Thursday, May 28, 2015

'Moderate' Muslim Orgs. Lines Up Radicals for Conference - Ryan Mauro

by Ryan Mauro

One of the largest Islamist gatherings took place over Memorial Day Weekend at the annual joint convention of two prominent organizations.

One of the largest Islamist gatherings happened in Baltimore over Memorial Day Weekend at the annual joint convention of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) and the  Muslim American Society (MAS).

Below is a partial list of the speakers included:

Nihad AwadNihad AwadNihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Like ISNA, CAIR was branded an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation. During the trial, the Justice Department said CAIR is an entity of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee, a secret body set up to support Hamas. A 1994 Muslim Brotherhood Palestine Committee meeting agenda organized a discussion to “future suggestions to develop the work of” CAIR.

Awad publicly supported the terrorist group Hamas as far back as 1994 and referred to Hamas as well as Hezbollah as “liberation movements” in an Arabic interview with Al-Jazeera in 2004. The FBI monitored his emails from 2006 to 2008.

Siraj WahhajSiraj WahhajImam Siraj Wahhaj, whose history of extremist and anti-American incitement is almost too long to review. For example, in 1992, he said, “If only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a Caliphate. If we were united and strong, we’d elect our own emir and give allegiance to him. Take my word, if eight million Muslims unite in America, the country will come to us.”

His rhetoric became more cautious after the 9/11 attacks. In 2011, he preached, “The trap we fall into is having a premature discussion about Sharia when we are not there yet.” In November, the New York Police Department disclosed frightening information about his mosque’s activity to defend its intelligence-gathering practices.

Naeem Baig, President of ICNA. Under his leadership, ICNA has gone to bat for the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and pressured the U.S. government to stop the Bangladeshi government's crackdown on Jamaat-e-Islami, the Islamist parent group of ICNA. It was particularly upset over the execution of Jamaat-e-Islami leader for war crimes.

Baig is a signatory to the anti-ISIS letter that endorses the caliphate, Sharia governance and jihad against Israel and accused oppressors of Muslims. His group published a radical teaching guide for its members in 2009.

Sheikh Yusuf Islahi, whose biography boasts that he's been a member of the Indian branch of Jamaat-e-Islami since he was 25 years old and is a five-term member of its Central Advisory Committee. Islahi is the "chief patron" of ICNA's "Why Islam" campaign. He and the Jamaat-e-Islami he helps lead have a history of anti-Americanism and support for violent jihad.

Sheikh Mohammad Qatanani, the imam of the Hamas-linked Islamic Center of Passaic County. He was arrested and convicted by Israel in 1993 for being a member of Hamas and the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood.

The Department of Homeland Security seeks his deportation because of his terrorist links and decision not to disclose his conviction on his green card application.

“It is certainly suspicious when a person who has been convicted of being a member of, and providing services, to Hamas, who has personal ties to a Hamas militant leader, and a Hamas fundraiser also sends undisclosed cash to the West Bank,” a 2008 court filing by Homeland Security explains.

In Arabic lectures between 2007 and 2009, he prayed for the defeat of “occupation and oppression” in Iraq, Palestine and Chechnya, inferring the U.S., Israel and Russia. He also said it is permissible for Muslims to donate to the families of suicide bombers and that Muslims should not criticize Yousef al-Qaradawi, the pro-terrorism spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Qatanani has also said that the U.S. needs to limit its free speech to stop “hate” speech towards Islam.

Jamal Badawi, formerly listed on ISNA’s website as a member of its Board of Directors, is personally listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land trial and is a founder of the Muslim American Society, another U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity. His name is listed as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood official in an internal document from 1992.

Badawi’s history includes endorsing suicide bombings and “combative jihad” and praising Hamas as “martyrs.” He is also close to Brotherhood spiritual leader Yousef al-Qaradawi.

Sheikh Abdool Rehman Khan is the chairman of ICNA's Sharia Council and a member of the Fiqh Council of North America, which is dominated by Islamist radicals.  He used to be a scholar for the Islamic Foundation but was apparently fired, based on an online petition demanding his reinstatement.

Sheikh Omar Suleiman, a member of the ICNA Sharia Council. His bio states that he studied under Sheikh Salah As-Sawy and Dr. Hatem al-Haj. These are two Salafist clerics that lead the very radical Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America. The closest the organization can bring itself to foreswearing violent jihad is to oppose it because “the Islamic community does not possess the strength to engage in offensive jihad at this time [emphasis added].”

Imam Suhaib Webb is the former leader of the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center. Webb says Muslims should refuse to work with the FBI unless the FBI restores its relationship with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity. The FBI severed ties with due to evidence tying it to Hamas.

He also condemned secularism as a “radical, lunatic ideology…we’re talking about the loss of holy power in politics. It’s very difficult to find any place in the world now that is ruled by someone who is ruling by divine authority.” He said that only the Islam of Prophet Mohammed’s era is equipped for political rule today.

Ryan Mauro is’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking engagement.


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Amnesty International accuses Hamas of torturing, killing Palestinians in new report on Gaza conflict -


Hamas used the war to "ruthlessly settle scores, carrying out a series of unlawful killings and other grave abuses," Philip Luther, Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa director, charged. "These spine-chilling actions, some of which amount to war crimes, were designed to exact revenge and spread fear across the Gaza Strip."

Amnesty International accused Hamas militants Wednesday of abducting, torturing, and carrying out summary executions of Palestinians during last year's conflict in the Gaza Strip. 

The report, the last of four released by the human rights group detailing events during the fighting, said that at least 23 Palestinians were shot and killed by Hamas, which rules Gaza, while dozens more were arrested and tortured. Amnesty said those targeted were either political rivals of Hamas, including members of the Fatah party of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, or people the militant group had accused of cooperating with Israel.

The report detailed one particularly brutal spate of violence, which took place this past Aug. 22. 

"In one of the most shocking incidents, six men were publicly executed by Hamas forces outside al-Omari mosque ... in front of hundreds of spectators, including children," the report said. Hamas had announced the men were suspected "collaborators" who had been sentenced to death in "revolutionary courts," the rights group added.

"The hooded men were dragged along the floor to kneel by a wall facing the crowd, then each man was shot in the head individually before being sprayed with bullets fired from an AK-47," the report said of the August incident.

In one section of the report, testimony from the brother of Atta Najjar, an ex-Palestinian Authority policeman imprisoned since 2009 and killed by Hamas last August, described the violence done to him in captivity.

"His arms and legs were broken ... his body was as if you’d put it in a bag and smashed it ... His body was riddled with about 30 bullets," the brother was quoted as saying. "He had slaughter marks around his neck, marks of knives ... And from behind the head - there was no brain. Empty ... It was difficult for us to carry him ... He was heavy, like when you put meat in a bag; no bones. His bones were smashed. They broke him in the prison."

The report also revealed that Hamas used abandoned areas of a hospital in Gaza City to detain, question, and torture captives, even as other parts of the facility "continued to function as a medical centre [sic]".

Hamas used the war to "ruthlessly settle scores, carrying out a series of unlawful killings and other grave abuses," Philip Luther, Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa director, charged. "These spine-chilling actions, some of which amount to war crimes, were designed to exact revenge and spread fear across the Gaza Strip."

"Hamas forces have displayed a disregard for the most fundamental rules of international humanitarian law," Luther added. "Torture and cruel treatment of detainees in an armed conflict is a war crime. Extrajudicial executions are also war crimes."

The report said 16 of the people killed by Hamas were already being held by the militant group when the conflict erupted and many of them were waiting to hear the verdict of their Hamas-organized trials. "Many had been sentenced after trials before courts whose proceedings are grossly unfair. A number had said they had been tortured in order to extract 'confessions,'" the report said.

Hamas violently seized Gaza from forces loyal to Abbas in 2007, leaving Palestinians bitterly divided with Hamas ruling Gaza and Abbas governing parts of the West Bank. Since then, Hamas has launched thousands of rockets at Israel and fought three wars with the Jewish state. According to official U.N. figures, over 2,200 Palestinians were killed during the 50-day war last summer. On the Israeli side, 67 soldiers and six civilians were killed.

In March, Amnesty International accused Hamas of war crimes for launching unguided rockets and mortars from civilian areas in Gaza toward civilian areas in Israel, saying that was a breach of international law. In particular, the report cited an incident in which a missile launched by Hamas misfired and killed 13 Palestinians, 11 of them children, when it exploded next to a market in a refugee camp. 

The first two reports mainly focused on the activities of the IDF and included strong criticisms of the Israeli military and accusations of "callous indifference" and "war crimes", which were again mentioned by Luther. "The fact that Palestinian armed groups appear to have carried out war crimes by firing indiscriminate rockets and mortars does not absolve the Israeli forces from their obligations under international humanitarian law,” he said.
Luther added, “The devastating impact of Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians during the conflict is undeniable, but violations by one side in a conflict can never justify violations by their opponents.”

In reaction to the latest Amnesty International report, Salah Bardawil, a Hamas official in Gaza, told the Associated Press the incidents mentioned in the report took place 'outside the framework of the law' and Hamas was investigating them.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Hillary the Arms Dealer - Matthew Vadum

by Matthew Vadum

Mainstream media’s surprisingly probing coverage of the unfolding Clinton Foundation donations-for-favors scandal suggests that reporters have turned on the Clintons in the age of Obama.

repWhile presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was America’s top diplomat the Department of State that she oversaw approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments forked over millions of dollars to the now-embattled Clinton Foundation.

According to an International Business Times report by David Sirota and Andrew Perez, “at least seven foreign governments that received State Department clearance for American arms did donate to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was serving as secretary.” The article identified the seven nations as Algeria, Australia, Kuwait, Norway, Oman, Qatar, and Thailand.

Mainstream media’s surprisingly probing coverage of the unfolding Clinton Foundation donations-for-favors scandal suggests that reporters have turned on the Clintons in the age of Obama.

And the fact that the IBT piece was co-authored by Marxist author and radio talk show host David Sirota adds to the growing pile of evidence that some of the more ideologically pure progressives in the Democratic Party are ganging up on Mrs. Clinton in order to help as yet undeclared presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

Sirota, a former press aide to various left-wing lawmakers such as then-Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a self-described socialist who just launched his own quixotic presidential campaign, isn’t exactly an objective observer. A longtime left-wing activist who hurls invective at conservatives and Republicans, Sirota has slobbered over Warren, calling the anti-capitalism crusader “one of the most promising political leaders in a generation.”

Meanwhile, the $165 billion figure, “derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) — represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.”

While Hillary Clinton headed the State Department the agency also gave its blessing to “$151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration.”

Some of the arms transactions that secured official approval bolstered the military power of authoritarian governments that the State Department criticized for human rights abuses. Among those nations are Algeria, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

Qatar’s rulers received an excellent return on investment. That Arab nation gave funding to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was in charge at Foggy Bottom. “During the three full budgetary years of her tenure, Qatar saw a 14-fold increase in State Department authorizations for direct commercial sales of military equipment and services, as compared to the same time period in Bush’s second term,” according to the IBT article.

Mrs. Clinton noted in a December 2009 State Department cable released by Wikileaks that there was “an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority.” She also wrote that Qatar’s overall level of “cooperation with the U.S. is considered the worst in the region.”

The government of Kuwait was “less inclined to take action against Kuwait-based financiers and facilitators plotting attacks,” Clinton wrote. She also complained that “UAE-based donors have provided financial support to a variety of terrorist groups.” The countries referenced in the cables all gave money to the Clinton Foundation and were granted increased weapons export authorizations by the State Department under Clinton.

The governments and corporations involved in the weapons transactions that were rubber-stamped by Clinton’s State Department have provided between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation, along with hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, IBT reported after combing through State Department and Clinton Foundation records. And it’s not clear if that includes all the outrageous speaking fees paid by corporations and foreign governments to Bill and Hillary Clinton.

“Under federal law, foreign governments seeking State Department clearance to buy American-made arms are barred from making campaign contributions — a prohibition aimed at preventing foreign interests from using cash to influence national security policy,” the IBT writers noted pointedly. “But nothing prevents them from contributing to a philanthropic foundation controlled by policymakers.”

United Technologies, Lockheed Martin, and General Electric, are just a handful of the U.S.-based companies that apparently gave anticipatory bribes to Mrs. Clinton’s charity in case she becomes the nation’s 45th president.

It would be an understatement to say that conflicts of interests abounded when Mrs. Clinton presided over the State Department while at the same time apparently directing rivers of cash from foreign and domestic special pleaders into her family’s tax-exempt charity.

As Clinton crony and Clinton Foundation donor George Stephanopoulos volunteered on the “Daily Show with Jon Stewart” a month ago, “Everybody also knows when those [Clinton Foundation] donors give that money to President Clinton or someone, they get a picture with him: There’s a hope that that’s going to lead to something and that’s what you have to be careful of.” Since the ABC News anchor made that comment, revelations that he gave $75,000 to the foundation forced him to step down as moderator of a 2016 presidential debate between Republican candidates.

Mrs. Clinton’s eagerness to permit those seeking favors from her State Department to give money to her family foundation raises red flags about how she would manage such relationships were she to return to the White House, said Lawrence Lessig, director of Harvard University’s Safra Center for Ethics.

“These continuing revelations raise a fundamental question of judgment,” Lessig said. “Can it really be that the Clintons didn’t recognize the questions these transactions would raise? And if they did, what does that say about their sense of the appropriate relationship between private gain and public good?”

It is probably not a coincidence that IBT writer David Sirota quoted his comrade-in-arms Lawrence Lessig, also an outspoken supporter of the movement to draft Sen. Warren as a presidential candidate, in the article.

In a mass email sent April 21 to MoveOn members, Mayday Super PAC founder Lessig announced, “I’m joining the growing, grassroots movement and calling on Elizabeth Warren to run for president.”

Lessig added that Barack Obama, Dwight Eisenhower, and Ted Kennedy all denied they were running and then changed their minds “because of an outpouring of grassroots support.”

All of the scandalous revelations come after the publication May 5 of Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, by author Peter Schweizer. The New York Times calls the meticulously documented book “the most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle still in its infancy,” and reports that it “asserts that foreign entities who made payments to the [Bill, Hillary and Chelsea] Clinton Foundation and to Mr. Clinton through high speaking fees received favors from Mrs. Clinton’s State Department in return.”
And those revelations are just the beginning.

Matthew Vadum is an award-winning investigative reporter and the author of the book, "Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts Are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers."


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The strategic American - Annika Hernroth-Rothstein

by Annika Hernroth-Rothstein

If you believe ‎that Jews not only run the world but also are the devil incarnate, it is ‎perfectly rational to use whatever powers and weapons you have at your ‎disposal to try and wipe them off the face of the earth.

This past week was dominated by U.S. President Barack Obama's apparent outreach to ‎us, the Jews -- first, in the now infamous Jeffrey Goldberg interview in The Atlantic, and later in the week, in Obama's address to Washington's Adas Israel Congregation on Iran, Israel and his relationship to the Jewish ‎people. ‎

The Atlantic piece was referred to as "The Middle East Interview," but ‎whatever he said about the Gulf states or minor "setbacks" (his word, not mine) in regard to the Islamic State group was not half as enlightening as his thoughts on ‎anti-Semitism, the Iran deal and how it relates to Israel. When asked whether ‎Iran's open and aggressive anti-Semitism worries him in regard to a ‎nuclear agreement, Obama had the following to say: 

‎"Well, the fact that you are anti-Semitic, or racist, doesn't preclude you ‎from being interested in survival. It doesn't preclude you from being ‎rational about the need to keep your economy afloat; it doesn't preclude ‎you from making strategic decisions about how you stay in power; and ‎so the fact that the supreme leader is anti-Semitic doesn't mean that this ‎overrides all of his other considerations."‎

Many things about this statement are highly objectionable, but one main ‎point jumps out at first glance -- the fact that Obama seems to ‎misunderstand the nature of the anti-Semitic worldview. If you believe ‎that Jews not only run the world but also are the devil incarnate, it is ‎perfectly rational to use whatever powers and weapons you have at your ‎disposal to try and wipe them off the face of the earth. Using nuclear ‎weapons to kill Jews is not irrational to the Iranian regime; it is at the very ‎core of their logic, and this deal is presenting them with a strategy no one ‎can argue with. To put it plainly, if Iran in fact understood that anti-‎Semitism was irrational, they would not be anti-Semites. ‎

Anti-Semitism is not about finding Jews annoying, nor is it a superficial flaw. It is ‎an ideology and a plague. The American president is either unable to ‎understand the difference between views and beliefs, or he is fully aware ‎and is making a judgment call based on what he sees as a historical ‎injustice. He is righting perceived wrongs by making Iran the de facto arbitrator and ‎police of the Middle East, thus making Israel and the Jewish people into ‎collateral damage. ‎

Whether it is ignorance or malice or both, Obama is now ‎making an effort to set up this geopolitical shift as a moral choice, rather ‎than one based in chilling amounts of realpolitik. During his speech at ‎Adas Israel, Obama pointed to the Jews as a people bearing a particular ‎burden of ethical responsibility. Without shame or irony, he told us that he has "high expectations" for Israel, and that ‎the idea of tikkun olam (repairing the world) somehow obligates us to roll over -- even if that ‎motion eventually puts us in a pit. No word on how far Iran has to go, or ‎why he chose to bring them in from the cold while leaving the rest of us ‎with frostbite. 

If I were to interpret this president's words in the most generous way ‎possible, I would say he is dangerously ignorant about the world he is ‎attempting to change and is applying a Western mentality to an Eastern ‎problem. But what seems more likely is that he has decided to remodel ‎the Middle East and is telling the world in general and the Jews in ‎particular that his vision will come to pass, come hell or high water, and ‎we may as well relax and let it happen. ‎

These past years have been the darkest in Jewish history since ‎World War II, and I find it deeply disturbing that the leader of the free world is not only choosing to side with an openly anti-Semitic regime against ‎the Jewish state, but also has the chutzpah to tell the Jews that Jewish ‎morality obliges us to take it on the chin. ‎

‎"It's my name on this." Those are the words Obama used to describe the Iran deal. He said this as if to demonstrate that he can be ‎trusted, that he is in it with us, just as hesitantly and just as warily. Those ‎were comforting words to Goldberg, and they would be to me if I did ‎not begin to understand what this president hopes to leave as a legacy. ‎It's not a new deal -- it's a new world, but with an old and familiar ‎scapegoat.

Annika Hernroth-Rothstein is a political adviser, activist and writer on the Middle East, religious affairs and global anti-Semitism.


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

"Secular" Turkey - Uzay Bulut

by Uzay Bulut

  • A deeper look into the history of Turkey reveals that, unfortunately, Turkey has never been either truly secular or democratic. In Turkey, freedom of conscience and religion is respected -- but only if you are a practicing Sunni Muslim.
  • The problem is that "modern" Turkey claims to be a "secular" republic; a secular republic is supposed to treat all people -- Muslims and non-Muslims -- equally. The objective of the Diyanet (Presidency of Religious Affairs), on the other hand, is to keep religion (Islam) under the control of the state, and to keep the people under the control of the state by means of religion.
  • "Those who are not genuine Turks can have only one right in the Turkish fatherland, and that is to be a servant, to be a slave. We are the most free country of the world. They call this Turkey." — Mahmut Esat Bozkurt, Turkey's first Minister of Justice, 1930.
When many Western analysts discuss the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) in Turkey, they rightfully criticize it for its religious intolerance, authoritarianism and lack of respect for secular principles and minorities. They also tend to compare the AKP to former Kemalist governments, and draw a distinction between the Islamist AKP and former non-Islamist governments.

They claim that Turkey was "secular" and somewhat "democratic," until the AKP came to power.
A deeper look into the history of Turkey, however, reveals that, unfortunately, Turkey has never been either truly secular or democratic.

The modern Turkish state, since its founding in 1923, has never kept its hands off religion. It has engaged in religious matters on almost all levels -- by institutionalizing Sunni Islam and by persecuting (or annihilating) other faiths.

Intolerance, even hatred, for non-Muslims was openly promoted -- even by the heads of the state -- from day one.

Diyanet: The Presidency of Religious Affairs

The root of secularism is the separation of religion and state; in Turkey, such a split has never existed. One of its most important institutions is the Presidency of Religious Affairs, referred to in Turkish simply as the Diyanet.

The Diyanet was not, however, established by the Islamist AKP government. It was established in 1924, after the abolition of the Ottoman Caliphate, by the then-ruling Kemalist government as a successor to Sheikh ul-Islam (the authority that governed religious affairs of the Muslims in the Ottoman Empire).

Although the Diyanet has many branches, the first duty of the High Board of Religious Affairs, according to its official website, is "To make decisions, share views and answer questions on religious matters by taking into consideration the fundamental source texts and methodology, and historical experience of the Islamic religion as well as current demands and needs."

The problem with this institution is that "modern" Turkey claims to be a "secular" republic; a secular republic is supposed to treat all people -- Muslims and non–Muslims -- equally. A "secular" government also has the duty of embracing the principles of pluralism and objectivity in regulating matters of religion.

The objective of the Diyanet, on the contrary, is to keep religion (Islam) under the control of the state, and to keep the public under the control of the state by means of religion.

Since the founding of the Diyanet, mosques have been built by the state; muftis, muezzins and imams have been employed by the state, and their salaries have been paid from the taxes of all citizens, regardless of their religion. Also, the Friday sermons delivered by imams in all mosques across Turkey are written by the Diyanet.

But what happens when Muslims willingly convert, say, to Christianity? As the historian, Ayse Hur, tells it,
"In January 1928, it was reported that 3 Muslim Turkish girls who studied at the American College in the province of Bursa converted to Christianity upon the motivation of some teachers. This led to a fervent anti-Christian campaign. First the school was closed down, and then the principal and some teachers of the school were brought to court. Afterwards, non-Muslim schools were exposed to a very heavy inspection. And journalists established the 'Association for Driving Out Missionaries'."
In Turkey, freedom of conscience and religion is respected -- but only if you are a practicing Sunni Muslim.

The Diyanet -- with a huge budget, enormous staff, broad activities and sphere of influence -- is a bigger institution than many ministries. And under the current Islamist government, its power keeps snowballing. Today, Turkish government authorities can determine where new mosques will be built, what their architecture will be like and what size they will be.[1]

In 2012, when then-Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan (now President) attended the opening of a "selâtin mosque" in a town in Istanbul, he said: There was not a selâtin mosque in this area. This is the first one but there needs to be a few more. We have made this decision."

A selâtin mosque is the name of the mosque built by the Sultans during the Ottoman era after winning a military victory and gaining important spoils of war.

Discrimination against Alevis

If a secular democracy is supposed to be pluralistic and tolerant, if it defends equality of all people and has respect for the rights of individuals, Turkey has been everything but "secular" or "democratic".

In particular, the state-funded and state-run Diyanet has symbolized the supremacy of Sunni Islam and repression of other faiths in Turkey, especially the Alevi faith.

From the establishment of the Turkish republic in 1923 to today, "cem houses" (the prayer places of Alevis) as well as Dedes (religious leaders of Alevis) have had no legal status. Until 2002, it was forbidden even to establish associations under the title "Alevi."

The persecution of the Alevis has not only been about the denial of their faith. They have been exposed to unending violence and massacres at the hands of the Turkish regime.[2]

Discrimination against Christians

After the establishment of the Turkish Republic in 1923, non-Muslims -- Greeks, Armenians, and Jews -- were legally excluded from certain professions, including employment as civil servants, bank employees, lawyers and pharmacists, among other professions.

In the eyes of the state, Christians and Jews were not equal citizens, and even the top state authorities openly proclaimed this view. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey, said on March 16, 1923, in a speech to the Adana Turkish Merchant Society:
"The Armenians have no right whatsoever in this beautiful country. Your country is yours, it belongs to Turks. This country was Turkish in history; therefore it is Turkish and it shall live on as Turkish to eternity... Armenians and so forth have no rights whatsoever here. These bountiful lands are deeply and genuinely the homeland of the Turk." [3]
Turkey's first Prime Minister, Ismet Inonu, said on May 4, 1925: "Nationalism is our only factor of cohesion. Before the Turkish majority, other elements have no kind of influence. At any price, we must turkify the inhabitants of our land, and we will annihilate those who oppose Turks or 'le Turquisme'."[4]

The historian Ayse Hur relates that "In October 1930, the newspapers Cumhuriyet (The Republic) and Anadolu (Anatolia) reported that six Greeks, four Armenians and three Jews would run for the parliament from the newly-founded Liberal Republican Party (SCP). The newspapers said that the list of the Republican People's Party (CHP) included Turks only, and that these non-Muslim candidates joined the SCP on the basis of "anti-Turkishness."

Ihsan Pasha, an MP of the Kemalist CHP Party, which founded the Turkish republic, scolded the voters: 'How will you shamelessly vote for a party for which Hamparsuns, Mishons and Yorgos also vote for?'" He was asking, revealing the racist leanings of the founders of Turkey: "How could you vote for a party which Armenians, Jews, and Greeks also vote for?"[5]

No matter what Turkish state authorities said, or keep saying, Asia Minor is one of the places where Christians once thrived. Constantinople (Istanbul), named after Emperor Constantine the Great, was the capital city of the Roman and Byzantine empires. It was the bastion of Christianity in the East; and monumental in advancing the religion. In the 12th century, Constantinople was largest and wealthiest city in Europe.[6]

Turkey's state authorities have nonetheless refused to give up on their project of turning Asia Minor into a "Christian-free Zone" until they will complete their mission. The Minority Report published in 1946 by the 9th Office of the Republican People' Party (CHP) stated: "We have to take serious precautions in Istanbul, especially against Greeks. There is only one statement to make on this topic: Not a single Greek should remain in Istanbul by the 500th anniversary of the conquest of Istanbul."

Just nine years after this report was published, Turkish authorities actualized their plans of leaving not a single Greek in Istanbul -- under the rule of a new government led by the Democrat Party.

The last stage of the destruction of the Christian culture in Istanbul took place on September 1955 through a "pogrom" -- a government-instigated series of riots against the Greek, Armenian and Jewish minorities of Istanbul.

"It can be characterized as a 'crime against humanity,' comparable in scope to the November 1938 Kristallnacht in Germany, perpetrated by the Nazi authorities against Jewish civilians," wrote Prof. Alfred de Zayas.
"Turkish mobs devastated the Greek, Armenian, and Jewish districts of Istanbul, killing an estimated thirty-seven Greeks and destroying and looting their places of worship, homes, and businesses.
"Besides the deaths, thousands were injured; some 200 Greek women were raped, and there are reports that Greek boys were raped as well. Many Greek men, including at least one priest, were subjected to forced circumcision.
"The riots were accompanied by enormous material damage, estimated by Greek authorities at US$500 million, including the burning of churches and the devastation of shops and private homes. As a result of the pogrom, the Greek minority eventually emigrated from Turkey."
Christian-hatred in Turkey lives on. On April 18, 2007, three employees of the Zirve Bible publishing house -- two Turkish converts from Islam, Necati Aydin, 36, and Ugur Yuksel, 32, and a German citizen, Tilmann Geske, 45 -- were attacked, tortured and had their throats slit in the province of Malatya by five Muslim assailants.

On March 7, 2014, the suspects in the murders, who were still detained, were released from prison and put under house arrest after a Turkish court ruled that their detention exceeded newly adopted legal limits.

Discrimination against Jews

One of the first Turkish state authorities who openly expressed his anti-Semitism was Dr. Riza Nur, the Turkish envoy at the Conference of Lausanne, and Turkey's first Minister of Education.

On March 2, 1923, in a secret session at the Turkish parliament, he spoke about the policies defended by the Turkish side during the Lausanne talks:
"You know the Hebrews. They go to wherever they are pulled. Of course, I say it would be better if they did not exist."
As this statement makes it clear, the Jews in Turkey have been exposed to various types of persecution and human rights abuses – including the 1934 pogrom; the unending hateful propaganda of the Turkish media; forced conversions, forced displacements and forced assimilation.

Today, therefore, Turkey has only a tiny Jewish minority.

During the first years of the republic, Jews were banned from speaking Ladino, the language they had brought with them from their expulsion from Spain in 1492. Today, according to the UNESCO Atlas of the World's Languages in Danger, Ladino is one of the 18 endangered or extinct languages in Turkey.[7]

Years have passed, but anti-Semitism has remained rampant. On September 6, 1986, Palestinian terrorists, affiliated with the Abu Nidal organization, bombed and opened fire at the Neve Shalom Synagogue in Istanbul during a Sabbath service, killing 22 people and wounding hundreds more.

The incident did not get a strong reaction from the public in Turkey -- just like all the other deadly attacks against minorities that did not get strong reactions.

In 2003, near-simultaneous car bombs exploded outside two Istanbul synagogues -- Neve Shalom and Beth Israel -- both filled with worshippers. At least 23 people were killed and more than 300 wounded. A Turkish Islamic group, the Great Eastern Islamic Raiders' Front, also known as IBDA-C, claimed responsibility for the attacks.

Discrimination against Yezidis

The Yezidis, a persecuted religious minority and one of the most peaceful peoples on earth, are ethnically Kurdish, but unlike the majority of Kurds, they are not Sunni Muslims. Their ancient religion, Yezidism, integrates elements of Zoroastrianism and other ancient Mesopotamian religions.

The Yezidis say that, since the seventh century, they have been exposed to 72 genocides or attempts at annihilation.

"Most of these attacks took place in the last 1000 years, particularly in the time of the Ottoman Empire. During these attacks, millions of Yezidis were killed, kidnapped or Islamized," reported the Yezidi Community in Europe Organization.

Attacks against the Yezidis continued during the Turkish republic. Of the 80,000 Yezidis who lived in Turkey four decades ago, there remain fewer than 400 today, according to the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) and based on letters from the Yezidi community in Turkey and abroad.
"Most fled to Europe, particularly Germany.
"The Yezidis...are registered either as Muslims or non-believers in official documents and identity papers.
"The Yezidis have been deprived of their housing-rights in Turkey. Their lands have been forcibly taken away from them and their main source of income, which is agriculture and husbandry, has been eradicated this way."

Final Blow to Pursuits of Democracy in Turkey

On September 12, 1980, the Turkish armed forces staged a bloody coup d'état, while claiming to restore order. Their main strategy, however, was detention and torture; and their main targets were progressive political movements -- particularly the Kurdish movement.

For the next three years, the Turkish armed forces ruled the country through the National Security Council. During this period, there were extrajudicial killings, rapes and brutal torture in prisons and detention centers -- especially in the Kurdish province of Diyarbakir.

According to a report by the Parliamentary Investigation Commission for the Coups and the Memorandums published in 2012, the results of the coup included:
"650,000 people were arrested; 1,683,000 people were blacklisted; 230,000 people were tried in 210,000 lawsuits; 7,000 people were asked for the death penalty; 517 persons were sentenced to death; 50 of those given the death penalty were executed; 71,000 people were tried on account of the articles 141, 142 and 163 of the Turkish Penal Code; 98,404 people were tried on charges of being members of an organization; 388,000 people were not given a passport; 30,000 people were dismissed from their jobs because they were suspects; 14,000 people were removed from citizenship; 30,000 people went abroad as political refugees; 300 people died in a suspicious manner; It was documented that 171 people died due to torture; 937 films were banned because these were considered objectionable; 23,677 associations had their activities stopped; 3,854 teachers, 120 academics and 47 judges were dismissed from their jobs; 400 journalists were asked a total of 4000 years' imprisonment; Journalists were sentenced to 3315 years and 6 months in prison; newspapers could not be published for 300 days; 39 tons of newspapers and magazines were destroyed; 299 people lost their lives in prison."
This coup d'état therefore had nothing to do with wanting to stop armed conflicts and restoring order, or bringing democracy.

But it did have everything to do with attempting to create a nation of "sheep" through fear and intimidation, especially through repressing the Kurds' demands for freedom.

One of the decisions of the military dictatorship was to require schools to hold "religion and ethics classes." The 24th article of the 1982 Constitution states that, "the religion and ethics classes are among the compulsory classes studied at primary and middle schools."

Turkey is still ruled by this constitution, which was prepared by the 1980 military dictatorship and took effect in 1982.

The "religion and ethics classes" indoctrinate schoolchildren with Sunni Islam. Alevi schoolchildren also must attend these classes. It would be hard to get farther from the principles of a secular state.

Only Sunni Turks -- particularly the "good" and "loyal" ones who do not oppose or speak out against unjust state policies -- have been allowed to live freely and safely in Turkey.

"The master in this country is the Turk," said Mahmut Esat Bozkurt, the first Turkish Minister of Justice, in 1930. "Those who are not genuine Turks can have only one right in the Turkish fatherland, and that is to be a servant, to be a slave. We are in the most free country of the world. They call this Turkey." [8]

According to both the state ideology and public, a real Turk is the one who is a Muslim.

This is the ideology on which Turkey was built and nurtured; because of this ideology, Turkey has never been a secular democracy.

The current AKP government did not come out of thin air. Exterminating Christians, Jews, Alevis and Yezidis -- all representing great civilizations of Asia Minor -- also meant exterminating tolerance, diversity, and culture.

After all these un-secular, un-democratic and tyrannical policies of Turkey, how could one even expect Turkey to have a tolerant, secular and pro-Western government that respects the freedom of speech?

The AKP is the natural outcome of decades of either the repression or the forced assimilation of non-Muslims and non-Turks, as well as the institutionalization and the indoctrination of Sunni Muslims throughout public institutions and education.

All this is what has led to the government now ruling Turkey.

[1] The 2013 budget of the Diyanet (4.6 billion Turkish liras; nearly $1.8 billion USD), for instance, surpassed the budgets of 11 ministries, including the Ministry of Health. With a budget of 5.44 billion liras (over $2.1 billion USD) in 2014, the Diyanet also surpassed the budget of 13 ministries.
[2] These include the 1937-1938 Dersim massacres; the April 18, 1978 Malatya massacre; the September 4, 1978 Sivas massacre; the December 19-24, 1978 Maras massacre; the July 3-4, 1980 Corum massacre; the July 2, 1993 Madimak/Sivas massacre; the March 12, 1995 Gazi/Istanbul massacre, and the March 14-15, 1995 Umraniye/Istanbul massacre. There were also deadly attacks against Alevis on June 2, 1966 in Ortaca/Mugla, in 1968 in Hekimhan/Malatya, on June 11, 1967 in Elbistan/Maras and on March 1, 1971 in Kirikhan/Hatay.
[3] Corporatist Ideology in Kemalist Turkey: Progress or Order?, by Taha Parla and Andrew Davison, Syracuse University Press, 2004.
[4] Kurdistan: In the Shadow of History, by Susan Meiselas (with chapter commentaries by Martin van Bruinesen) New York: Random House, 1997.
[5] The Liberal Republican Party (SCP) was short lived. Founded on August 12, 1930, the SCP was dissolved just a few months later, on November 17, 1930. With its closure, Turkey remained a one-party state until the establishment of the National Development Party in 1945.
[6] An Historical Geography of Europe, 1500–1840, by Norman John Greville Pounds, p. 124. CUP Archive, 1979.
[7] There are 11 endangered, 4 vulnerable and 3 extinct languages in Turkey, according to UNESCO. Ladino, otherwise known as Judezmo, is a severely endangered language.
[8] Corporatist Ideology in Kemalist Turkey: Progress or Order?, by Taha Parla and Andrew Davison, Syracuse University Press, 2004.

Uzay Bulut  Follow Uzay Bulut on Twitter


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Head Of Jordanian Authors Union: Salafi-Jihadi Organizations Draw Their Methods From Jewish Talmud - MEMRI


In a December 24, 2014 column in the Jordanian daily Al-Arab Al-Yawm, Jordanian Authors Union head Dr. Muwaffaq Mahadin claimed that there are ties between Salafi-jihadi organizations and global Zionism and Judaism. The jihadi groups, he said, have even drawn their methods of operation from Zionism and the Talmud, including mass murder, abductions, and the stripping away of human dignity, which he calls "clear Talmudic methods lacking all connection to Islamic heritage."

The following are excerpts from his column:
Dr. Muwaffaq Mahadin (Image:

"The facts and findings on the ground point to a connection between takfiri [jihad] organizations and Zionist circles, but what is more important is the ideological or philosophical dimension that these groups share with global Judaism and its secret circles.

"When these [jihad] organizations carry out mass murder, with suicide operations and various explosive devices, or with other barbaric collective operations such as demanding that a sectarian mob trample and kick someone they have detained, and so on – these are clear Talmudic methods lacking any connection to Islamic heritage and its lofty traditions and practices. [The evidence for this is:]

"1.   In the criminal barbaric Talmudic tradition, the plural form is used very often, such as 'the people came' and 'the people went,' much like the racist [term] 'God's chosen people,' [meaning that this people] can [do] things that are forbidden to foreign 'gentiles,' who are compared to animals that can be killed, whose property can be appropriated, and whose wives may be taken captive. The Ten Commandments [that include] 'thou shalt not kill,' 'thou shalt not steal,' and 'thou shalt not commit adultery' do not apply to the gentiles, which is reminiscent of the concept of citizenship in ancient Greece, where women, foreigners, quarry workers, and prisoners were excluded from citizenship and did not enjoy the equality of others, who were 'free.'

"2.   On the other hand, Islam, just as it stresses the fabric and unity of the ummah, so it also emphasizes reward and punishment, and the rights of the individual: a) Each person is responsible for his own actions, and b) Each person bears his own punishment.

"Therefore, [in Islam,] collective murder and punishment are completely banned, including suicide operations in any civilian population centers. Similarly, no person may be abducted to be exchanged for another who is unrelated to him. 

"In conclusion, all the [acts of] mass murder, abduction, and stripping prisoners and captives of human dignity that are carried out by takfiri [jihad] organizations are the fruit of the loins of the Talmudic culture, which contradicts all Islamic heritage and the Islamic text, which explicitly ban unlawful killing."



Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

New Energy vs. the Birds - Derrick Wilburn

by Derrick Wilburn

Obama is fulfilling his 2008 promise to bankrupt coal power plant operators and introduce policies that would make American household’s electricity costs “skyrocket.” None of these measures could be passed through Congress so they’re being implemented via federal agencies like the EPA and BLM and/or through executive order.

“You should be careful what you ask for, you just might get it” is an oft-used proverb to describe the principle of unintended consequences and that’s a principle currently visiting America’s left-leaning ‘green movement.’ For years this small but vocal corner of the population has been demonizing ‘big oil’, calling for an end to use of fossil fuels and a wholesale switch to renewable fuels, namely wind and solar. Greenies were elated when one of their own, Barack Obama, was twice elected to the Oval Office and with his full-fledged commitments to crush the coal industry, drive up the costs of petroleum-based energy sources and spend hundreds of billions on the development of alternative fuel sources.

Obama is fulfilling his 2008 promise to bankrupt coal power plant operators and introduce policies that would make American household’s electricity costs “skyrocket.” None of these measures could be passed through Congress so they’re being implemented via federal agencies like the EPA and BLM and/or through executive order. So damaging are Obama’s actions that on May 5th several state attorneys general testified before a Senate panel that the latest Obama EPA proposals will have a “devastating impact” on their states.

Undeterred, Obama utilized his obligation to deliver the commencement address at the United States Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut just last week to reiterate his views that the spread of radical jihad is not the greatest threat to the world today, its global climate change.

While doing all in his power to fulfill promises to bankrupt or otherwise destroy fossil fuel providers Obama is at the same time hitting the gas (pun intended) on spending taxpayer money to develop alternative power source. Seems you can't drive anywhere on America's highway system without seeing trucks with "OVERSIZED LOAD" banners carrying giant wind turbine blades or freight train boxcars carrying the same. Particularly here in the western states. (I live in Colorado.) The Obama administration's aggressive use of taxpayer dollars to hyper-drive the renewable energies industry has resulted in major cash windfall (another pun) for companies in this sector. Multi-million dollar debacles like Solyndra have been well documented. Watchdog groups have erected websites devoted to monitoring the public flushing of funds down the green bankruptcy drain.

But beyond the howling of fiscal conservatives wanting to know where all money has gone the ‘green movement’ is coming under attack from a most unexpected source – the ‘green movement.’ Seems the pursuit of green utopia is coming at a steep price to some of the planet’s birds.

Unforeseen until this massive expansion of production capability we are now discovering that acres and acres of solar and/or wind power production fields are either incinerating or bludgeoning birds to death in mid-flight. And the greenies who want alternative fuels now are hopping made with those who want to protect wildlife. Problem is they’re the same people.

America's green-energy movement has a lot of crossover members with the "save the whales, birds and field mice" crowd. For the most part those who hate big oil, love solar and wind, and scream the need to protect all forms of wildlife tend to be under the same political tent. They now find themselves facing conflict over the effects of both wind and solar farms on America's birds. reported on California’s new solar power plant claiming it is “actually a death ray that’s incinerating birds mid-flight.” So noteworthy is the death and destruction that NBC actually ran a report on its "Today Show" highlighting what ground engineers at one such plant call “streamers” – birds catching fire and leaving a stream of smoke behind as they plummet to the ground dead. Websites and news sources reporting similar phenomena of birds being microwaved in midair pepper the internet. Wind farms are no better.

Last week the bird advocacy group American Bird Conservancy released an analysis claiming that guidelines published by the Department of Fish and Wildlife are not sufficient for protecting birds, that too many birds are being killed, and it’s time to roll out some new, tougher regulations. Many of the affected birds are some of America’s most majestic, including eagles, hawks, falcons, and other birds of prey. The report claims that more than 30,000 turbines have been installed nationwide and 50,000 others are planned in areas where birds are particularly vulnerable to fatal collisions.

(One might wonder how a bird can be stuck by a turbine blade while flying. Birds of prey are much like texting drivers, looking one way, moving another. Hawks and eagles are not looking where they're going while flying -- there's [typically] nothing in the sky for them to collide with -- they're looking down for movement or anything else that could possibly classify as "lunch.")

In 2013 the federal government for the first time enforced environmental laws protecting birds against wind energy facilities, winning a $1 million settlement from Duke Energy when the company pleaded guilty to killing 14 eagles and 149 other birds at its wind farms.

Knowing full well how vicious the green left can be, the wind power industry would just as soon keep quiet about the issue of birds being killed by windmills. In 2014, PacificCorp, which operates 13 wind farms, actually sued the federal government to stop the release of bird death data. Pacificorp of Portland, Oregon sought an injunction in U.S. District Court to prevent the Interior Department from releasing information sought under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act claiming the information was confidential. In December of the same year PacificCorp entered a guilty plea and agreed to pay a $2.5 million fine to settle charges directly connected to the deaths of birds at its wind farms.

That birds are dying at the hands of these ‘new energy’ sources is documented and undeniable. That raises the new set of questions concerning what, if anything, to do about it that in turn leads back to the principle of unintended consequences.

The feds are eyeing several measures which may help decrease the number of accidental bird deaths such as “screamers”, including noisemakers on the tips of the rotary blades which whistle as air passes through them, L.E.D. lights which make the structures and blades more visible at night, and also erecting audible barriers not unlike the invisible fences used to keep dogs in a confined area to help prevent birds from flying into solar farms.

No matter what solutions are ultimately settled on this much is certain: liberals ‘solving’ the problems liberals have created will result in more laws, more rules, more regulations, and more restrictions on businesses which in turn results in federal agencies having more power, more duties of enforcement and therefore ever-swelling budgets. Costs to operate will go up for the energy producers. Costs to regulate the producers will go up for the government. And the tab for all of these increased costs will ultimately come to rest on the shoulders of the consumer and taxpayer.

Intended – more abundant clean energy for all. Unintended – higher costs for all. Solution? Simple. Only operate solar farms at night.

Derrick Wilburn


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Share It