Monday, July 23, 2012

The Political Battle Over the ‘Occupation’ Narrative


by Dore Gold

In January 2012, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Yaakov Neeman, the justice minister, turned to former Israeli supreme court justice Edmond Levy to head a panel of legal experts that would look into questions of land ownership in the West Bank. The initiative came about when it was discovered that a housing project in the settlement of Beit El, north of Jerusalem, had been built years earlier on Palestinian private land, and the government decided to adhere to the judgment of the Supreme Court to have the Israeli building project removed. The panel was intended to study how Israeli decision-making had been made in the past and what could be done to avoid such situations in the future.

Israel-flag01c

Yet, looking back over the last two weeks, what appeared to hit a raw nerve with the critics of the report, that was just released in July by Levy's committee, was not what it had to say about the issues, for which the committee was appointed, but rather with how it dealt with the broader narrative for describing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This became evident in how the reaction focused on the report's conclusion that "the classical laws of 'occupation' as set out in the relevant international conventions cannot be considered applicable to…Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria" (the West Bank). It was this sentence that was paraphrased and plastered on the headlines of Israeli newspapers and became a subject of debate in the international media as well.

How did Levy's panel reach this conclusion along with his two colleagues, Tehiya Shapira, the former deputy president of the Tel Aviv District Court, and Alan Baker, the former legal advisor of the Israeli foreign ministry in the 1990s? It was Baker who brought in a unique expertise having been one of the main drafters of many of the Oslo Accords with the Palestinians. The panel argued that the Israeli presence in the West Bank was sui generis, because there was no previously recognized sovereignty there when it was captured by the IDF in 1967. The Jordanian declaration of sovereignty in 1950 had been rejected by the Arab states and the international community as a whole, except for Britain and Pakistan.

Moreover, as the Levy Report points out, the Jewish people still had residual historical and legal rights in the West Bank emanating from the British Mandate that were never cancelled, but rather were preserved by the U.N. Charter, under Article 80—the famous “Palestine Clause” that was drafted, in part, to guarantee continuity with respect to Jewish rights won at the League of Nations.

Finally, with the advent of the Oslo Agreements in the 1990s, there was no longer an Israeli military government over the Palestinian population. Indeed, the famous 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention on occupied territories stipulates that an occupying power is bound to its terms “to the extent that such a Power exercises the function of government in such territory (Article 6).”

Yet the establishment of the Palestinian Authority in 1994 made the situation complex. For as a result, some functions of government were retained by the IDF, others were exercised by the Palestinians, and there were also shared powers. In other words, the situation on the ground in the West Bank was not black and white, which allowed moral judgments to be easily made about a continuing Israeli occupation. The Palestinians did not have an independent state, but they could not be considered to be under "occupation" when at the same time they were being ruled first by Yasser Arafat and then by his successor, Mahmoud Abbas.

The idea that the West Bank could not be simply characterized as "occupied" comported with traditional Israeli legal opinions. For instance, Israel's former ambassador to the U.N., Chaim Herzog (who would later become Israel's president), appeared in the General Assembly on October 26, 1977, and laid out Israel's legal status in the territories with respect to the Fourth Geneva Convention on occupied territories. He stated: "In other words, Israel cannot be considered an 'occupying Power' within the meaning of the Convention in any part of the former Palestine Mandate, including Judea and Samaria."

This view was reinforced again a quarter of a century later. In May 2003, after the IDF conducted Operation Defensive Shield in order to put an end to a two-year wave of Palestinian suicide bombing attacks, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon astonished his supporters by saying that the IDF could not continue to be deployed throughout West Bank cities because that would mean keeping the Palestinians "under occupation." However, Attorney General Elyakim Rubenstein, responded that it was not correct to call the West Bank and the Gaza Strip "occupied territories" but rather "disputed territories." A statement published by the justice ministry added that "their status will be decided by future agreements."

**

It is instructive to see how the international community looks at far clearer cases of territories that came under military control of foreign forces as a result of armed conflict. On July 20, 1974, the Turkish army invaded Cyprus, which had been an independent state since 1960, taking over 37 percent of the island. The Turkish zone declared its independence in 1983, but no state, except Turkey, recognized the new government.

How does most of the international community refer to the territory of Northern Cyprus? The fact of the matter is that they don't label it an "occupation." When the EU accepted Cyprus as a new member state in 2004, it prepared a memorandum explaining that the accession to the EU was suspended "in the area of the Republic of Cyprus in which the Government of the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control."

There is also the example of Western Sahara, which was completely taken over by the Moroccan army in 1979. After Spain withdrew from the territory and a joint administration with Mauritania failed to emerge, Morocco viewed Western Sahara as Moroccan territory. Morocco's claim was challenged by the Polisario, the militia manned by residents of the region that waged a guerilla war against the Moroccan army with the backing of Algeria. The International Court of Justice in the Hague formally rejected the Moroccan claim of sovereignty, recognizing the people of Western Sahara’s right to self-determination. In numerous resolutions in the U.N., Western Sahara has not been called "occupied territory," even though the Moroccan army has been sitting on land beyond the internationally recognized borders of Morocco.

At the end of World War II, the Soviet army invaded Japan and occupied the Kuril Islands, which had been previously Japanese territory. Here again, the Japanese foreign ministry's recent paper on the Kuril Islands doesn't even speak about ending the Russian occupation, but rather about the need to "reach a settlement of this unresolved issue of the Northern Territories."

All three cases of Northern Cyprus, Western Sahara, and the Kuril Islands are open and shut cases of foreign occupation under international law and yet in the diplomatic arena the term "occupation" is not formally applied to them. Ironically, in the case of the West Bank, where the Israeli presence is a far more complex legal issue, the term "occupation" has been uncritically applied, even by Israelis.

Thus the decision to use the term "occupation" appears to emanate as much from political considerations as it does from any legal analysis. For "occupation" is a term of opprobrium. In much of Europe, the term still invokes memories of the Nazi occupation of France. Those being constantly bombarded by the term "occupation" in Europe undoubtedly make subconscious links between Israeli behavior in the territories and the events of the Second World War. Indeed, that is the intention, in many cases, of those using and promoting this language, despite the fact that such analogies are repulsive to anyone with the least bit of Jewish historical memory.

Nonetheless, pro-Palestinian groups, and their allies on the far left, use the charge of "occupation" as part of their rhetorical arsenal—along with other epithets, like "colonialist, apartheid state"—for waging political warfare against Israel. The charge of "occupation" has evolved into one of the most potent weapons in the delegitimization campaign against Israel.

It is noteworthy that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Geneva published a study on the subject of occupation in April 2012 that concluded that the term had unquestionably acquired a "pejorative connotation." Experts attending the meetings of the ICRC recommended replacing the term with new legal nomenclature, in order to get wider adherence to international humanitarian law by those who were occupying foreign territory but wanted to avoid the occupation label.

There are also well meaning Israelis who call for an "end to the occupation" in order to build internal political support for a full Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, by appealing to the conscience of Israelis who do not want to think of themselves as occupiers nor to have the world community see them this way. But in making this call, its advocates strip Israel of the rights it acquired in U.N. Security Council 242 that did not require it to pull back to the pre-1967 lines, which have been regarded by most Israeli leaders from Rabin to Netanyahu as indefensible.

Levy's committee has restored Israel's legal narrative about its rights in the West Bank. There are those who charged that in rejecting the application of the term "occupation" to the Israeli presence in the West Bank, the Levy committee's report will set the stage for eventual Israeli annexation of the territories. Of course these concerns are baseless. The report of the Levy committee says absolutely nothing about what political solution for the future of the West Bank is desirable.

Nonetheless its conclusions are still important for one diplomatic scenario, in particular: a negotiated end of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the future. For at the end of the day, there is a huge difference in how a compromise will look if Israel's negotiating team comes to the peace table as "foreign occupiers," who took someone else's land, or if they come as a party that also has just territorial claims.

Moreover, as long as the international community constantly fuels the "occupation" narrative, the Palestinians’ propensity to consider making a real compromise, which is critical for any future agreement, will be close to nil. In fact, this false narrative only reinforces their mistaken belief in the delegitimization campaign against Israel as an alternative to seeking a negotiated settlement of the conflict.

In sum, the "occupation" label is built on flawed analysis and requires the application of transparent double standards by those who use it, by which they single out Israel for condemnation that it does not merit. Rather than creating a setting for diplomacy to succeed, it only makes a real Middle Eastern peace more remote than ever.

Dore Gold, Israel’s former ambassador to the United Nations, is president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

Source: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/political-battle-over-occupation-narrative_648797.html?nopager=1

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

Obama Administration Draws Closer to Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood


by C. Hart

The cozy relationship between the United States government and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood should be cause for concern both to Americans and to Israelis. U.S. lawmakers are calling for an investigation into President Barack Obama's administration to determine whether some associations with Islamists could be detrimental to the security of the United States.

U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann and several other lawmakers are asking federal officials to conclude whether there are potential Islamist infiltrators interacting with American agencies, including front groups for the Muslim Brotherhood. (See also: "'Gentlemen's Club' Gangs Up on Bachmann.")

The Obama administration has displayed considerable favor towards the Muslim Brotherhood, beginning with the rejection of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak during the peak of the Egyptian revolution last year. Bachmann, along with U.S. Representatives Trent Franks, Lynn Westmoreland, Louie Gohmert, and Thomas Rooney, wants to know why this favor has increased since Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi took office.

They are questioning how Huma Abedin, deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, received a security clearance to work for the State Department. Some Middle East analysts conclude that Abedin, who has close family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood (see also "Saleha Abedin and the Muslim Sisterhood"), could be influencing U.S. foreign policy, especially if she is privy to classified information. It has also been reported that Hani Nour Eldin, an Egyptian lawmaker with close ties to a U.S.-designated terrorist group, met with Obama administration officials in June 2012.

Just how much influence do sympathizers of the Muslim Brotherhood have in the formation of American foreign policy in the Middle East?

If U.S. foreign policy is driven by links to Islamists, this complicates the U.S. Strategic Cooperation Agreement with Israel. Israeli officials have put their trust in the Obama White House to keep Israel's interests in mind during this transitional period in Egyptian politics. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in his great concern that the newly elected Egyptian president will keep the peace treaty intact, has depended on American diplomacy to deliver the right message to Morsi -- one that will benefit America's main ally in the Middle East...Israel.

Yet a recent meeting among Clinton, Morsi, and the latter's foreign minister has revealed a new and worrisome development. During a news conference in Cairo, Clinton stated:

More than three decades ago, Egypt and Israel signed a treaty that has allowed a generation to grow up without knowing war. And, on this foundation, we will work together to build a just, comprehensive, regional peace in the Middle East based on two states for two peoples with peace, security and dignity for all.

For the first time, the U.S. has publicly linked the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty to a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, as noted in Clinton's remarks. This is exactly what Morsi has stipulated in his public remarks, and it is a dangerous precedent set by the United States.

In the future, pressure on Israel to succumb to Palestinian aspirations may become an even greater demand of the Obama White House based on the influence of Islamists working within the American government. Obama could have the strong backing of not only the State Department, but also other government agencies as he insists that Israel comply with certain Palestinian ultimatums in order to move the peace process forward. Already, Israel is being asked, once again, to work on new concessions in order to bring the Palestinians back to the peace table.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is sticking to his declarations that Israel must halt construction in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and East Jerusalem, must accept a two-state solution based on the pre-1967 lines, and must release more than 100 Palestinians in Israeli jails.

A re-elected President Obama would have more leverage on Israel in his second term in office, because he would not have to depend on American Jewish support, as he does now leading up to the November 2012 election. If Obama's current Middle East policy continues, linking the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty to a comprehensive peace deal in the Middle East (foremost with the Palestinians), it will force Israel's hand to comply not only with Palestinian demands, but also with Egyptian demands. It will become a point of contention and increased friction between the Israeli and Egyptian governments.

At the recent news conference in Cairo, Egypt's Foreign Minister Kamel Amr proclaimed that President Morsi "has repeatedly reaffirmed, and on all occasions, that Egypt continues to respect all treaties signed as long as the other party to the treaty respects the treaty itself."

Does this mean that Morsi will look for an excuse to re-examine the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty because he feels that the Israeli government is not respecting the agreement in its refusal to meet Palestinian demands?

In his statement to the media, Foreign Minister Amr reiterated Morsi's remarks regarding Egypt's treaty with Israel and Egypt's understanding of peace, "that it should be comprehensive, exactly, as stipulated in the treaty itself. And, this also includes the Palestinians, of course, and... their right [to] have their own state on the land that was - the pre-June 4th, 1967 borders - with Jerusalem as its capital."

This statement strongly indicates that a newly formed Egyptian government can be expected to pressure Israel in order for peaceful relations with Egypt to continue. This linkage is a clear sign of trouble ahead for Israel. Morsi could accuse Israel of not adhering to the tenets of the Egyptian peace treaty because the Jewish state is unwilling to sign a comprehensive peace deal -- not only with the Palestinians, but with other countries in the region as well.

What is unconscionable is that Obama is already aligning his foreign policy with Morsi's, to the detriment of Israel.

Egypt has always been the leader of the Arab world and, until the country's recent upheaval, has demonstrated its diplomatic power throughout the Middle East.

The last time Israel seriously entered into comprehensive peace negotiations was with Syria, brokered by Turkey, during former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's reign. Now, diplomatic relations between Turkey and Israel have soured, and the Syrian government is about to fall. That leaves Egypt, and a much weaker Jordan, to pick up the mantle of brokering a Middle East comprehensive peace deal.

Meanwhile, Israeli leaders should be protesting to U.S. officials privately, even if they are keeping a low profile publicly, about Obama's foreign policy in regard to Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood. U.S. Deputy Secretary of State William Burns visited Morsi in early July. He underscored America's commitment to building a new partnership with a new democratic Egypt. But there is serious doubt that Morsi's vision for Egypt includes the formation of a democratic state in the way that America understands democracy.

Morsi, whose first official state visit was to Saudi Arabia, is expected to get needed financial aid to help Egypt's ailing economy. He also welcomes U.S. aid, but not in a way that will interfere with his ideology. Obama seems to be ignoring this fact, hoping that U.S. influence will work in Egypt. He recently invited Morsi to visit him in September.

Morsi is currently in a political battle with the ruling Egyptian army, which is delaying efforts to write and complete a new Egyptian constitution. Secular Egyptians are not in agreement with Morsi's Islamic doctrine, which was revealed in his campaign speech before supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood in May 2012.

At the time, Morsi proclaimed:

The Koran is our constitution. The Prophet Muhammad is our leader. Jihad is our path. And, death for the sake of Allah is our most holy aspiration. And, most of all, Allah is our goal. The Sharia; then the Sharia; and, finally the Sharia. This nation will enjoy blessing and revival only through the Islamic Sharia. I take an oath before Allah and before you all, that regardless of the actual text [of the constitution], Allah willing, the text will truly reflect [the Sharia], as will be agreed upon by the Egyptian people, by the Islamic scholars, and by legal and constitutional experts. Rejoice and rest assured that these people will not accept a text that does not reflect the true meaning of the Islamic Sharia as a text to be implemented and as a platform. The people will not agree to anything else." (MEMRI video translation, 5/2012)

Obama's Middle East policymakers have been misled in their appeasement of radical Islamists like Morsi, despite no guarantees that Egyptians will live in a free democratic society. For Obama administration officials to fully embrace Morsi, knowing that he is not fully committed to the peace treaty with Israel, is a White House slap in the face to Israeli leaders.

Another concern is the increased favor Hamas has with the new Egyptian president and the parliament, which is dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood -- the parent organization of Hamas. Morsi and his government can be expected to turn a blind eye to the increased smuggling into Gaza of advanced weapons systems, whether supplied by Libyan operatives or Iran. Recently, Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal met with Morsi in Cairo and said that Morsi's presidency was the start of a new era for Egypt and the Palestinians. He confirmed Egypt's leadership role in the Arab world.

Now, it is up to Morsi to show respect for all Egyptian citizens, whether secular or religious; to keep the peace with Israel regardless of Israel's relationship with the Palestinians or neighboring Middle East countries; and to accept American economic aid in exchange for a peaceful transition to a free and democratic society. That scenario is unlikely as Islamists take control of the Arab Spring and exercise their power in the Middle East. It is time for American officials to stop their appeasement policies, wake up, and see the handwriting on the wall.

C. Hart is a news analyst reporting on political, diplomatic, and military issues as they relate to Israel, the Middle East, and the international community.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/obama_administration_draws_closer_to_egypts_moslem_brotherhood.html

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

Obama's Passport Breach: Unanswered Questions, and an Unsolved Murder


by Pamela Geller

Back in March 2008, the State Department launched an investigation of improper computer access to the passport records of Barack Hussein Obama, and days later those of Hillary Clinton and John McCain. The investigation centered on one employee: a contract worker for a company that was headed by John O. Brennan, a key Obama campaign adviser who later became assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.

Then, a month later, the key witness in this case was murdered. Lt. Quarles Harris, Jr., 24, was shot in the head in his car, in front of his church.

During the 2008 presidential election, I ran a number of stories at my website, AtlasShrugs.com, on the breach of Obama's passport. Fast-forward to four years later, and there is no new information. Why is this murder case not being pursued? Who at the State Department is covering up Obama's passport breach? Lt. Harris told federal investigators before he was murdered that he received "passport information from a co-conspirator who works for the U.S. Department of State." What became of the "co-conspirator"? Why wasn't he/she brought to trial?

I always thought that the perpetrators rifled through Clinton's and McCain's files to make it look as if they were looking for dirt on all three, but that it was Obama's passport records that they were actually interested in accessing. Thus, secondarily, almost as an afterthought, there were "violations" concerning Clinton and McCain. For who stood to gain from a tampering, and why?

There is no way to tell what might have been done to Obama's passport records by those who accessed them. Key information could have been altered or destroyed. On April 8, 2008, after the breach became public, Obama confessed to having taken a trip to Pakistan in 1981. The then-candidate said: "I traveled to Pakistan when I was in college." Journalist Jake Tapper was surprised and said: "This last part -- a college trip to Pakistan -- was news to many of us who have been following the race closely. And it was odd that we hadn't hear about it before, given all the talk of Pakistan during this campaign."

Did Obama confess to this trip, which he doesn't mention in either of his autobiographies, because of the passport breach? While the oft-repeated charge that Americans were forbidden to travel to Pakistan in 1981 appears to be false, questions remain about why Obama took the trip at all, and what he did there. Indian counterterrorism expert Bahukutumbi Raman asked pointed questions about this trip:

Why did he keep mum on his visit to Pakistan till this question was raised? Has he disclosed all the details regarding his Pakistan visit? Was it as innocuous as made out by him -- to respond to the invitation of a Pakistani friend or was there something more to it? As I read about Obama's visit to Pakistan in the 1980s, I could not help thinking of dozens of things. Of the Afghan jihad against communism. Of the fascination of many Afro-Americans for the jihad. Of the visits of a stream of Afro-Americans to Pakistan to feel the greatness of the jihad. Of their fascination for Abdullah Azzam[.]

It bears noting that John Brennan has made some incredible pro-terror remarks -- some in Arabic no less -- about the beauty of jihad.

Raman acknowledged that these were "morbid" speculations but said they were "understandable when one has a feeling that one has not been told the whole story, but only a part of it."

And Obama confessed to this trip two weeks after his passport was tampered with. There is a video here of Obama's response to the passport breach back on March 21, 2008. It's telling that he assures everyone that he has nothing to hide: "not because I have any particular concerns" (0:23). This is before the birth certificate controversy. Who would say that -- unless he did have particular concerns?

Obama said at the time that attempts to "tap into people's personal records" were "a problem not just for me, but for how our government functions."

Laughable, considering how intrusive his administration has been and continues to be in accessing private information.

Also laughable is the enemedia's pretensions to journalistic integrity when they refuse to ask these questions. A man is dead, and there is abundant evidence of improper conduct by Obama and his cronies, and the media lets the story lie dormant for four years. Lt. Harris deserves better. So do the American people.

Pamela Geller is the publisher of AtlasShrugs.com and the author of the WND Books title Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/obamas_passport_breach_unanswered_questions_and_an_unsolved_murder.html

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

Saleha Abedin and The Muslim Sisterhood


by Andrew G. Bostom


Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, and four other members of Congress—Representatives Gohmert, Franks, Westmoreland, and Rooney—have all expressed legitimate concerns to the State Department Inspector General (IG; and IGs of the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Justice) regarding policies “enormously favorable to the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and its interests.” The five Representatives, in turn, characterize these policies, more ominously (albeit appropriately) as “deeply problematic,” and even posing overt “…security risks for this nation, its people and interests.”

My colleagues Andrew McCarthy and Diana West have each contributed thoughtful, irrefragable rebuttals to the uninformed attacks on these intrepid Representatives—particularly Congresswoman Bachmann—epitomized by the distressingly ignorant, hypocritical, and scurrilous remarks of “maverick” Senator John McCain. McCain’s non-sequitur, Captain Queeg-like Senate floor diatribe perseverated on his warped reconstruction of Congresswoman Bachmann’s passing query about the State Department vetting process for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s aide, Huma Abedin.

I share the Congresswoman’s concerns based upon readily available, objective evidence (discussed below), and traditional, long established State Department protocols which screen the background of candidates for such sensitive positions in the diplomatic corps, to avert any potential “foreign influence.”

During a February 2010 speech at Dar Al-Hekma College, in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acknowledged she visited the college at the behest of her Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin, daughter of Dr. Saleha Abedin, the Vice Dean of Academic Affairs and founding member of the institution. Dr. Abedin’s remarks, elaborated on the pioneering efforts being made by Dar Al-Hekma to collaborate with international educational organizations and programs that might expand opportunities for the Saudi Arabian college’s students and graduates.

So who is Dr. Saleha Abedin? According to World Who’s Who, Saleha Mahmood Abedin (b. 1940), is a British sociologist, Muslim scholar and academic. She received her PhD from the University of Pennsylvania in 1977, for a thesis entitled, “Islam and Muslim Fertility: Sociological Dimensions of a Demographic Dilemma.” Dr. Abedin is Director of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs in London, and Editor-in-Chief of the Institute’s Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. She is also a Professor of Sociology at King Abdulaziz University Women’s College, Jeddah, and, as noted, the Founder of Dar Al-Hekma College, Jeddah.

An investigative report by Al Liwa Al Arabi (reported, in part, at Al-Jazeera, and translated via Walid Shoebat) further revealed that Dr. Abedin—Huma’s mother—was an active member of the Muslim Sisterhood—the women’s “component” of the prototype modern (i.e., circa 1928), traditionalist Islamic jihad movement, the Muslim Brotherhood. According to the late (d. 1983) Richard P. Mitchell’s definitive scholarly analysis of the Muslim Brotherhood’s origins, and initial quarter century of development, movement founder Hasan al-Banna,

…made known his concern about the essential role of women in his Islamic reformation, for if reform was to succeed, it must begin with the individual in his family context; the mother was thus a prime instrument of the reformation. Among the first projects was the creation of an “Institute for the Mothers of the Believers” in Ismailiyya. This “school.” In April 1933, became the first official “branch of the Muslim Sisters”…

During a critical juncture in the Muslim Brotherhood’s history—subsequent to al-Banna’s assassination in 1949, and several years later, the aggressive Nasser regime campaign to dismantle the Brotherhood—an heroic female figure in MB lore emerged, Zaynab al-Ghazzali (d. 2005; although technically, despite having pledged herself to al-Banna’s cause shortly before his murder, she remained a member of the MB-independent, “Muslim Ladies Association”). Eventually imprisoned for 6-years in the 1960s, she served a year with thousands of Muslim Brothers, including the seminal MB ideologue Sayyid Qutb, before being sent to the women’s prison. Al-Gahzzali’s autobiographical prison memoir, “Return of the Pharaoh,” elucidates her Weltanschauung. For example, before ultimately separating from her husband, Al-Ghazzali recounts this frank discussion:

I reached an agreement with Hasan al-Banna during the trial of 1948, shortly before he was martyred. I had decided, then, to relinquish the idea of getting married for ever, so that I would devote my entire life to da’wah [proselytizing, to disseminate Islam]. I cannot ask you [i.e., her husband] today to share with me this struggle, but it is my right on you not to stop me from jihad in the way of Allah. Moreover, you should not ask me about my activities with other mujahidin, and let trust be full between us. A full trust between a man and a woman, a woman who, at the age of 18, gave her whole life to Allah and da’wah. In the event of any clash between the marriage contract’s interest and that of da’wah, our marriage will end, but da’wah will always remain rooted in me.

Zaynab al-Ghazzali refused to be broken by her imprisonment under Nasser, and enthusiastically imbibed Qutb’s “revivalist” jihadism—a doctrine that simply recapitulated the classical jurisprudential features of this millennial old, uniquely Islamic institution, and quintessence of the Muslim creed:

The Ikhwan are the same as the Muslim Ladies Group and the da’wah of Allah carries on and the word of truth is upheld forever. Nasir will perish, but the Word of Allah will persist. When our life-terms come to an end, the unjust will surely know what final destiny they are headed for. Allah’s religion will be upheld, and there will always be a group from the Muslim Ummah who will uphold truth, defend our religion, and make Jihad for His sake. This group will not be affected by those who oppose them until Allah establishes His Will. I pray to Allah to be from among those who enjoin truth and forbid falsehood, from those who show the Ummah its way to Allah. For these are the successors of the Prophet (peace be upon him), and it is the people who will revive this religion.

…We had decided, following Sayyid Qutb’s instructions and with the consent of al-Hudaibi [who succeeded al-Banna as the MB’s “Spiritual Guide”], to extend the period of education, training and planting of tawhid [monotheism] in people’s hearts, to thirteen years. This accorded with da’wah’s age in Makkah. The grassroots of the Muslim Ummah in Egypt were members of the Ikhwan who adhered to the Shari’ah of Allah. We were bound to establish all the commands mentioned in the Qur’an and the Sunnah inside our Islamic circle. Obedience was due to our sworn-in.

In a 1981 interview with Valerie Hoffman (published here), Al-Ghazzali stated:

The Brotherhood considers women a fundamental part of the Islamic call. They are the ones who are most active because men have to work. They are the ones who build the kind of men that we need to fill the ranks of the Islamic call. So women must be well educated, cultured, knowing the precepts of the Koran and Sunna, knowing world politics, why we are backward, why we don’t have technology. The Muslim woman must study all these things, and then raise her son in the conviction that he must possess the scientific tools of the age, and at the same time he must understand Islam, politics, geography, and current events … Islam does not forbid women to actively participate in public life … as long as that does not interfere with her first duty as a mother, the one who first trains her children in the Islamic call. So her first, holy, and most important mission is to be a mother and wife. She cannot ignore this priority. If she than finds she has free time, she may participate in public activities … Marriage is a sure Sunna … a mission and a trust in Islam…It is to preserve the human race, establish the family, build the man and the woman, to build the ruler, to bring about righteous government.

Fittingly, when al-Ghazzali was asked what she would do if she came to power she replied that under Islamic rule Muslim women “would retreat to their natural domain as nurturers of the nation’s men.”

Saleha Abedin, and her contemporary cohorts in the Muslim Sisterhood, such as prominent Egyptian MB leader Khairat Al-Shater’s daughter Zahraa, and Naglaa Ali Mahmoud, the wife of Egypt’s newly-elected President, the MB’s Mohammed Morsi, represent the living legacy of Zaynab al-Ghazzali.

But the fulcrum of Saleha Abedin’s own cultural jihadist universe—consistent with being a Muslim Sister—may well be serving as Chairperson of the International Islamic Committee for Women and Child (IICWC), in Amman, Jordan.

A clearly documented report at Legal Insurrection, which simply quotes the IICWC website (in google translator Arabic to English translation of sections from this IICWC post), demonstrates how Dr. Abedin’s organization, as a champion of the Sharia over “manmade law,” vehemently opposes both laws which prohibit child marriage, and bans on the misogynistic barbarity of female genital mutilation (FGM)—an horrific scourge in major Muslim countries such as Arab Egypt, and far flung non-Arab Indonesia, where FGM rates exceed 90% because Shafiite Sunni Islamic jurisprudence predominates in both Muslim countries.

It should be noted such Muslim “jurisprudential logic” is already shared by the US Muslim community. Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA)—Muslim legists in the US who train US imams, advise US Muslims, and are embraced by mainstream, institutional American Islam—also endorses both FGM and child marriage, in logical compliance with the Sharia.

IICWC website pronouncements notwithstanding, a far more comprehensive elaboration of Dr. Abedin’s traditionalist Islamic Weltanschauung—rigidly compliant with the totalitarian Sharia—can be gleaned from her vigorous efforts to assist in translating into English, editing, and publishing the book, Women in Islam: A Discourse in Rights and Obligations

The inner flap of the book cover provides the following “erudite” discussion of author Fatima Umar Naseef’s (b. 1944) bona fides. She is described (quoting verbatim) as

…an accomlished [sic] and renowned scholaar [sic], speaker, academic, educationist and social worker in contemporary Saudi Arabia. She has made outstanding contribution to the advancement of women’s education in the country. As head of the women’s section of King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah for eight years, and as professor of Islamic Shari’ah, and through her popular public lectures, she has inspired a generation of Saudi women. She has also published a number of books and articles on issues relating to Islamic Shari’ah, the position and status of women in society, and on the subject of their rights and Obligations.

On the back cover, Saleha Abedin, who edited and supervised the translation of Naseef’s scholarly oeuvre, adds these observations for context:

The overall objectives of IICWC include the promotion of knowledge regarding women’s issues. It fosters a publication program that is aimed to facilitate the collection as well as dissemination of information on women, family and society. The Committee is, therefore, pleased to launch its Book Series with its very first publication of the translation of the popular and well-received book, Women in Islam: A Discourse in Rights and Obligations, authored by a prominent Saudi scholar, Fatima Umar Naseef.

This book will be of special interest to students and scholars of Islamic law and women’s studies, as well as to that segment of the general public that is interested in women’s issues. It is a comprehensive study of the rights and obligations of women in society from the Islamic perspective, and also provides a comparison with other cultures, while examining the rights and positions of women in those cultures.

What follows are a series of verbatim quotes from Women in Islam. These extracts provide res ipsa loquitur, pellucid illustrations of the traditionalist Islamic views being promulgated without any attempt to mollify, i.e., conceal from Western sensibilities, their bellicosity, liberty-crushing supremacism, and misogyny. I thank the Center for Security Policy (CSP) for this selection of representative extracts, and have simply reproduced the CSP’s arrangement and parenthetical guiding observations, adding some commentary of my own.

Women Are Required to Wear the Hijab From Chapter 9—The Ethical Right (Hijab)

Sayyed Qutb has elaborated further saying, “The wisdom behind such restrictions is preventative; in different verses, Allah forbids women from intentionally drawing attention to their hidden adornments, thus arousing latent sexual desires. Allah says: ‘‘And let them not stamp their feet [in walking] so as to reveal their hidden adornments. “ [ 24:31] This order results from a deep knowledge of the human soul, its components and their interaction. Indeed, the imagination can be most dangerous in triggering sexual desires. The Noble Qur’an presents an exhaustive illustration of human nature and finally guides the believers to the way of repentance. Allah says: “Believers, turn to Allah together in repentance, that you may prosper. ‘[24:31]

[The author’s commentary elaborates on the Qutb quote on page 111:]

Al Tirmidhi [a collector of hadith, “traditions” of Muhammad] narrated that the Prophet(s) said: “Every (unlawful) gaze is sinful, and every woman who perfumes herself and passes by the people so that they smell her scent, is sinning.” Allah has stressed the importance of such modesty in order to prevent ‘fitnah” (temptation). Therefore, a woman who does not abide by the above rules of modesty is committing a great sin indeed. The Prophet has clearly and strongly forbidden women from attending the mosque wearing perfume. He (s) said: “Any woman who perfumes herself should not pray ‘Isha with us. Ibn Katheer [the classical Koranic commentator] narrates: “Women in the pre-Islamic period of ignorance used to walk around with silent anklets, but would stamp their feet in walking to inform men of their presence. Allah has forbidden the believing women from following their example and from intentionally revealing or suggesting their hidden adornments as well as wearing perfumed oil before leaving the house.” This verse, “Let them not stamp their feet [in walking] so as to reveal their hidden adornments”, is a prohibition of any movement that might stir men’s emotions and awaken their latent sexual desires since such behaviour contradicts the principles of modesty and discretion. In fact, regulations regarding the hijab are revealed in detail in Surat An-Nur.

[Page 115:]

Allah has made the hijab an obligation upon every believing woman in order to protect her chastity and preserve her dignity. Indeed, time has proven that adornment, free mixing of men and women and disobedience to divine wisdom can only lead to general corruption and dissoluteness,” which have manifested themselves in the following ways: an increase in the prevalence of adultery, sexually transmitted diseases, illegitimate pregnancies and divorce.

Stoning for Adultery when Married; Lashing for Adultery when Unmarried Chapter 10—Religious Rights, Section IV

[Pages 127-129 deal with the requirement of stoning for adultery by a married person, and lashing for adultery by an unmarried person – with equal punishments for men and women.]

Fornication and adultery (zina): Allah says: “The female and male fornicator shall each be given a hundred lashes. Let not pity for them detain you from obedience to Allah, if you truly believe in Allah and the Last Day; and let their punishment be witnessed by a number of believers.” [24/2] Ibn Katheer said: “In this verse, Allah pronounces His sentence upon those who commit fornication. People of knowledge have studied this subject in detail. In applying the above sentence, they differentiate between the married adulterer and unmarried fornicator. All the scholars, except Abu Haneefah, agree that the sentence should be a hundred lashes for the unmarried, plus he should be expelled from their country for one year. Abu Haneefah believes that the fornicator should be given the choice to emigrate or to stay in his country. However, the majority of the scholars, have presented the evidence of the following narration and disagreed with Abu Haneefah: Abu Huraira and Zaid bin Khaalid narrated: While we were with the Prophet, a man stood up and said: “O Prophet, I beseech you by Allah, that you should judge us according to Allah’s Laws.” Then the man’s opponent got up saying, “Judge us according to Allah’s Law and kindly allow me to speak.” The Prophet said, “Speak”, He said, “My son was a labourer working for this man and he committed illegal sexual intercourse with his wife, and I gave one hundred sheep and a slave as a ransom for my son’s sin. Then I asked a learned man about this case and he informed me that my son should receive one hundred lashes and be exiled for one year and the man’s wife should be stoned to death.” The Prophet (s) said, “By Him in whose Hand my soul is, I will judge you according to the Laws of Allah (T). Your one hundred sheep and the slave are to be returned to you, and your son has to receive one hundred lashes and be exiled for one year. O Unais! Go to the wife of this man, and if she confesses, then stone her to death.” Unais went to her and she confessed. He then stoned her to death.” Also, Al-Qurtubi [another classical Koranic commentator, noted for his legalistic acumen] said: “In this verse (24:2), Allah has specified the two genders, male and. Female although, it would have been sufficient to use the generic word ‘the fornicator.’ But, it has been said that both men and women are specified in this verse in order to emphasise the fact that they should receive the same; punishment with no difference between the male and females.”

Hence it is clear from the above verse that the unmarried adulterer and fornicators should receive 100 lashes each, in a public place and before the crowd. Also, in this verse, Allah warns the Muslims not to compromise His Law and to carry out His sentence as described in the verse and to have no mercy upon those who transgress His set limits. Indeed, those who refrain from doing so are not true believers. The verse specifies the punishment of the unmarried fornicators only. However, the narration that follows, clearly specifies the punishment of a married adulterer or adulteress. If she or he confesses, he or she is stoned to death [rajmj. On this, have agreed all scholars and people of knowledge.’; In, order to avoid any compromise, delay or slackness in carrying out this sentence, especially since it is only stipulated in the tradition (Sunnah) and not in the Qur’an, Umar [the second “Rightly Guided” Caliph] said: “I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, “We do not find the verses of stoning in the Holy Book”, and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. No! I confirm that the penalty of rajm be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse if he is already married and the crime is proved by Witnesses or pregnancy or confession.’’ ‘Umar added, “Surely Allah’s Messenger (s) carried out the penalty of Rajm, and so did we after him.” Hence, equity and justice between men and women manifest themselves in all the penalties related to fornication in the verse that follows. Allah says: “The fornicator (or adulterer) may marry only a fornicatress or an idolatress; and the fornicatress (or adulteress) may marry only a fornicator or an idolater. The believers are forbidden such marriages.” [24:3)

Killing A Muslim Without Right: The Death Penalty Only for the Murder of a Fellow Muslim Chapter 10—Religious Rights B. Qisaas (Legal Retribution):

Allah has forbidden the deliberate killing of a human being, and reserved for those who do so an abode in Hell fire. As for those who kill unintentionally, Allah says: “It is unlawful for a believer to kill another believer except by mistake. He that kills a believer by mistake must free one believing slave and pay blood money to the family of the victim, unless they choose to give it up as charity. If the victim be a believer from a hostile tribe, the penalty is the freeing of one believing slave. But if the victim be a member of an allied tribe, then blood money must be paid to his family and a believing slave set free. If a man cannot afford to do this, he must fast two consecutive months. Such is the penance imposed by Allah: He is Knowing, Wise. He that kills a believer by design shall burn in Hell for ever. He shall incur the wrath of Allah, who will lay His curse on him and prepare for him a woeful scourge.” (4: 92/93)

The Prophet said: “The biggest of the great sins are: (1) to join others as partners in worship with Allah, (2) to murder a human being, (3) to be unkind to one’s parents (4) and to make a false statement.” It is unlawful to kill a Muslim except under three conditions. The Prophet said: “The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshiped but Allah and that I am His Messenger, cannot be shed except in three cases: In retaliation for murder, a married person who commits adultery and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims.” The sanctity of a believing soul is precious indeed and it is utterly forbidden for a believer to deliberately kill his brother in Islam. The one who does so shall submit to the law of Qisaas stipulated by Allah. He says: “O believers, Qisaas is decreed for you in bloodshed: a free man for a free man, a slave for a slave, and a female for a female. He who is pardoned by his aggrieved brother shall be prosecuted according to usage and shall pay him a liberal fine. This is an alleviation from your Lord and Mercy. He that transgresses thereafter shall have a painful punishment.” [2:178]

Ibn ‘Abbaas [a companion of Muhammad and very early Koranic commentator} reported that: The Law of Qisaas was prescribed for the Children of Israel, but the Diyya (blood money) was not ordained for them. So Allah said to this Nation (Muslims): “O believers, Qisaas (legal retribution) is decreed for you in bloodshed: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, and the female for the female. He who is pardoned by his aggrieved brother (not wanting to kill the killer by accepting blood money in the case of intentional murder) shall be prosecuted according to usage and shall pay him (to the relative of the killed person) a liberal fine. This is an alleviation from your Lord and Mercy [in comparison to what was prescribed for the nations before you]. He that transgresses [i.e. kills the killer after taking the blood money) thereafter shall have a painful punishment.”

The following verse further clarifies the legislation, Allah says: “We decreed for them a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds Qjsaas. But if a man charitably forbears from retaliation, his remission shall atone for him. Those that do not judge in accordance with Allah’s revelations, it is they who are the unjust.” (5:45)

Consequently, the majority of the scholars have agreed that there is no difference between men and women in retaliation, and Ibn Qudaamah [another classical Islamic jurist, of the Hanbali school] said: “The man is killed for killing the woman and the woman is killed for killing the man.” This is the opinion of most of the religious scholars, including Al-Nakh’i, Al-Sha’bi, Al-Zuhri, ‘Umar bin Abdul’azeez, Maalik, People of Madinah, Al-Shaafi’ee, lshaaq, and others. It has been authenticated that the Prophet executed a Jewish man who had beaten an Ansari girl to death. Also, Abu Bakr bin Muhammad narrated that the Prophet sent a letter to the people of Yemen which contained religious obligations and rulings and he specified that “a man is killed for killing a woman.” The people accepted this fact since both men and women are human beings and each receives the penalty for defamation when one of them accuses the other of illegal sexual intercourse. Hence, killing one sex for the other is like killing one person from one sex for another person from the same sex, and in either case, nothing should be added to the Qisaas ordained by Allah, and is a religious obligation.” Men and women are thus equal in terms of qisaas, so a man’s blood can be shed for shedding a woman’s blood and vice versa.”

Chapter 11—Political Rights: Freedom to Express One’s Opinion

[The author presents the definition of free expression under Islamic law: freedom is guaranteed as long as its intent is to advance the “general welfare” of the Muslim nation or the ummah. Page 145:]

Indeed, the truth is that to enjoin the good and to establish justice are the main characteristics of the Muslim nation. In fact, freedom to express one’s opinion is guaranteed in Islam as long as this opinion is expressed for the general welfare of the nation and does not lead to a greater evil being imposed on the Muslims in general, or to Fitnah (discord) being developed amongst themselves.

[Similarly, from page 147:]

Consequently, on the basis of the Qur’an and the tradition of the Prophet (s), freedom to express one’s opinion is an established right to be enjoyed by every Muslim woman as long as she abides by the rules and regulations of her religion in exerting this right, as we have seen from the above mentioned examples. Based on the Qur’an and the tradition of the Prophet (Sunnah), freedom to express one’s opinion is an established right of every Muslim woman.

Women’s Obligation and Right to Participate in Armed Jihad; Jihad is Both a Collective and Individual Duty Chapter 11—Political Rights: Right To Participate in Jihad

[The jihad section is presented in entirety, not excerpted, pages 152-156. What is important to note—a point I documented copiously in The Legacy of Jihad, and well-illustrated in the following extracts—is that Qutb’s views on the jihad are in full accord not only with classical Muslim jurists, but the assessments of his esteemed contemporary peers at Al Azhar University, including former Grand Imam of Al-Azhar (from 1958-1963), Mahmud Shaltut, quoted in this section, just before Qutb. Within two years of Qutb’s political execution (in 1966) for attempting to overthrow the Nasser regime, The Fourth Academy of Islamic Research, in September, 1968—representing the entire global Muslim umma’s pre-eminent Muslim theologians and scholars—produced a massive 935 pp. tome reiterating doctrines on jihad (and Islamic Jew-hatred) indistinguishable from Qutb’s. For a brilliant summary of this seminal conference see the David Littman/ Yehoshafat Harkabi pamphlet Arab Theologians on Jews and Israel. My own The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism has even more extensive reproductions of the Antisemitic materials from this Conference.]

Jihad was made a duty upon the Muslims in the year 2 AH. Allah says in the Qur’an:

“Fighting is decreed for you, much as you dislike it. But you may hate a thing although it is good for you, and love a thing although it is bad for you. Allah knows, but you do not.” [2:216] Jihad comes next in importance after religious obligations. Ibn Mas’ood narrated, ‘I asked the Prophet ‘Which deed is loved most by Allah?’ ‘He (s) replied, ‘To offer prayers at their earliest stated times.’ I said ‘What is next?’ The Prophet (s) said, “To be good and dutiful to one’s parents.’ I asked ‘What is next?’ The Prophet (s) said ‘To participate in Jihad for Allah’s cause.”’ And the reward of Jihad is great indeed.

There are seven conditions for Jihad: Islam as religion, adulthood, good understanding, freedom, manhood, freedom from disabilities and availability of the cost. ‘Aisha, the mother of the believers, narrated: “I asked the Prophet if the women were to participate in Jihad and He replied, For you is a jihad without fighting: Hajj and Umra (Pilgrimage and lesser Pilgrimage)” Jihad is a collective duty: When a group of Muslims are fulfilling the duty of Jihad, it ceases to be an individual obligation upon every Muslim. This is a judgment upon which all scholars have agreed.”

Ibn Qudaamah says: “Jihad is a duty upon the Muslims. If one group is already fighting the enemy and protecting the land, this duty ceases to be an individual duty. If not, Jihad remains an obligation upon every Muslim since Allah says: “The believers who stay at home – apart from those that suffer from a grave impediment- are not equal to those who fight for the cause of Allah with their wealth and their persons. Allah has given those that fight with their wealth and their persons a higher rank than those who stay at home. He has promised all a good reward.” [4:95]

The Prophet used to participate in Jihad with his companions as well as by sending armies. “Jihad is also an individual duty: When the enemy invades a Muslim country, all the inhabitants of this country should go out and fight the enemy. In this situation, it is unlawful for anyone to refrain from fighting. Allah says: “O you who believe ! Fight the infidels who dwell around you. “ [9:123] Commenting upon this, Sheikh Mohammed Shaltoot [Shaltut] said: “When the infidels invade a Muslim land, every Muslim should go out in order to fight and repel them. In this situation, the woman is allowed to go out without her husband’s permission, the child without his father’s permission, and the slave without his master’s permission.”

Allah says: “Whether slightly or well-equipped, march on and fight for the cause of Allah, with your wealth and your persons. “ [9:41] In such situations, where human life and property are endangered, Islam motivates men and women to work together for the restoration of peace and harmony.”

Sayyed Qutb wrote: “Allah has not made jihad a duty upon women. At the same time, He has not forbidden them from participating in jihad when the need arises. Women participated in Jihad and fought in several battles at the time of the Prophet. However, such Incidents are rare and exceptional since Allah has not prescribed jihad for women as He did for men.”

Jihad has not been made a duty upon women because it is they who give birth to the soldiers who fight in Jihad. A woman is more physically and psychologically prepared for that. She possesses a natural disposition that helps her prepare her sons to fight their way through life as well as in jihad. By doing so, she renders a better service. The divine wisdom has decreed that women should devote themselves to their important and vital duties for the survival of the nation. They are first of all mothers and guardians of their houses. These are permanent duties which do not cease when their husbands go out for jihad. Their children will always need the protection and care of their mothers, and the homes will always need their guardians. This important fact was pointed out by an Ansari woman Asma bint Yazeed when she said to the Prophet: “As you go out to fight in jihad, we, the women, will spin your clothes, bring up your children and guard your wealth.”

Allah has created men with a predisposition to fight and carry weapons, and created women with a predisposition that enables them to carry out different but equally important duties. However although jihad is not prescribed for women, they can still volunteer in the fields of their specialization. Women can also participate in fighting when jihad becomes an individual duty. The female companions did so whenever they were in danger or witnessed the heat of the battle. Some of them fought with swords in the battle of Uhud when the Muslims were surprised by their enemy and the Prophet was surrounded by only a small number of soldiers. When the female companions saw that the life of the Prophet was in danger, and that Islam and all the Muslims were threatened, they rushed forward to protect the Prophet. Omm ‘Umaarah Nusaibah bint Ka’b pulled out her sword to protect the Prophet, stood against the infidels and fought vigorously. Ibn Hisham said: “Umm ‘Umaarah Nusaibah hint Ka’b fought in the battle of Uhud.”

Continuous traditions have reached us relating women’s participation in jihad throughout Islamic history. They took it upon themselves to transport the injured, nurse the sick, distribute water to the soldiers, and other different services. Such services were vital and very necessary. Had Muslim women not provided them, the armies Would have been obliged to designate some of their much needed soldiers to fulfill them. Fortunately, Muslim women have always been there to render these services when required. The Mothers of the believers (the wives of the Prophet accompanied him in his military expeditions with other female companions. Anas narrated, “On the day of Uhud, I saw ‘Aisha hint Abi Bakr and Umm Sulaim, hurrying with their water skins. Then they would pour the water in the mouths of the people, and return to fill the water skins again and came back again to pour water in the mouths of the people.” Commenting on this narration, Imam An-Nawawi [an important classical jurist noted for his commentaries on the hadith] says: “The women would accompany their husbands in the military expeditions and distribute water and treat the injured during the battles” The following narration also confirms that women participated in jihad. Imam An-Nawawi said: “During the military expeditions, several tasks were delegated to women, such as distributing water, nursing the injured … etc. Every woman would nurse her husband or her mahram. When treating the wounds of other people, they would limit physical contact to the strict minimum and to the absolutely necessary. “ They were all true believers, who possessed sound knowledge of their religion and respected the limits set by Allah”.

Ar-Rabee’ bint Mu’az narrated: We used to take part in holy battles with the Prophet (s) by providing the people with water and other services, as well as bringing the killed and the wounded back to Madina. These narrations depict the nature of tasks which were assigned to women in the battlefields. ‘Umm ‘Atiyyah, an Ansari woman said: “I took part with the Messenger of Allah in seven battles. I would stay behind in the camp of men, cook their food, treat the wounded and nurse the sick. From the above mentioned narrations it is clear that although jihad is not prescribed for women, when necessary they are allowed to assist in certain areas of specialisation.”

Najda bin ‘Aamir wrote to Ibn ‘Abbaas inquiring of him about five things. Ibn ‘Abbaas said: If I had not the fear of committing sin by concealing knowledge I would not have written to him. Najda wrote to him saying (after praising the Almighty and invoking blessings on the Holy Prophet): Tell me whether the Messenger of Allah took women to participate with him in Jihad; (if he did), whether he allotted for them a regular share in the booty; whether he killed the children of the enemy; and how long would an orphan be entitled to consideration as such, and for whom the Khums (fifth part of the booty) had been allocated. Ibn Abbaas wrote to him: You have written asking me whether the Messenger of Allah took women with him to participate in Jihad. He did take them to the battle and sometimes they fought with him. They would treat the wounded and were given a reward from the booty, but he did not assign a regular share for them. And the Messenger of Allah did not kill the children of the enemy. Also you have written to me asking me when the orphanhood of an orphan comes to an end. By my life, if a man has become bearded but is still incapable of getting his due from others as well as meeting his obligation towards them, he is yet an orphan to be treated as such, but when he can look after his interests like adults, he is no longer an orphan. And you have written to me inquiring about Khums. (In this connection) we (the kinsmen of the Messenger of Allah) used to say: It is for us, but those people (i.e. Banu Umayya) have denied it to us.” Commenting on this narration, Al-Imam An-Nawawi says: “Ibn Abbaas was reluctant to correspond with Najda, as he was a Khariji (an extremist sect who held distorted views). However, he feared that by not giving him the knowledge he asked for, he would be committing a sin and so resigned himself to answering his questions.

Social Interaction Between the Sexes is Forbidden; “The People who Appoint Women as Rulers will Never be Successful” Chapter 11—Political Rights: Women & Positions of Authority

[Page 159:]

To be in a position of authority in Islam means to assume religious as well as civil responsibilities. This applies to the Caliph of the state, the Emir of the province, the Commander of the Army … etc. On the basis of the principle of “division of duties and responsibilities,” such positions of authority can only be assumed by men. Allah Almighty has created men and women with different physical and psychological predispositions to prepare them for their different, yet equally important roles in society. If a woman were to assume a position of authority, she would be required to travel constantly in order to fulfill her duties. Her job would also involve long hours of free mixing and social interaction with the opposite sex, which is forbidden in Islam. Moreover, women’s biological constitution is different from that of men. Women are fragile, emotional and sometimes unable to handle difficult and strenuous situations. Men are less emotional and show more perseverance. Indeed Islam would have never denied this right to women were It not for the general benefit of the nation. The divine wisdom has decreed that a woman’s natural and primary career is her home with her children and that men should provide for their families. Both responsibilities require full attention and complete devotion. Hence, for a woman to be in a position of authority would mean neglect and inattention to her family. The Prophet was very clear on this subject when he said: “The people who appoint women as rulers will never be successful.”

Nevertheless, women can occupy less strenuous executive positions which do not conflict with their natural and primary roles as mothers and wives. Umar , the second Righteous Caliph appointed Ash-Shaffaa’ bint Abdullah Al- Adawiyya to the management of the Sooq. (market) “Umar would listen to her advice. He took care of her and sometimes would delegate to her some affairs of the Sooq. This has been narrated by her two grandsons, Abu Bakr and Uthmaan, the sons of Ibn Abi. Huthmah. ‘‘Umar may have delegated such responsibilities to her because she mastered writing, possessed vast knowledge and was a vtrtuous woman.” Hence Islam has dignified and honoured women by providing and defining for them the rights and responsibilities in all aspects of the political sphere of their nation.

Women Have No Right to Abstain from Sex with their Husbands PART THREE: Chapter Fourteen: Obligations of Women in Islam

[Page 202:]

SECOND OBLIGATION: The wife should satisfy her husband’s desire for sexual intercourse. In other words, the wife is required to fulfill her sexual duties towards her husband. She has no right to abstain except for a reasonable cause or legal prohibition. Indeed, the tradition of the Prophet has confirmed and emphasised this important duty through various narrations. Abu Huraira narrated that the Prophet said, “If a woman spends the night deserting her husband’s bed, then the angels send their curses on her till morning.” Abu Huraira also narrated that the Prophet said, “If a man invites his wife to sleep with him and she refuses to come to him, then the angels send their curses on her till morning.” For these reasons and many more, the Prophet has said, “A woman should not fast (optional fasts) except with her husband’s permission if he is at home,” lest it would prevent her from fulfilling her duties towards him if he wished to have sexual intercourse. The divine injunction has emphasised this duty, since fulfilling one’s sexual desires is the primary objective of marriage and is one of the most important duties of Muslim women towards their husbands.

A Woman Should Not Let Anyone Into the House Unless Approved by Her Husband PART THREE: Chapter Fourteen: Obligations of Women in Islam

[Page 203:]

THIRD: The wife should not allow anyone to enter the house without her husband’s permission. The house belongs to the husband, who is at the same time the maintainer and the protector of his family. The wife should show respect for her husband’s feelings by not admitting to her house anyone he does not wish her to receive. The Prophet has been reported as saying: “You have your rights upon your wives and they have their rights upon you. Your right is that they shall not allow anyone you dislike to step onto your furnishings or allow any you dislike to enter your home, and their right is that you should treat them well in the matter of food and clothing.” “Furnishings” in the above narration refers to all kinds of furniture such as carpets, chairs, mats, cushions … etc. It certainly does not refer to the bed or any prohibited intimacy, since the wife is not allowed to offer the opportunity for anyone to do that regardless of her husband’s opinion, whether he is present or absent and whether he likes it or dislikes it. Indeed, the meaning refers to the entertaining and reception of ordinary visitors. Imam An-Nawawi says, “You must not allow in your house anyone whose visit your husband dislikes, whether this person is a man, a woman or one of the wife’s mahrams; indeed the prohibition includes them all. “The scholars have said that the wife must not permit anyone (man, woman or mahram) to enter her house unless she knew or thought that her husband would not mind their visit.

Female Genital Mutilation is Allowed Chapter Fifteen—Obligations of the Mother in Islam

[also see earlier discussion of IICWC website pronouncement; Page 221]:

Circumcision for women is allowed but is not ordered because the aforementioned hadith is weak. When the Prophet prescribed circumcision for the Muslim nation he specifically referred to Muslim men. There is no proven or authentic evidence that the Prophet ever ordered a woman to be circumcised – and Allah knows best.

Man-Made Laws “Enslave Women”; “Islam is the only solution and the only escape” Conclusion

[Page 253:]

Under the section “the political rights of women”, I have proved, with legal evidences and logical argumentation, that women have the right to participate in Jihaad and have pointed out that its abrogation is unjustified. Indeed Islam has allowed women an even greater right: the right to give sanctuary. This privilege is an extreme act of honour, giving her a status equal to that of men. Man made legislation such as the “so called” International Law of the Modern West has never given men, not to mention women, this right.

[Page 253-254:]

Despite my efforts to find out more about the duties of women through various readings, observation and personal experience in da’wah, I found that their rights largely exceed their duties. This is a spectacular fact which invites Muslim scholars and Muslim women in particular to ponder over the divine wisdom behind such a clemency. This reality is also a retort to those feminist authors who claim to be the liberators of women. Their call to freedom, addressed to Muslim women is but an invitation to liberate women from a religion that has dignified, honoured and cherished them, and is actually an invitation to return to Pre-Islamic oppression, despotism and tyranny of male legislators. I have also realised that man made laws have in fact enslaved women, submitting them to the cupidity and caprice of human beings, and that Islam is the only solution and the only escape.

The rights of Muslim women are granted by Allah and they cannot be altered or replaced. Women have gained these rights without a feminist rebellion or a suffragette movement, without flaunting or abusing their femininity as the Romans and the Greek did previously and as the women in the west continue to do today.

Women were and still are abused, humiliated and treated with contempt. The modern “liberated” woman in addition to performing her natural roles of motherhood and house management is expected to go out to earn her living, and often that of her family as well. Thus she is expected to be the man and the woman at the same time! Unfortunately some Muslim women are advocating the right to enjoy this miserable situation and to be equal with these “liberated” women, when they should be extremely proud and grateful to Islam, the only religion that affirms their humanity, dignity and equality with men.

Saleha Mahmood Abedin is intimately associated with Muslim educational, cultural, and charitable organizations that represent dangerous simulacra of their Western counterparts, and are designed to promulgate liberty-crushing Sharia supremacism, not free, objective inquiry, genuine respect for cultural differences, or even unfettered charity for the needy, regardless of creed.

The extent of Dr. Abedin’s influence on her daughter Huma Abedin’s views and efforts—the latter still a close aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton—should long ago have been investigated, clarified, and discussed in the public domain. Where is the mainstream media? Where are our political leaders, other than the wrongfully maligned Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, and Representatives Gohmert, Franks, Westmoreland, and Rooney? The overall silence—punctuated by ignorant and vicious attacks on those few bravely seeking answers, represents a grotesque and dangerous dereliction of duty.

Andrew G. Bostom

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/andrew-g-bostom/saleha-abedin-and-the-muslim-sisterhood/

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

Bulgaria Terror Attack: What Would Ze’ev Jabotinsky Do?


by Ronn Torossian

In the wake of the terror attack on Israelis in Bulgaria that killed seven people and wounded 30 on the 18th anniversary of an attack on the Jewish community in Buenos Aires, Israel debates what comes next. The best answer can perhaps be found in the words of a Jewish prophet who passed away 72 years ago this week, Ze’ev Jabotinsky.

This situation of Jews being hunted and slaughtered like animals is the normal course of events and has been for the better part of the last four thousand years. Even today when there is a State of Israel, Jews are hunted. Some solace can be taken in knowing that today there is a Jewish army dedicated to finding the terrorists who perpetrated this attack upon the innocent. Only minutes after this attack occurred, soldiers of Israel boarded a plane to Bulgaria to work on finding the perpetrators.

Jabotinsky was a Revisionist Zionist leader, author, soldier, and founder of the Jewish Self-Defense Organization – and he had so many relevant words which guide what needs to be done in situations like this:

We were not created in order to teach morals and manners to our enemies. Let them learn these things for themselves. We want to hit back at anybody who harms us. Whoever does not repay a blow by a blow is also incapable of repaying a good deed in kind.

The terrorists will be found – and will pay a harsh price.

The Latin proverb says “of two evils choose the lesser.” When we are in a position where – through no fault of our own – physical force dominates, only one question can be asked: what is worse? To continue watching Jews being killed and the conviction grows that our lives our cheap, and among the whole world that we are spineless?…[T]he blackest of all characteristics is the tradition of the cheapness of Jewish blood, on the shedding of which there is no prohibition and for which you do not pay.

A price must be paid.

The Jew is everywhere in reach; he can be pointed out at any street corner; and he can be insulted or assaulted with only the minimum of risk, or with none at all. ..one permanent assignment that is entrusted to each of us, old and young, men and women, educated and ignorant, as a group and as individuals; this assignment is the defense of our people’s honor.

[...]

It is always aimed at us, and we must respond. We must end this abuse of ourselves, at all costs. And it is very easy. They spit in our faces without fear, “in passing,” for no reason – not because our insulters are blessed with courage and want to pick a fight with us, but because this pleasure is so cheap for them: they will spit at us and go on their way, and nothing will happen.

We must accustom them to the thought that from now on this pleasure will come at a hefty cost. A new commandment must enter our hearts: that even where there is only one Jew, the word ‘Zhid’ must not be heard without response.

Wise people will come and try to dissuade us – But it is not our purpose to win in every single incident. Our objective – to create about us the belief that a slur on our national feelings is no longer what it once was, a small diversion free of cost – but will rather, with an absolute certainty and a mathematical precision, result in a sharp and unpleasant confrontation.

As these quotes from the Jewish Garibaldi, Ze’ev Jabotinsky, said, during two thousand years of exile, the Jewish nation lost the habit of concentrating its willpower on an all important task, lost the habit of acting in unison as a people, lost the ability to defend itself, armed in case of emergency; instead, the Jews became accustomed to weakness. But today’s Jew understands that revenge is a Jewish concept, and a price will be paid for those who killed today.

May Hashem avenge their blood – and may the mighty military of Israel help that day come very soon.

Ronn Torossian

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/ronn-torossian/bulgaria-terror-attack-what-would-ze%E2%80%99ev-jabotinsky-do/

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

How Obama Engineered Mideast Radicalization


by Investor's Business Daily

The Obama Record: After angry Egyptians pelted her motorcade with shoes, chanting “Leave!,” Secretary of State Clinton insisted the U.S. wasn’t there to take sides. Too late.

“I want to be clear that the United States is not in the business, in Egypt, of choosing winners and losers, even if we could, which of course we cannot,” Hillary Clinton intoned earlier this week.

Of course, the administration could, and it did, picking and even colluding with the Muslim Brotherhood. And one of its hard-liners, Mohammed Morsi, now sits in the presidential palace, where he refused to shake unveiled Clinton’s hand.

This administration favored Islamists over secularists and helped them overthrow Hosni Mubarak, the reliable U.S. ally who had outlawed the terrorist Brotherhood and honored the peace pact with Israel for three decades. The Brotherhood, in contrast, has backed Hamas and called for the destruction of Israel.

Now the administration is dealing with the consequences of its misguided king-making. Officials fear the new regime could invite al-Qaida, now run by an Egyptian exile, back into Egypt and open up a front with Israel along the Sinai. Result: more terrorists and higher gas prices.

In fact, it was Hillary’s own department that helped train Brotherhood leaders for the Egyptian elections. Behind the scenes, she and the White House made a calculated decision, and took step-by-step actions, to effectively sell out Israel and U.S. interests in the Mideast to the Islamists.

The untold story of the “Arab Spring” is that the Obama administration secretly helped bring Islamofascists to power. Consider this timeline:

2009: The Brotherhood’s spiritual leader — Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi — writes an open letter to Obama arguing terrorism is a direct response to U.S. foreign policy.

2009: Obama travels to Cairo to deliver apologetic speech to Muslims, and infuriates the Mubarak regime by inviting banned Brotherhood leaders to attend. Obama deliberately snubs Mubarak, who was neither present nor mentioned. He also snubs Israel during the Mideast trip.

2009: Obama appoints a Brotherhood-tied Islamist — Rashad Hussain — as U.S. envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which supports the Brotherhood.

2010: State Department lifts visa ban on Tariq Ramadan, suspected terrorist and Egyptian-born grandson of Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna.

2010: Hussain meets with Ramadan at American-sponsored conference attended by U.S. and Brotherhood officials.

2010: Hussain meets with the Brotherhood’s grand mufti in Egypt.

2010: Obama meets one-on-one with Egypt’s foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, who later remarks on Nile TV: “The American president told me in confidence that he is a Muslim.”

2010: The Brotherhood’s supreme guide calls for jihad against the U.S.

2011: Qaradawi calls for “days of rage” against Mubarak and other pro-Western regimes throughout Mideast.

2011: Riots erupt in Cairo’s Tahrir Square. Crowds organized by the Brotherhood demand Mubarak’s ouster, storm buildings.

2011: The White House fails to back longtime ally Mubarak, who flees Cairo.

2011: White House sends intelligence czar James Clapper to Capitol Hill to whitewash the Brotherhood’s extremism. Clapper testifies the group is moderate, “largely secular.”

2011: Qaradawi, exiled from Egypt for 30 years, is given a hero’s welcome in Tahrir Square, where he raises the banner of jihad.

2011: Through his State Department office, William Taylor — Clinton’s special coordinator for Middle East transitions and a longtime associate of Brotherhood apologists —gives Brotherhood and other Egyptian Islamists special training to prepare for the post-Mubarak elections.

2011: The Brotherhood wins control of Egyptian parliament, vows to tear up Egypt’s 30-year peace treaty with Israel and reestablishes ties with Hamas, Hezbollah.

2011: Obama gives Mideast speech demanding Israel relinquish land to Palestinians, while still refusing to visit Israel.

2011: Justice Department pulls plug on further prosecution of U.S.-based Brotherhood front groups identified as collaborators in conspiracy to funnel millions to Hamas.

2011: In a shocking first, the State Department formalizes ties with Egypt’s Brotherhood, letting diplomats deal directly with Brotherhood party officials in Cairo.

April 2012: The administration quietly releases $1.5 billion in foreign aid to the new Egyptian regime.

June 2012: Morsi wins presidency amid widespread reports of electoral fraud and voter intimidation by gun-toting Brotherhood thugs — including blockades of entire streets to prevent Christians from going to the polls. The Obama administration turns a blind eye, recognizes Morsi as victor.

June 2012: In a victory speech, Morsi vows to instate Shariah law, turning Egypt into an Islamic theocracy, and also promises to free jailed terrorists. He also demands Obama free World Trade Center terrorist and Brotherhood leader Omar Abdel-Rahman, a.k.a. the Blind Sheik, from U.S. prison.

June 2012: State grants visa to banned Egyptian terrorist who joins a delegation of Brotherhood officials from Egypt. They’re all invited to the White House to meet with Obama’s deputy national security adviser, who listens to their demands for the release of the Blind Sheik.

July 2012: Obama invites Morsi to visit the White House this September.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s sudden ascendancy in the Mideast didn’t happen organically. It was helped along by a U.S. president sympathetic to its interests over those of Israel and his own country.

Investor's Business Daily

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/investor/how-obama-engineered-mideast-radicalization/

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

Germany Debates Male Circumcision


by Peter Martino

In violation of their Hippocratic Oath to do no harm, doctors are interpreting a medical practice in purely religious terms -- choosing religion over science.

During the past decade, life has become more difficult for Jews in Europe. They are not only the victims of a rise in anti-Semitic violence and intimidation, mostly as a result of the growing numbers of radical Muslim immigrants in Europe. They are also finding their right to practice their religion restricted as Europe becomes an environment where Jewish dietary rules and ancient traditions are being criticized and even outlawed. This time, ironically, they are being joined by Muslims.

Male circumcision -- a medical procedure in both Judaism and Islam that has nothing to do with female genital mutilation or "female circumcision," which is not required by the Koran, and which has no medical benefits, only medical liabilities -- could well be the latest victim of misguided political correctness, despite massive medical evidence that male circumcision is "cleaner," meaning that the area involved becomes less prone to harboring infections and transmitting diseases.

Last month, Dieter Graumann, the president of the German Zentralrats der Juden (Central Council of Jews), warned that "Jewish life will become practically impossible" if circumcision of male infants is banned in Germany. On May 7, an appeals court in Cologne ruled that circumcision is an infringement of a child's physical integrity and that it violates the child's right to self-determination. Subsequently, the German Medical Association advised doctors no longer to perform circumcisions for non-medical reasons. The decision to prohibit male circumcision on the grounds of "religion" embodies a breathtaking lack of regard for both personal and public health, and the regressive preference for religion and political correctness over science. In the United States, for example, it has long been considered a fundamental of public health to circumcise all male infants shortly after birth -- unless specifically asked not to -- regardless of religious affiliation.

Last Thursday, fortunately, the German Bundestag approved a cross-party motion to protect the religious circumcision of boys. The resolution urges the government to draw up a bill explicitly allowing the practice. Nevertheless, it is indicative of Europe's growing intolerance towards religious practices that courts have begun to issue verdicts such as the one in Cologne that prohibits circumcision.

The Cologne Landgericht ruled that religious circumcision of boys is a violation of the child's physical integrity and hence unlawful. The verdict states that circumcision has a "permanent and irreparable effect" on the child's body, which violates the child's physical integrity and infringes on its right later to change its religion. The court added that the child's right to self-determination has precedence over its parents' freedom of religion.

The case began after a Muslim doctor circumcised a 4-year old boy. Two days later, the wound began to bleed and the child was rushed to a hospital. The hospital informed the authorities, whereupon the public prosecutor brought the doctor to court. When the court acquitted the doctor, the public prosecutor appealed the verdict. Although the Cologne Landgericht again acquitted the doctor on the basis that "the legal status (of circumcision) is very unclear," the ruling unequivocally condemned male circumcision. Fearing that the ruling would set a precedent to be followed by other German courts, the Medical Association advised doctors to stop circumcisions for religious reasons.

The verdict was applauded by many organizations. Deutsche Kinderhilfe, a non-profit organization to aid children, said that the wellbeing of children had been served by the court. The German Institute for Pediatric Surgery stated that the verdict conformed to medical ethics. The Professional Union of Pediatricians warned "for the trivialisation of this form of physical damage by the circumcision defenders" and said that the right of children to physical integrity should be society's primary concern.

The International League of Non-Religious and Atheists also welcomed the verdict, stating that religiously motivated circumcision is a form of physical damage and mutilation. Terre des Femmes, an international women's rights organization, also applauded the Cologne verdict. It said the physical integrity of children should not be restricted for religious reasons.

In the German media, psychotherapists stated that circumcision on six- or seven-year old boys can have a traumatic effect. Jewish organizations pointed out that Jews have been circumcising boys on the eighth day after birth for thousands of years, without any Jewish men later complaining about harmful side-effects. They also emphasized that male circumcision cannot be equated to female genital mutilation.

A joint statement of the Rabbinical Centre of Europe, the European Jewish Association, the German Turkish-Islamic Union of Religious Affairs and the Islamic Center Brussels, said that the Cologne verdict was "an affront to our basic religious and human rights."

The critics of the Cologne verdict were supported by Cardinal Joachim Meisner, the Catholic Archbishop of Cologne. "We have to speak out against the tendency to restrict religious freedom and the right of parents to raise their children in a religious way," he said. He was supported by Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Mueller, the Vatican's Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Protestant Church also criticized the verdict. Hans Michael Heinig, the president of the Institute for Ecclesiastical Law of the Evangelical Church, called the verdict "a triumph of antireligious zealots."

The verdict also drew criticism from Germany's three major political parties, the Christian-Democrats, Social-Democrats and Liberals. Last Thursday, the governing Christian-Democrats and Liberals teamed up with the oppositional Social-Democrats to call on the government to "present a draft law in the autumn … that guarantees that the circumcision of boys, carried out with medical expertise and without unnecessary pain, is permitted." The cross-party motion explicitly acknowledges that "circumcision has a central religious significance for Jews and Muslims" and adds that "Jewish and Muslim religious life must continue to be possible in Germany."

The new law would overrule the decision of the Cologne court. For the time being, however, the verdict still stands, as does the advice of the German Medical Association for doctors not to perform religious circumcisions.

An opinion poll indicates that, despite the political initiative to have the Cologne verdict overruled by a law later this year, a majority of Germans favors a ban of male circumcision. In a Europe that is becoming ever more secular, there is a real danger that religious practices will gradually be pushed aside in order to assure that the impression is not given that little children and (in ritual slaughter) animals are made to suffer.

It is indicative of this trend that the doctors' associations in Germany are mostly in favor of the ban on religious circumcision of boys. Outside Germany similar attitudes are gaining ground. In the Netherlands, for instance, the Royal Dutch Association of Physicians published a paper two years ago advocating a ban on non-medical circumcision of boys, analoguous to the ban on female genital mutilation. In violation of their Hippocratic Oath to do no harm, doctors are interpreting a medical practice in purely religious terms -- choosing religion over science.

Peter Martino

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3187/germany-circumcision

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

Azawad Calls for International Support Against Al Qaeda


by Acherif Ag Intakwa

"Will the U.S. and the free world stand alongside Azawad in the Sahel-Sahara region? Or will the U.S. and the free world allow terrorism to spread all over Africa and intervene only when it is too late?"

Note by Anna Mahjar-Barducci: Azawad is a new country in North Africa that just seceded from Mali. It borders Algeria and was declared independent by a Touareg movement, the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad [MNLA], which is secular. Shortly after the MNLA declared independence of Azawad, Qatar, Algeria and Mali financed jihadist groups to fight against the Touaregs. The MNLA, however, killed the deputy commander of Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb

Azawad, a new nation, is in a war against countless terrorist organizations backed by Mali, Algeria, and Qatar. Today, Azawad wishes to make the same speech of the State of the Union made by George W. Bush on January 29, 2002. But as long as the U.S. and the free world do not support Azawad, it will be a mere wish while terrorism is spreading all over Africa.

The MNLA and Azawad and the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad [MNLA] were attacked on June 27, 2012 by the AQIM (Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb), MUJAO (Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa), and Boko Haram.

For months, these terrorist organizations have been recruiting both inside and outside Azawad. For months, terrorists from Niger, Nigeria, Chad, Somalia, Pakistan, Algeria, Morocco, Mauritania, Libya and many more countries came to Azawad to destroy not only this new country but also the civilized world. For months, the new "axis of evil" supported these terrorist organizations financially, military, in media, and technologically.

This aggression, in which two of the bravest officers of the MNLA were killed, created a state of the union between Azawadians that has never been stronger.

Azawadians and the MNLA are also confident that their dream cannot come true without the supports of the United States of America and its allies of the free world.

This dream will not come true without international support because terrorist organizations all over Africa designated the Sahel-Sahara region as their new playground, and will do whatever it takes to succeed and spread their evil activities all over Africa.

This dream will not come true without international support because these terrorists organizations are supported by at least three countries: Mali, Algeria, and Qatar -- while Azawad and the MNLA is rejected by the free world.

Azawadian and the MNLA strongly believe that one day "The Azawadian flag will fly again over every single official building in Azawad. Terrorists who once occupy Azawadian cities will occupy cells in Taoudenni. And terrorist leaders who urged followers to sacrifice their lives will be running for their own".

The Azawadians and the MNLA wish to also say: "Our nation will continue to be steadfast, and patient and persistent in the pursuit of two great objectives. First, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans and bring terrorists to justice. And second, we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who [support them] ... from threatening [Azawad] and the world."
 But the Azawadians and the MNLA cannot say it without having allies in this war on terror and against the "axis of evil."

"As we gather tonight, our nation is at war, our economy is in recession and the civilized world faces unprecedented dangers. Yet the state of our union has never been stronger."

These two sentences could represent the current situation of Azawad where the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad [MNLA] is fighting with almost empty arms against terrorist organizations backed by nations with the goal of erasing all traces of civilization.

However, these two sentences were made 10 years ago to represent the situation in the United States of America. They were not spoken by Azawadians but by President George W. Bush.

In that time, U.S. and the free world were attacked by Al Qaeda backed by some nations, called the "axis of evil."

Will the U.S and the free world stand alongside Azawad in the war on terror in the Sahel-Sahara region? Or will the U.S. and the free world allow terrorism to spread all over Africa and intervene only when it is too late?

The U.S. and the free world have to answer these questions. They have to do so quickly because the terrorists and the new "axis of evil" are not wasting time.

Published with the kind permission of Toumast Press.

Acherif Ag Intakwa

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3185/azawad

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