held in Gaza, with more activity in Cairo’s Tahrir Square. The leaders of Hizb ut-Tahrir see the new reality in the Middle East as the right time for the caliphate – as well as for the end of the State of Israel.

Monday, June 13, 2011

Letter To Congress: Islamic Radicals? Or Fundamentalists?

Office of the Honorable Peter King, United States Congressman, 3rd Congressional District (New York)
Fax: 202-226-2279
June 12, 2011

Re: Scheduled hearings on “Radicalization” of Muslims in America

Dear Congressman King,

On June 20th, 2010 a letter was written to Congress concerning the widely unpopular idea of constructing a mosque in the shadow of the Ground Zero site in New York (a plan that thoughtful Muslims have also rejected). Contained in that letter were quotes from several Islamic religious leaders (Imams) in America:

Imam Amir-Abdel Malik-Ali
Masjid Al Islam mosque, Oakland, CA

"We must implement Islam as a totality (in which) Allah controls every place... the home, the classroom, the science lab, the halls of Congress."

Imam Abdul Alim Musa
Al Masjid mosque, Washington, D.C.

"If you don't give us justice. If you don't give us equality. If you don't give us our share of America. If you don't stay out of our way and leave us alone, we're gonna burn America down."

Imam Muhammad Al-Asi
Former Imam at the Washington, D.C. Islamic Center

"Now, all our imams, our public speakers, should be concentrating on militarizing the Muslim public ... Only carrying arms will do this task."
Imam Omar Shahin
Tucson, Arizona Islamic Center; President, North American Imams Federation; spokesman for the six 'Flying Imams'

"A Muslim must try his best to abide by the rulings of Sharia (Islamic law) whenever possible as much as he can. He should not allow himself to be liable to those western laws that contradict the clear-cut Islamic rulings."

Imam Siraj Wahhaj
Masjid Al-Taqwa mosque. Brooklyn, N.Y

"In time, this so-called democracy will crumble, and there will be nothing. And the only thing left will be Islam."

Imam Zaid Shakir
Former Muslim Chaplain at Yale University

"Muslims cannot accept the legitimacy of the existing American order, since it is against the orders and ordainments of Allah."

Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf:

"I do not believe in religious dialogue."

A copy of this letter can be accessed here.

Polls:
Mosque at Ground Zero polling:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20014737-503544.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2010/08/poll-nearly-70-of-americans-op.html

Further review of these statements show that they do not veer far at all from the following comments made by Islamic religious figures overseas or from remarks made by other prominent Muslims operating in the United States:

Imam Anjem Choudary
British Muslim cleric:

One day the flag of Islam will fly over the White House.”
Sheik Ibrahim Mudeiris
Sheikh 'Ijlin Mosque in Gaza

“We have ruled the world before, and by Allah, the day will come when we will rule the entire world again. The day will come when we will rule America. The day will come when we will rule Britain."
2) "America will collapse ... we consider America to be our no. 1."
3) "Allah will drown the little Pharaoh, the dwarf, the Pharaoh of all times, of our time, the American president. Allah will drown America in our seas, in our skies, in our land... America will be destroyed."
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=8468

Abu Hamza al-Masri
Imam in Britain

"The real weapons of mass destruction are the desire for martyrdom… Half a million martyrdom shaheed is enough for Muslims to control the whole of earth forever. In the end of the day, Islam must control earth, whether we like it or not."
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-10435138-bring-jihad-to-your-own-door.do

Abd Al-Rahman Al-Sudayyis
Imam at the Grand Mosque in Mecca

Jews: "The scum of the human race, the rats of the world, the violators of pacts and agreements, the murderers of the prophets, and the offspring of apes and pigs."
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/06/blogging-the-quran-sura-2-the-cow-verses-40-75.html

Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed
Syrian-born British Muslim cleric

"We don't make a distinction between civilians and non-civilians… Only between Muslims and unbelievers. And the life of an unbeliever has no value."
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/07/britain-terror-warning-2-months.html
Ahmad Nawfal
Jordanian who has spoken at rallies held on American soil

“If fundamentalist Muslims stand up, it will be very easy for us to preside over this world once again."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/569037/posts

Abu Bakr
Australian Muslim Cleric

"I am telling you that my religion doesn't tolerate other religion. It doesn't tolerate. The only one law which needs to spread, it can be here or anywhere else, has to be Islam."
http://articles.cnn.com/2005-11-07/world/australia.terror.bakr_1_anti-terrorism-raids-jihad-abc-radio?_s=PM:WORLD
Mohamed Elmasry
President of the Canadian Islamic Congress

"Any Israeli over age 18 is a legitimate target for suicide bombers because adult Israelis were required to do military service. They are part of the Israeli army, even if they have civilian clothes."
http://sheikyermami.com/2008/09/07/appeasing-canada%E2%80%99s-islamists/

_________________________________________________________________

Omar Ahmad
Council on American Islamic Relations

“Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth..."
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=19439

Ihsan Bagby
Council on American Islamic Relations

“Ultimately, we (Muslims) can never be full citizens of this country ... because there is no way we can be fully committed to the institutions and ideologies of this country..."
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2170
Nihad Awad
Council on American Islamic Relations
"I am in support of the Hamas movement"
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=19439

Dr. Esam Omeish
Muslim American Society
"You have learned the way, that you have known that the jihad way is the way to liberate your land."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298278,00.html

Shukri Abu Baker (Convicted of funding Islamic terrorism)
Holy Land Foundation

"I swear by Allah that war is deception... We are fighting our enemy with a kind heart... Deceive, camouflage, pretend you are leaving while you're walking that way. Deceive your enemy."
http://www.anti-cair-net.org/FBItiesCAIRHamas

Edina Lekovic
Muslim Public Affairs Council
From the July 1999 edition of Al-Talib, the Muslim News magazine at UCLA, when Lekovic was one of the managing editors: "When we hear someone refer to the great mujahid Osama bin Laden as a 'terrorist', we should defend our brother and refer to him as a freedom fighter..."
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2007/05/video_steve_eme.php

Sami Al Arian (Pleaded guilty to conspiracy to provide services to Islamic terrorists)
Former Professor, University of South Florida
"Let us continue the protests. Let us damn America. Let us damn Israel. Let us damn their allies until death. Mohammad is leader. The Qur'an is our constitution. Jihad is our path..."
http://www.investigativeproject.org/220/al-arian-victory-to-islam-death-to-israel
Hatem Bazian
University of California at Berkeley Lecturer
"Well, we've been watching intifada in Palestine, we've been watching an uprising in Iraq, and the question is that what are we doing? How come we don't have an intifada in this country?"
http://www.meforum.org/1871/the-arab-israeli-conflict-debate

Ibrahim Hooper
Council on American Islamic Relations

"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future..."
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=19439

Julio Assad Pino
Associate professor of history at Kent State University in Ohio

Pino considers homicide bombers martyrs, the U.S. Armed Forces butchers, and is or was at one time part of an Internet blog that urges readers to join the Islamic resistance. Also in a Columbus Dispatch piece, Pino described himself as the "most dangerous Muslim in America."
http://www.dispatch.com/live/contentbe/dispatch/2006/04/21/20060421-A1-02.html

While this issue is addressed, the dangerous and witless practice of political correctness should be switched off. Unconditionally, the American people have a right to know when any type of threat to their way of life presents itself so that they can prepare to defend it.

Is it a “tiny minority” of “radicals” who have “perverted a great world religion” that all of these leaders in the Islamic communities here and abroad represent, or are they representative of Islamic fundamentalists who are simply adhering to their ideology as it has been prescribed?

As a free society we are a tolerant people. Like everything else, tolerance has its limits, so should rigid, racist, sexist supremacist ideologues with a history of committing violent acts against innocent human beings when they don’t get their way qualify?

If the United States Congress genuinely seeks unfiltered information regarding the issue at hand, it would greatly benefit itself and the nation by shunning the overbearing nonsense dispensed by organizations like the Council on American Islamic Relations, and trading in the crocodile tears shed by the Congressman from Minnesota for the testimony of the individuals listed below, who are capable of answering any lingering questions regarding Islamic scripture, Shari’ah law, and documented historical facts:
Nonie Darwish
Brigette Gabriel
Robert Spencer
Steven Emerson
Wafa Sultan
Daniel Pipes
Walid Shoebat
Aayan Hirsi Ali
In closing, if the opportunity presents itself, please reiterate to your colleagues that this situation should not be viewed as a chance to score cheap political points, and that political affiliation aside, this is an American issue that impacts anyone who appreciates the freedoms 0.0.04.-1478416211cMEbf1Azz+QqR:0016e7d4 E:553503.749897728 V:10f4.138c.1.1.16.1.US S:Mrsvmax68 [N3]N]]]]ranz [mN]]hwNq

Sunday, March 27, 2011

Western Media Discover Egyptian Revolution Not So Moderate; Muslim Brotherhood is Powerful, Still Deny That It's Radical

It seems mere days ago that every reporter and expert on all television channels and newspapers was preaching that Egypt's revolution was a great thing, run by Facebook-savvy liberals, inspired by President Barack Obama and "universal values." Those silly, paranoid Israelis had nothing to worry about. Christians were backing the revolution and everyone was going to be brothers, but not Muslim Brothers because the Muslim Brotherhood was weak, moderate, opposed to violence, and full of great people.

Anyone who said anything different was screened out and vilified.

Now, with no soul-searching, apologies, or even examining what false assumptions misled them, places like the 
New York Times are starting to admit they were completely wrong.

You mean they helped foist a policy that is a disaster for U.S. interests and regional stability? You mean the result might well be new repressive regimes, heightened terrorism, wars on Israel, and discrediting the United States as reliable ally or enemy worth fearing?

Oh well, what are a few hundred thousand lives lost, a whole region destabilized, and entire countries taken over by anti-American radicals who sponsor terrorism, and a couple of wars, more or less?

So now the 
New York Times tells us such things as “religion has emerged as a powerful political force.” How do they cover their past mistakes? They erroneously add, “Following an uprising that was based on secular ideals.” They have discovered that a lot of army officers like the Muslim Brotherhood, which we knew about long before simply by watching how officers’ wives were transformed from imitators of European fashions to being swathed in pious Islamic garb.

The newspaper explains, “It is also clear that the young, educated secular activists who initially propelled the non-ideological revolution are no longer the driving political force — at least not at the moment.”

Note how they again cover their mistakes. First, the revolution is based on “secular ideals” but then it is “non-ideological.” The Facebook kids are out but perhaps only for the “moment,” meaning they might be back on top next week. But we warned from the start that this was ridiculous because there are no more than 100,000 Facebook kids and tens of millions of Brotherhood kids.

Last month the Brotherhood was weak and disorganized, now it is “the best organized and most extensive opposition movement in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood was expected to have an edge in the contest for influence.”

“We are all worried,” said Amr Koura, 55, a television producer, reflecting the opinions of the secular minority. “The young people have no control of the revolution anymore. It was evident in the last few weeks when you saw a lot of bearded people taking charge. The youth are gone.”

Funny, I didn’t have any trouble finding plenty of people in Egypt worried during the revolution. Yet the Times and the other newspapers only wanted to quote people who said how great everything was, even as Christians sent out desperate messages about how scared they were.

Incidentally, the only person quoted as an expert in the article comes from the left-wing International Crisis Group, headed by an anti-American who hangs out with U.S. policymakers. The analyst tells us that the Muslim Brotherhood didn’t want the revolution, despite the fact that every action and statement of the group said the exact opposite.

Whether or not the 
Times reporters are “useful idiots,” they are certainly idiots. It isn’t just political slant but the violation of the most basic concepts of politics and logic. Consider this passage:

“This is not to say that the Brotherhood is intent on establishing an Islamic state. From the first days of the protests, Brotherhood leaders proclaimed their dedication to religious tolerance and a democratic and pluralist form of government. They said they would not offer a candidate

for president, that they would contest only a bit more than a third of the total seats in Parliament, and that Coptic Christians and women would be welcomed into the political party affiliated with the movement.

“None of that has changed, Mr. Erian, the spokesman, said in an interview. `We are keen to spread our ideas and our values,’ he said. `We are not keen for power.’”

Now, why is this nonsense? Simple:

First, political groups—especially revolutionary groups that want to impose ideological dictatorships—do not always speak the truth. They say what will benefit them. And the Brotherhood benefits by pretending to be moderate.

So statements about tolerance don’t show us where a movement is going: its ideology, record, and longer-term goals show us where it is going.

Second, seeking to create an Islamist state next Thursday does not have to be the Brotherhood’s aim. What all this material shows is merely that they see the process as longer-term and that the basis must be prepared.

It’s sort of like saying: The Communists aren’t intent on creating a Communist state. Oh no, they only want to spread their ideas and values! They say they are happy to work with capitalists and would be happy with thirty-three percent of the seats in parliament. And anyone who wants can join their party. So there isn’t any threat.

Reporters who write things like "Israeli authorities claim that the killing of its civilians are 'terrorist attacks'" are quite willing to take the Muslim Brotherhood at its word. They never recount the fact that this was a Nazi ally whose words for decades have stressed virulent hatred of America, democracy, Christians, and Jews. They never explain that it is a pro-terrorist group that endorsed killing Americans in Iraq and only last October called for Jihad against the United States.

Why go on? It’s as if the most prized institutions of the Western world—universities and media—have forgotten their mission, lost track of their values, thrown away their principles, and dropped one hundred points in IQ. And when they are proven to be terribly wrong, they merely shift to a slightly different position.

This farce has gone beyond embarrassing through disgraceful and has ended up being both deadly and ridiculous.

References:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/world/middleeast/25egypt.html?_r=1&hp

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/egypt/index.html?inline=nyt-geo,

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/m/muslim_brotherhood_egypt/index.html?inline=nyt-org,

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/essam_a_sharaf/index.html?inline=nyt-per

http://www.youm7.com/News.asp?NewsID=362933

Friday, March 25, 2011

Shariah Law on America’s Shores: Townhall Magazine Examines ‘Terror’s Secret Weapon’

The threat of radical Islam is not one that stops at America’s borders.  A detailed new analysis featured in the April issue of Townhall Magazine, posted here as an online exclusive for Blaze readers, examines how Muslim radicals are aggressively using liberal courts, American businesses and outspoken activists inside our own countryto implement Islamic Shariah law — an uncompromising religious code that runs counter to freedoms preserved in the American Constitution.
——————-
The Shariah Threat
by Kathy Jessup

A judge refuses a protection order for a woman raped by her Muslim husband, ruling the man’s abuse is allowed under Shariah law.
A cartoonist is in hiding after a tongue-in-cheek “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” promotion earned her a fatwa death order for violating a Shariah edict banning drawing the Muslim prophet’s image.
A Shariah-compliant investment fund is camouflaged as a charity and funnels more than $12 million to finance Hamas suicide bombers.
Not exactly shocking in some Muslim countries where strict adherence to centuries-old rules, based on Islamic teachings, shines a spotlight on stonings and beheadings.
But these occurred recently in the United States.
Now “honor killings,” publicly funded accommodations for Islamic prayer and billions in Wall Street investments linked to potentially dangerous terror activities are raising political and constitutional questions in America.
Can or should Shariah law co-exist with the Judeo-Christian foundations of U.S. jurisprudence and the Constitution? Will imposition of Islamic-based edicts, enabled by so-called religious tolerance and political correctness, open the door to radical forms of the religion in Western democracies?

A growing number of states are drafting constitutional amendments to prohibit state judges from applying Islamic or international law in deciding cases. But even the 70 percent of voters who passed Oklahoma’s measure in November hasn’t settled the issue for Sooners.
When the director of the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) challenged the amendment in court, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction, ruling the amendment could be interpreted to single out Shariah law and discredit Islam, violating the First Amendment.
WHAT IS SHARIAH LAW?
Shariah (meaning “path” in Arabic) codifies the words, practices and teaching of Islam’s Prophet Mohammed, serving as a guide/law for everything from Muslims’ family and religious practices to financial transactions.
Several hundred years after the death of Mohammed, the prophet’s model living practices were assembled into the hadith, initially melding Islam and local customs. Various hadiths eventually developed into four schools of Sunni thought and one that guides Shiites. Each differs in the degree they draw from the Koran, Islamic thought and community practices.
Shariah identifies five hadd offenses, serious charges resolved by an Islamic judge. They are unlawful sexual intercourse (adultery or sex outside marriage), falsely accusing unlawful sexual intercourse, consuming wine (sometimes all alcohol), theft and highway robbery.
Punishments ordered for hadd crimes by conservative Shariah schools—stonings, executions, amputations and beatings—shock Western sensibilities. However, Ali Mazrui, of the Institute for Global Cultural Studies, says less severe penalties are more typically imposed.
Still, Islam has not uniformly banned so-called “honor killings,” genital mutilation, pre-teen marriages, polygamy, and divorce and inheritance rules that undercut the standing of women. Testimony from non-Muslims and even Muslim women is given less weight than that of Muslim men.
The size of a country’s Islamic population and its level of religious orthodoxy typically influence the degree to which Shariah law is inculcated in national legal codes.
Conservative Muslim countries including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen and Iran declare Islam the official religion and Shariah the source of law. In more secular Muslim countries where Islamists are the minority, Shariah has gradually gained legal legitimacy through local customs. Other countries, including Turkey and Azerbaijan, enforce separation of state and religion, sometimes resulting in political clashes.
Some countries operate a dual system where Shariah is applied to family law, while secular statutes govern criminal cases. For example, Britain introduced Shariah tribunals in 2008 that apply Islamic law to inheritance, marriage and divorce disputes where the parties all agree to the jurisdiction.
SHARIAH AND THE UNITED STATES
In 2009, Dalia Mogahed, an Obama administration adviser on Muslim affairs, told a British television audience that the West misunderstands Shariah law, calling its perceptions of Islamic tenants “oversimplified.”
But deaths, abuse and threats involving Muslim women in the United States and Canada have put a Western face on facets of Shariah that had been cloaked in long-standing Middle East practices.
Pakistani-born Muzzammil Hassan was convicted in February for beheading his wife inside the Buffalo, N.Y., television studio the couple had created to promote Islamic cultural understanding. Jurors didn’t buy Hassan’s story that he suffered spousal abuse and killed his wife in self-defense. Hassan had been served with divorce papers the week before, and his children testified he had been the abuser in the couple’s relationship.
In 2008, a New Jersey judge ruled Shariah permitted a Moroccan man to rape his Muslim wife, despite state law making it a crime. The New Jersey Appeals Court overturned that decision and remanded the case, finally allowing the woman to get a restraining order against her husband while she sought a divorce. The appeals court decision said neither Shariah law, giving a husband physical authority over his wife, nor Muslim beliefs on the role of women provided the man an exemption from criminal intent under U.S. statutes.
“[T]he [trial] judge determined to except defendant from the operation of the State’s statutes as a result of his religious beliefs,” the appeals judges wrote. “In doing so, the judge was mistaken.”
Irfan Aleem went to a Pakistani embassy and performed talaq in 2007, exercising Shariah provisions that he said allowed him to divorce his wife Farah by proclaiming his intention three times. Although married several decades earlier in Pakistan, the couple had lived in Maryland for 20 years. Irfan said Shariah allowed Farah no claim on a lucrative pension he would receive from his job with the World Bank.
Maryland judges didn’t agree, ruling the Shariah practices were “contrary to public policy of this state.” The decision set aside the divorce Irfan had quickly proclaimed and afforded Farah a right to claim marital property in a Maryland divorce.
The deaths of at least 10 women in the United States and Canada have been linked to so-called Islamic “honor killings” in the last seven years.
In 2004, a 14-year-old girl who had been raped in Newfoundland was strangled by her father and brother to “restore the family honor.” A 20-year-old daughter of Afghan parents was shot dead in 2006, allegedly because she had moved in with her fiancĆ© before their wedding. The killer was her brother.
In Ontario, a 16-year-old was stabbed to death in 2007 by her father while her mother held her down. The teenager had reportedly fought with her parents over wearing a hijib, a Muslim head covering. In another Canadian case, three teenage girls were drowned in their father’s car in 2009. Also found dead was their father’s first wife, who relatives say he never divorced. The father, his current wife and the girls’ 18-year-old brother were all charged with first-degree murder. Relatives told the media the killings were precipitated by one daughter’s dating decisions.
A Muslim father in Texas shot his two teenage daughters, Amina and Sarah Said, to death in January 2008. The murders allegedly were prompted by the girls having “unsanctioned boyfriends.” Later that year, a Pakistani man beat his 25-yearold daughter to death in Atlanta, reportedly because she opposed her arranged marriage.
Rifqa Bary, an Ohio teenager, made headlines in 2009 when she fled to Florida and foster care, saying she feared she would be the victim of a Muslim “honor killing” for her decision to convert to Christianity. She continued her religious choice a year later when she turned 18.
In a situation much like the 2008 Muslim assassination order against Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris went into hiding at the FBI’s recommendation last spring after her “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” hit Facebook. A Seattle newspaper said Norris is “essentially wiping away her identity” in reaction to a fatwa urging her killing issued by Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical Muslim cleric connected to the Fort Hood killings, the attempted Christmas Day airline bombing over Detroit and the failed Times Square bombing.
And in February, radical Muslims announced plans to take their demand for American Shariah to the White House, calling for thousands of Islamists to rally on Pennsylvania Avenue March 3. But just hours before the rally was scheduled to begin, its organizer, British Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary, called it off, alleging the cause had been “distorted by the media.”
Choudary said the demonstration was merely “postponed until we gather even more Muslims;” no new rally date was announced.
In an online video statement, Choudary said Muslims are obligated to implement Shariah law “immediately, wherever we are in the world,” and he said America can reverse “poverty, child abuse, rape, robberies, theft, crime and anarchy-type scenarios” only after the United States embraces the Islamic code for living. In the meantime, Choudary predicted “the dollar will soon lose its status.”
“We believe the whole of the world must be under Shariah,” Choudary said. “America is not blessed by God. The American dream has become a nightmare.”

Other elements of America’s Shariah debate are more nuanced. Some, like CBSNews.com’s political reporter Brian Montopoli, believe Shariah fears are “overblown at best,” and Jeffry Goldberg, The Atlantic’s national correspondent, said, “A Martian takeover of New Jersey is more likely than the imposition of a caliphate, or of Muslim law, on America.”
Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for CAIR, says the enjoined Oklahoma amendment is “an indication of growing anti-Muslim sentiment.” Hooper said CAIR has “not found any conflict between what a Muslim needs to do to practice their faith and the Constitution or any other American laws. We are, in fact, relying on the Constitution as our last line of defense.”
But conservative Jewish blogger Pamela Geller delivers an aggressive “creeping Shariah” warning: “It’s a drip, drip, drip, drip, drip. [In] the mosqueing of the workplace where you’re imposing prayer times on union contracts, non-Muslim workers have to lengthen their day. It’s wrong.”
Consider the political reaction Americans would have seen if these Muslim accommodations had instead been made for Christians:
  • The Christian Science Monitor reported a California elementary school made accommodations when it absorbed Muslim students from a shuttered charter school, including revising its instructional schedule to add a 15-minute “recess” after lunch to allow Muslim students to pray in a separate room. The school district’s attorney defended it, saying “the Muslim faith requires specificity of prayer obligations … that most other religions do not,” a claim questioned by even some Muslims. Pork also was removed from school-lunch menus, according to media reports.
  • In Massachusetts, where a firehouse was ordered to take down a “Merry Christmas” greeting, public middle school students took a “cultural diversity” field trip to a local mosque, where the boys participated in Islamic prayers while girls were excluded.These public school incidents are not isolated instances.
    “Starting about two years ago, school attorneys have been asking more and more questions about accommodations for Muslim students,” said Lisa Soronen, senior staff attorney for the National School Boards Association.
  • Four Christian evangelists attending a July Muslim cultural festival in Dearborn, Mich., were arrested for “disorderly conduct to ensure they did not provoke violence from others attending,” according to a Detroit media report. The four said they were attempting to engage in a dialogue about faith. Shariah law prohibits Christians from engaging Muslims about Christianity.
  • The University of Michigan-Dearborn, where about 10 percent of students are Muslim, spent $25,000 to install two foot-washing stations on campus to accommodate ablutions before Islamic daily prayers. The university said it is one of about 18 U.S. higher education institutions providing the unusual facilities, calling its decision “a reflection of our values of respect, tolerance, and safe accommodation of student needs.”
The Michigan Civil Liberties Union mounted no challenge, saying the foot baths have “no [religious] symbolic value.”
“They’re in a regular restroom and could be just as useful to a janitor filling up buckets, or someone coming off the basketball court as to Muslim students,” said Kary Moss, MCLU director.
  • Thomas More Law Center, a conservative, public-interest law firm headquartered in Michigan, is challenging the constitutionality of federal bailout money to investment firm AIG, claiming AIG’s involvement in Shariah-compliant financing violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. A federal district judge in Michigan ruled that despite the fact the bailout gave the federal government an 80 percent ownership in AIG, there was no evidence the government’s money had funded “religious indoctrination.” And if there were evidence, the court said the $153 million of federal bailout money used to support Shariah compliance was an insignificant portion of the total $47.5 billion the government provided AIG.
That ruling is being appealed.
THE POWER OF MONEY
Conservative author Dick Morris says airplanes may have taken down the Twin Towers, but he predicts Shariah-compliant investing of billions in Western financial markets has the potential to “hijack our institutions, our social policies and ultimately our values in the name of Islamic rule.”
Huge oil profits and unease with their own Middle Eastern financial institutions brought Islamic investors to Wall Street in the 1990s in search of special funds that would meet Shariah restrictions. But it was complicated turf for bankers who knew investing but not Shariah.
Enter Sheikh Muhammad Taqi Usmani, a former Pakistani Shariah Appellate Court justice, hired by Dow Jones in 1999 to help establish a process that could attract trillions of investment dollars, generating handsome commissions and agency earnings.
In just a decade, most major U.S. and European investment firms have retained Shariah advisors and paid them millions. Those advisors assure Muslim investors their gains are not connected to interest charges, pork farming, alcohol, pornography or Western defense industries—all activities prohibited by Shariah.
But are those adviser fees—paid to highly placed Muslims—or the billions of dollars in “donations” financial institutions must contribute to specified Islamic “charities” in exchange for an investment’s Shariah stamp of approval actually bankrolling deadly extremist activities? Morris followed the money in his 2009 book “Catastrophe,” reporting that the U.S. government shut down at least three of the largest charities for financing terrorism.

In a 2008 article titled “Jihad Comes to Wall Street,” Alex Alexiev, vice president for research at the Center for Security Policy, called Shariah-compliant investing “an essential part of radical Islam’s efforts to insinuate itself into Western societies in order to destroy them from within.”
It’s also been a bumpy road for some of those hired consultants. Dow Jones severed ties with Usmani after the Center for Security Policy detailed some of Usmani’s writings, including one that urged Muslims living in the West to “conduct violent Jihad against the infidels at every opportunity.”
The CSP identified another paid Shariah investment advisor, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.
According to Morris, Shariah-compliant funds must donate a small percentage of annual earnings to Islamic charities designated by the advisory boards. Those amounts are not inconsequential. For example, a typical 2.5 percent contribution can amount to billions of dollars.
And if a Shariah-compliant fund is found to have earnings from an outlawed investment activity, the advisors can “purify” those gains by donating more to the approved charities. Morris calls some of the charities “thinly veiled fronts for terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah.”
Is the lure of trillions of dollars from Muslim portfolios strong enough to open civil law to expanding Shariah influences?
Consider Great Britain where, just a few years ago, then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he wanted London to become the world’s Islamic-finance capital. Britain’s most senior judge subsequently proclaimed the country’s Muslims can use “Islamic legal principles” as long as the punishments and divorce rulings comply with English law.
According to Morris, that’s already made U.K. Muslims eligible for extra benefits if they have more than one wife, even though polygamy—allowed under Shariah law—is illegal in Britain.
TOLERANCE: AN ASSET OR A WEDGE?
Janet Levy, a prolific writer on Islam and national security, asks why Islam “is sacred, supreme and beyond reproach” in the United States, while other religions are “freely criticized, lampooned in cartoons and denigrated in artwork?” She concludes America is already embracing de facto Shariah law.
“Our uniquely American virtues of tolerance and freedom have worked against us to produce intolerance and oppression,” Levy says. “This has led to the stealthy introduction of Shariah law and a climate in which criticisms of Mohammed and Islam are no longer possible without serious repercussions.”
Are political correctness and moves to cool the osmosis of the American melting pot fundamentally changing us? Is the arena of ideas—where Americans have historically tested competing beliefs—being shut down so as not to offend?
Recall 1960 when Americans considered it fair game to question Democrat John F. Kennedy about whether he would look first to his Catholicism or to the Constitution in making presidential decisions. Former Massachusetts Republican Gov. Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith has come under scrutiny during his political campaigns, sans shouts of profiling.
European nations that have led the West’s embrace of Shariah law have recently begun to retreat from their policies of “multiculturalism,” suggesting failure to maintain a single national identity has actually cultivated Islamic extremism in countries like Britain.
In a February speech at the Munich Security Conference, British Prime Minister David Cameron argued European “multiculturalism has been a failure” that’s fostered Islamic extremism, adding that the West has been “cautious, frankly even fearful” of standing up to it.
“We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run completely counter to our values,” Cameron said. “This hands-off tolerance has only served to reinforce the sense that not enough is shared. … What we see—and what we see in so many European countries—is a process of radicalization.”
Something also gets jumbled in the translation when East/West cultures talk about democracy and its relationship with religion.
In 2008 polling conducted by the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes, 82 percent of Egyptians said a democratic political system should govern their nation. At the same time, 73 percent said they supported stronger application of Islamic law in Egypt.
Of those, 68 percent said Egypt’s government should apply Shariah law to regulate moral behavior; 64 percent supported using traditional punishments like stoning for adulterers; 62 percent want the government to police women’s dress; and 59 percent said Shariah rules should be used to provide for Egypt’s poor.
So what does this all mean for Shariah in America?
The U.S. Constitution does not assign superiority to a particular religion. However, the idea that liberty is man’s God-given—not government-granted—right is a Judeo-Christian principle. America is exceptional because the people—regardless of how or whether they embrace God—allow government limited power.
America does not vest all authority in a theocratic government, where law and even daily life is dictated by a single religious code. But that does not mean the United States is Islamophobic, says New Jersey blogger George Berkin.
“[S]upporting the [Oklahoma amendment] does not make one anti-Islamic. But not being anti-Islamic does not mean that we should not insist that American legal principles—not foreign ones—apply here.”

Friday, February 18, 2011

Arab Dictators and Radical Islam by Khaled Abu Toameh

For decades, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and other Arab dictators used to tell Americans and Europeans that if they did not support them, the result would be Muslim extremists coming to power.
This is why these dictators never took drastic measures against Islamic fundamentalist groups in their countries. Even though Egypt and some Arab countries occasionally cracked down on these groups, they always made sure that the Islamists would stay around.
In Egypt, for example, the Muslim Brotherhood organization had been outlawed for many years. However, this did not stop the organization and its supporters from operating under different labels.
In Jordan, similarly, the authorities played a cat-and-mouse game with Islamist groups and their followers. One day the Muslim Brotherhood in the kingdom would be good guys, on another day they would be bad guys.
This pattern gave the Muslim Brotherhood a chance to grow and win over more supporters, as the local people became more and more disgusted both with their dictators and the Western governments who supported them
Instead of focusing their attention on the Islamists, Arab dictators chose to chase secular reformists, liberals, democrats, newspaper editors and human rights activists; by suppressing the emergence of these people, the Arab dictatorships paved the way for the rise of radical extremists.
This is the reason the Islamist groups in the Arab countries are much more organized than the pro-democracy Facebook youth who launched the popular uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt.
Unlike the Islamist groups, the anti-government demonstrators in Egypt and Jordan still do not have leaders. Mohammed ElBaradei, who enabled Iran to build up its nuclear program by misrepresenting it to the West, has not succeeded in presenting himself as a charismatic leader of the opposition in Egypt.
In Tunisia, the youth who brought down the regime of President Zine al-Abidin Bin Ali also still do not have a leader.
In the absence of secular leadership, it is all too likely that the well-organized Islamist groups would, sooner rather than later, come to power.
The Arab dictators have only themselves to blame for the rise of radical Islam. For many years, these dictators incited their constituents against Israel and the West in order to divert attention from problems at home.
Ironically, as the dictators crushed any real democratic opposition -- to continue claiming to the West that radical Islam was the threat -- their constant rhetoric of incitement in the media and mosques actually drove many Arabs toward Hamas, Hizbullah, Al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood as the only alternative to these regimes.
The next time an Arab dictator tells Americans and Europeans that radical Islam is the only alternative to his corrupt secular regime, they should check to see what measures he has taken to contain the extremists.
Moreover, the Americans and Europeans need to ask why the Arab dictatorships continue to pursue the people wanting democracy, and not the radical Islamists.

Monday, February 14, 2011

Why Won't "The Beautiful People" See the Radical Islamist Threat?

I don't understand why Westerners feel the need to become apologists for a revolutionary Islamism that opposes all their rights and values. Many Arabs and Muslims, who have first-hand experience with Islamism, think this is nuts.

Thus, Nicholas Kristof, who is saved from being the worst Western journalist writing about the Middle East only by his colleague Roger Cohen, 
writes:

"Stop treating Islamic fundamentalism as a bogyman and allowing it to drive American foreign policy. American paranoia about Islamism has done as much damage as Muslim fundamentalism itself."

So is revolutionary Islamism a "bogyman" fear of which is damaging U.S. foreign policy?

Does the following sound like a "bogyman," which implies a fantasy rather than a real threat?:

Iranian revolution and hostage crisis; Algerian civil war (tens of thousands killed); Egyptian insurgency of the 1990s and many acts of terrorism within Egypt; assassination of Anwar al-Sadat; September 11 and the attacks on the Khobar Towers, USS Cole, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; more than 10,000 acts of terrorism worldwide; Bali bombing; southern Philippines insurgency; murders of civilians in southern Thailand; massive terrorism in Pakistan; repressive Taliban regime in Afghanistan; 30 years of oppression and sponsorship of terrorism by Iranian regime; beheadings of Americans in Iraq and Pakistan; kidnappings and murders in Lebanon; takeover of Lebanon by Hizballah; subversion of the 1990s peace process by Hamas; a murderous Islamist revolution in Somalia; seizure of the Gaza Strip by Hamas; 2006 attacks by Hizballah on Israel; 2008 attack on Israel by Hamas; London subway bombing; deaths of thousands in Iraq from Islamist terrorism; underpants bomber; Times Square bomber; killing of Christians in Sudan, Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan and elsewhere by Islamists; the Spanish train bombing....

Ok, I'll stop here.

Now, what damage has American "paranoia" about Islamism caused? Presumably U.S. support for Egypt's government? Well, concern over Islamism was only one of many factors there and, frankly, that policy worked pretty well over a period of more than three decades.

What else could he have in mind? Not the U.S. war in Iraq, since that was started against a radical nationalist regime. Perhaps Afghanistan? But whatever one thinks of that war, we know how horrible the Taliban rule was and we also know that this group hosted al-Qaida and made possible the deaths of about 3000 Americans on September 11, 2001.

The most basic fact about the Middle East today is this: Revolutionary Islamism seeks to take over all of the country's in the region. Today it rules in Iran, Lebanon, and the Gaza Strip. It has allies in Turkey (Islamist-oriented government) and Syria (opportunistic radical nationalist regime). There are radical groups in every country seeking to seize state power. And even if they fail, a lot of turmoil and often bloodshed results.

What makes this truly absurd is that there is an easy alternative for those who want to support Egypt's revolution. They could say that yes the Muslim Brotherhood is a threat but we must help the "good guy" reformers organize, persuade their people that democracy is best, and defeat the reactionary forces (Marxists would have called them "clerico-fascists.") Why this unnecessary blindness?

You see, Mr. Kristof, you don't comprehend the danger because you never look at anything in Arabic. The Muslim Brotherhood leaders continually say that America must be destroyed; that terrorists in Iraq killing Americans and Shia Muslims are great and should be supported; that killing Israelis and wiping Israel off the map is wonderful; and that Jews are inferior and evil.


You haven't read the Muslim Brotherhood's 
own platform which calls for turning Egypt into an Islamist state; turning Christians and women into second-class citizens; and many other things. You also haven't read the Hamas Charter which is the most antisemitic document since the last bogeyman who drove U.S. policy died in a Berlin bunker in 1945.

But since not a single mass media outlet has quoted any of this material since the revolution in Egypt began (and not too often before that) you don't know about these things.

And you work for a newspaper that allowed a Muslim Brotherhood leader to issue 
ludicrous denials of his group's endorsement of violence and collaboration with the Nazis, among other things. That's another reason you don't know that there is a revolutionary Islamist threat.

Take Kristof's phrase and you can adjust it for explaining why fascism wasn't a threat (in the 1930s and into the 1940s) and why Communism wasn't a threat (in the post-1945 world). In fact, many people did precisely that and they are looked on in history as very foolish indeed.

Still, yes, we are reduced at present to the most basic lesson of trying to teach that a threat actually does exist. Many thought this question was resolved by September 11. Apparently not.

But the only way you can distort the picture to make revolutionary Islamism benign is to ignore everything the Islamists have said and done, except when they speak in English to American reporters. And that's precisely what's happened lately.

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Radical Muslims in America - All the Benefits and Still Turning to Jihad

Recent remarks by Attorney General Eric Holder on the threat posed by "radicalized" American Muslims are revealing—not just because of what they say regarding the domestic situation, but for their international implications as well. According to Holder:
"[T]he threat is real, the threat is different, the threat is constant. The threat has changed … to worrying about people in the United States, American citizens—raised here, born here, and who for whatever reason, have decided that they are going to become radicalized and take up arms against the nation in which they were born. It is one of the things that keeps me up at night. You didn't worry about this even two years ago—about individuals, about Americans, to the extent that we now do." Holder noted that while he was confident in the United States' counter-terrorism efforts, Americans "have to be prepared for potentially bad news…. The terrorists only have to be successful once."
Holder's assertion that "the terrorists only have to be successful once" has important implications: aside from the obvious—that it only takes one strike to create devastation on U.S. soil—it is also a reminder that when people argue that most American Muslims are moderate, and only a few are radical, it does not help our security. It took nineteen to commit 9/11; and we have already seen that some American Muslims are radical. According to Holder, in the last two years, 50 of the 126 people charged with terrorism were U.S. citizens.
Conversely, Holder's point that "You didn't worry about this even two years ago—about individuals, about Americans, to the extent that we now do," is odd. Why should Americans not have been a worry two years ago? Anyone even moderately familiar with Islamist ideology knows that it allows for absolutely no national allegiance. The notion that some American Muslims could become radicalized should have been a concern since 9/11—nearly a decade ago, not two years ago. It should have been a concern when it became obvious that American Muslims—like John Walker LindhGregory Patterson, Levar Washington, Kevin JamesChristopher Paul and Jose Padilla—were turning to violent jihad.
More significantly, the fact that Americans are being radicalized not only bodes ill for U.S. security; it also suggests that American efforts in the Muslim world are doomed to failure. Consider: if American Muslims, who enjoy Western benefits—including democracy, liberty, prosperity, and freedom of expression—are still being radicalized, why then do we insist that importing these same benefits to the Muslim world will eliminate its even more ingrained form of "radicalization"?
After all, the mainstream position, the only one evoked by politicians, both Democrat and Republican, is that all the sacrifices America makes in the Muslim world (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.), will pay off once Muslims discover how wonderful Western ways are, and happily slough off their Islamist veneer, which, as the theory goes, is a product of—you guessed it—a lack of democracy, liberty, prosperity, and freedom of expression. Yet here are American Muslims, immersed in the bounties of the West—and still do they turn to violent jihad.
In short, America needs to rethink its strategy for the war on terrorism—both at home and abroad. Domestically, this means cracking down without compunction on anything that smacks of Islamist activity, without fear of being "politically incorrect;" it means better monitoring of jihadist websites which play a major role in radicalizing American Muslims, such as Inspire (which was started by a North Carolina Muslim); and it means exercising prudence when granting visas to people from dubious backgrounds. Internationally, it means understanding that the one solution to war promoted by most Western politicians—spreading Western values and ways of governance—is no solution at all.

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

10 Suggestions For Katie Couric’s New Muslim Family TV Show

CBS News Anchor Katie Couric denounced what she perceives as  anti-Muslim bigotry in this country and suggested a Muslim version of “The Cosby Show” to counteract it. This new show, in Couric’s mind, could enhance the image of Muslim-Americans much as the “Cosby Show” did for African-Americans.
Apparently, the trigger for Couric was the intense opposition to the building of the $100 million, 15 story Islamic mega mosque and community center complex so near Ground Zero. Frankly, however, I don’t think that any mushy, feel-good TV sitcom featuring Muslims will help the survivors of 9/11 or the families and friends of those who perished that day get over what happened that day.  I don’t think it will make them stop believing it is just a wee bit insensitive tobuild anIslamic tower so close to the World Trade Center Towers where nearly 3000 innocent people were slaughtered by radical Muslims.
How about some reality TV instead that can showcase the truth about radical Islam? Just a thought, but in case Couric is willing to come out of her politically correct, left-minded media bubble, here are ten ideas for her to consider in no particular order:
1. “American Jihad”
2. “Dancing With The Suicide Bombers”
3. “America’s Got Talented Jihadists”
4. “The Big Bomb Theory”
5. “Osama’s Anatomy”
6. “Flee”
7. “The Real Housewives of Mecca and Medina”
8. “The Good Wahhabist”
9. “Sharia Law and Order”
10.  ”Medieval Family”
Better yet, Katie, why don’t you just move over to MSNBC or Al-Jazeera where you will feel more comfortable? I’m sure they would be happy for you to develop your idea for a new show that would appeal to their audiences.
Joseph Klein is the author of a recent book entitled Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations and Radical Islam.