Friday, March 15, 2013

Mordechai Kedar: The New Strategic Environment

by Mordechai Kedar

Read the article in the original עברית
Read the article in Italiano (translated by Yehudit Weisz, edited by Angelo Pezzana)

The way it looks now, it seems that the regime of al-Asad will not last more than a number of days or weeks. A coalition of Sunni jihad organizations will succeed in toppling the government of an Arab state despite the state having used every weapon in its arsenal - including scud missiles - in order to survive.  During the past two years all of the red lines have been crossed in Syria , and both sides are sunk deep in this dirty, ugly struggle, which is fought with no moral or legal constraints.  Tens of thousands of citizens, women, children and elderly, have been brutally murdered , hundreds of thousands of houses and apartments have been rendered uninhabitable; infrastructures of the country are collapsing; the economy is paralyzed and the organizational framework of the state is falling apart.

The success of the Sunni coalition (Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan) in eliminating the heretical 'Alawite regime, which is supported by  a Shi'ite coalition (Iran, Iraq and Hizb'Allah) might trigger a wave of terror in Arab countries, especially in Iraq and Turkey, because oppressed groups in these countries - such as Sunnis in Iraq and the Kurds in Turkey - will be encouraged by the success of the jihad organizations that are fighting in Syria, and by the methods that they used in their battle against the regime. This filthy war taking place in Syria is not a battle of good versus evil, because the regime and the rebels have both used inhumane , illegal and immoral practices. Both sides have committed crimes against humanity by eliminating groups of citizens indiscriminately, and both sides have resorted to repressive measures and degrading treatment of helpless citizens.

Citizens Used as Human Shields

As soon as the violence began, the rebels understood that every time they show up in an open area, the forces of the regime could easily destroy them with merciless determination, so they transferred their activity to the crowded urban and settled areas. As a result, they turned citizens into human shields, without their having any say in the matter, dragging the cities and the settled neighborhoods into a rebellion that they were not at all interested in.

Syria - the Jihadi Magnet of the World

But the most significant feature of the rebellion in Syria is that it has become a magnet for jihadists from all over the Arab and Muslim world who poured into Syria to take part in the jihad against the heretical 'Alawites and their tyrannical regime. As of today there are hundreds of combat groups in Syria, and a few tens of them speak non-Syrian Arabic dialects such as Iraqi, Saudi and Moroccan. The linguistic diversity is even more complex because some of the jihadists speak non-Arabic Muslim languages - Turkish, Bosnian, Chechen, Pashtu (Afghanistan), Urdu (Pakistan) and languages from the Caucasus. The problem with having to deal with a multitude of dialects and languages is that the intelligence organizations get a significant amount of information by listening to various means of communication, but their work may have no value, because it is especially the most dangerous groups that speak dialects and languages not understood by the listeners of other countries that exist in the area.

Intelligence Challenges Posed by Jihadis

The communications problem is also difficult because the jihadist organizations - contrary to a regular army- uses the Internet as a means of passing messages, reports and commands, and it is not easy to detect the communications channels they are using in the civilian network. There are organizations that pass coded messages via the Internet, and it is difficult to identify, locate and decode them. Also the way the jihadist organizations use other civilian networks such as cellular telephones, makes it difficult to locate their communications and to keep track of their operatives. 

The intelligence problem becomes even more complicated regarding visual intelligence, where the information is collected from observation points on the ground and in the air. Military intelligence gatherers undergo training on the various types of tanks, cannon, and the rest tools of destruction that a regular army has. But how are they supposed to identify jihadists? According to the type of jeans or T-shirt he's wearing? According to the type of hiarcut or beard? The problem of identification becomes more difficult regarding vehicles in the service of jihadists, which are ordinary vehicles, indistinguishable from many others. How is a drone or someone who sees the material photographed by the drone supposed to identify the vehicle of a jihadist?

Jihadis are Indistinguishable from Ordinary Ccitizens

A regular army has bases and camps that can be identified and attacked. A jihad organization - in contrast - can live and operate in an ordinary neighborhood, among the people, the elderly and the children. How can the jihadists be identified? How is it possible to attack them without harming others who are not involved in the action?

Jihad organizations change their structure frequently: some groups join, others break off and form new organizations, while the objectives are only partly shared. The great structural fluidity of the organizations also poses a challenge to intelligence organizations, because information that was collected last month with great difficulty, may no longer be relevant today because of the splitting or joining of other groups to the organization.

Another aspect of the character of jihad organizations is the importance of the leader, the commander. In a military unit, if the enemy succeeds in eliminating the commander and the level of officers that surrounds him, the unit will usually continue to function, albeit partly and not with total effectiveness. In jihad organizations, the leader is very important for the functionality of the organization, but from the operational point of view almost any member of the group can replace him. Therefore the elimination of the head of a jihad organization does not usually cause paralysis and elimination of the organization. The best example of this is the al-Qaeda organization: bin Laden was forced into hiding since the end of 2001 and was ultimately eliminated. Did the organization cease to function when Usama bin Laden - and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri - went underground?

Moral Asymmetry Between Jihadi Groups and a Regular Army

But the greatest advantage that a jihad organization has over a regular army is that a jihad organization does not impose upon itself the legal and moral constraints that international law and conventions require from a regular army. Jihadi propaganda enlists the Almighty as reinforcing player,  while a regular army musters its soldiers by means of a human message - be it national, patriotic or civil.

These properties of jihad organizations give them a great advantage over state military organizations, which explains why it is jihad organizations,contrary to what one might expect, that have succeeded in toppling the Syrian police state and bringing down the bloody, cruel and totalitarian regime, which describes the regime of Asad ever since Hafez Asad rose to power in November 1970. All of the tanks, aircraft, missiles, and even chemical weapons, did not avail the regime against the hundreds of militias that were armed with much simpler weapons but imbued with religious belief, that their comrades are willing to die at any moment and therefore the threat of death is ineffectual. On the contrary: the more cruelty that the regime exhibited , the greater the motivation of the jihadists to topple it, even at the cost of their lives.

The army of a state that is fighting jihadist groups must match itself to the situation in the field. When the laws of conventional warfare are not observed by one side, the other side cannot be expected to limit itself to the accepted laws of warfare according to the Geneva Convention. A military that restricts itself to international law and tries to fight against a militia that does not limit itself to this law, has lost the battle before it has begun.  

A state that wants to survive within a jihadist environment must suit its intelligence gathering means  to the conduct of jihad organizations, whether by the Internet or civil communications networks. Intelligence gatherers must be flexible regarding dialects and languages that serve the jihad organizations, otherwise they will be deaf and will not be able to track the operatives.

A state that wants to survive in the jihadist area must find a way to plant its agents inside the organizations or enlist agents who are already inside. Sometimes it is not possible to obtain true information by any other means, especially regarding information about the intention to carry out terror attacks. 

In summary, it can be said that the collapse of Syria proves that guerrilla war can be more effective than conventional war, and uncompromising jihad that does not constrain itself to international law can bring down even a cruel and dark regime such as the Syrian regime,  which also does not constrain itself to observe human rights. How can a state that constrains itself to the laws of warfare and the priniciples of human rights survive against jihad organizations that do not limit themselves in any way?

Moral Asymmetry in Combat

Today, the jihad organizations that are fighting in Syria openly declare that "The road from Damascus to Jerusalem is through Beirut". Meaning that after the elimination of Asad in Damascus they will come to Beirut to send the body of Hasan Nasrallah to the garbage heap of history, and then they will continue their way to Israel in order to eliminate it from the face of the earth as well. Hasan Nasrallah should take them very seriously and Israel also must prepare for a kind of war in the not-too-distant future that it is unfamiliar with.

But Israel is not the center of the matter: jihad organizations - some of which are funded with oil monies from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the Emirates or Iran - operate openly not only in Syria but also in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Algeria, Libya, Somalia, Mali, and other states. Additional jihad organizations operate clandestinely in almost all other states of the world. No place is immune to jihad organizations, which operate in every arena in which can, either overtly or covertly. If the world does not wake up in time to see the danger, Syria will be only the first domino to fall as a a result of the operations of jihad organizations funded by Sunni money from the Gulf or Shi'ite money from Iran.


Dr. Kedar is available for lectures

Dr. Mordechai Kedar
( is an Israeli scholar of Arabic and Islam, a lecturer at Bar-Ilan University and the director of the Center for the Study of the Middle East and Islam (under formation), Bar Ilan University, Israel. He specializes in Islamic ideology and movements, the political discourse of Arab countries, the Arabic mass media, and the Syrian domestic arena.

Translated from Hebrew by Sally Zahav with permission from the author.

Additional articles by Dr. Kedar

Source: The article is published in the framework of the Center for the Study of the Middle East and Islam (under formation), Bar Ilan University, Israel. Also published in Makor Rishon, a Hebrew weekly newspaper.

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

'In New Mideast, Israeli-Arab Conflict will be more Complex to Solve'

by Amir Mizroch

In intelligence briefing at Herzliya Conference, IDF Military Intelligence chief Maj. Gen. Aviv Kochavi says Iran producing enough enriched uranium for five or six bombs, should it make decision to arm • Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt — are all led by religious leadership who view Israel as unwelcome element.

A rebel fighter retreats for cover as enemy fire targets the rebel position during clashes at the Moaskar front line, one of the battlefields in the Karmal Jabl neighborhood of Aleppo in October 2012. [Archive]
Photo credit: AP

Amir Mizroch


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

Does Islamophobia exist? Not according to this Muslim Writer

by John-Pierre Maeli

You've all heard of the term Islamophobia: the supposed fear and hatred of Islam and Muslims. Chances are if you've spoken out against Muslim crimes you've been called an "Islamophob" at one point or another. Or maybe you were discussing how Jihad and the oppression of women are inherent in the Quran. Someone didn't like what you had to say, but couldn't come up with a logical argument against it so they just called you names.

What if Islamophibia wasn't real? What if it was just created by a bunch of Islamic centers to silence critics? That's exactly what one Muslim writer is arguing on The Huffington Post.

There are hundreds of Islamic organizations in North America and each one wants to take ownership of it. Is it all about ownership? It shouldn't be. Is it all about portraying a better image of Muslims? I doubt it. Is it all about challenging the self-created fear of Islamophobia? Perhaps.
What do I mean by "self-created fear of Islamophobia"? Do I dare to say that Islamophobia actually doesn't exist at all? Yep, it didn't exist but some of our Islamic centres created the term and spread it around through their actions.

For some of you, the idea that Islamophobia doesn't exist might not come as a surprise. However, the fact that it was acknowledged to be true by a Muslim on The Huffington Post is worth noting.

Ever since the term Islamophobia was coined, the Left and many Muslim figures have been trying to paint the Muslim community as victims. Victims of bigotry. Victims of hatred; and victims of ignorance. This particular Muslim rebukes the victim status the Muslim community has had to wear. He argues that, "as Muslims we should identify ourselves with the culture and land we associate with... [and] live a normal life instead of preaching the addiction of victimhood."

Many of his reasons for Muslims to integrate are skewed and downright wrong; for example, his claim that Jihad, segregation and oppression of women are not endorsed in "original version and modern interpretations of Islam" has been proved false over and over again. Furthermore, he does fail to realize that Islamophobia is a propaganda term used for the benefit of Islamic organizations fighting for control of not only the US government, but society as well.

With the realization that Islamophobia doesn't exist it leaves many of those organizations with one less weapon with which to attack us with. No longer are Muslims the victims and Westerners the guilty party. You no longer have to deal with the cries of "Islamophobia" and "hatred" because those claims don't exist. Not everyone will accept it at first. Many Islamic figures and organizations will still hold on to it like a drowning sailor clings to a piece of wood, but it'll be an empty insult. As long as you stand in the truth, you have nothing to fear.

John-Pierre Maeli writes weekly on his blog, The Political Informer. You can learn more by following him on Google+


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

Palestinians Plan to Protest ‘Dog’ Obama

by P. David Hornik


President Obama’s visit to Israel and the Palestinian Authority, scheduled for Wednesday to Friday next week, may spark violent Palestinian protests. In fact, it’s already doing so.

On Wednesday Israel Hayom reported that the previous day Israeli troops had entered a “refugee camp” near Hebron in the West Bank to detain Palestinians caught throwing Molotov cocktails at Israeli vehicles. (Almost two decades after the creation of the Palestinian Authority, these “camps”—neighborhoods—are yet to be dismantled because the Palestinian leadership sees their residents eventually moving en masse to Israel itself.)

The Israeli troops found themselves under a life-endangering hail of rocks; returning fire, they killed a Palestinian named Mahmoud Titi and wounded two others.

Titi’s funeral on Wednesday set off further riots.

The above Israel Hayom report notes that Israeli “defense officials…are concerned that the latest incident could incite a spate of violent disturbances in Judea and Samaria,” and that they “believe…certain Palestinian elements are planning to use U.S. President Barack Obama’s momentous trip to Israel next week as the impetus to stoke disquiet.”

There are also tidings of Palestinian intentions not only to direct protests at Israel but also at Obama himself.

Last week Khaled Abu Toameh reported that Palestinian elements were discussing plans to stage anti-U.S. demonstrations during Obama’s visit, block roads leading to the venue of his meeting with PA president Mahmoud Abbas, and that “some activists have even prepared American flags and portraits of Obama that would be set on fire in front of TV crews covering the visit.”

These activists, Abu Toameh notes, are disappointed with Obama because they see him as tilting toward Israel, especially after he refused to support Abbas’s UN statehood bid in November. They also “believe that Iran, and not the Palestinian issue, is now at the top of his list of priorities.”

And this week the Times of Israel described growing tensions over the visit, with the Palestinian Authority demanding that Obama coordinate his tour of Jerusalem with the PA since the city—Israel’s united capital since 1967—is “occupied territory.”

A grassroots group naming itself Palestinians for Dignity “called on Palestinians to take to the streets and protest [Obama’s] visit.” A “satirical image” on the group’s Facebook page
displays the US president as saying in Arabic, “American support for Israel is sacred and we must help it remain militarily superior.” An angry protester in a photo below responds in English, “this is a Welcome kiss from the Palestinian people, dog,” as he hurls a shoe at Obama, an Arab symbol of disdain.
One thing to be pointed out here is that, based on accounts of Obama’s private meeting with American Jewish leaders last week, the Palestinians are indeed likely to find his visit disappointing. In the meeting Obama reportedly said he would not be bringing a “grand peace plan” and “acknowledged that near-term prospects for peace are bleak.”

Although that probably does not mean Obama has given up the pro-Palestinian ideology that led him, in his June 2009 Cairo speech, to portray the Palestinian issue as the Middle East’s gravest problem, Palestinian self-induced adversity as equivalent to the Holocaust, and Israeli settlement construction as a blatant crime, it may well mean he has too much else on his plate and knows another big pitch for the Palestinians means setting himself up for failure.

And it should also be noted that, the more things change, the more the Palestinians stay the same. No quantity of Israeli offers of peace or negotiations, of lavish international attention and U.S. and European aid, alters the goal of eliminating Israel—whether through war or “refugee” inundation—or the resort to violence and claim of grievance and victimhood. Most Israelis understand this, even if it may be too much to hope that Obama will.

P. David Hornik


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

Whistle Blowers Say Obama Releasing Violent Illegal Aliens

by Michael Volpe


Even though fifty-two illegal aliens were released onto its streets by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), officials in Pinal County told Front Page Magazine that ICE has still not shared any details about any individuals released. Furthermore, a whistle blower has told Pinal County officials that despite the Obama administration’s insistence that only non-violent individuals were among those released, several individuals were in fact charged with crimes ranging from manslaughter, robbery and aggravated assault on a police officer.

Starting on February 15, 2013, ICE began releasing suspected illegal aliens from a number of ICE facilities including one in Florence, Arizona, which is located in Pinal County. When Front Page Magazine attempted to get identities and other details of those released from the Florence facility, the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office said that office couldn’t provide any details because none were shared by ICE with Pinal County.

“Sheriff Paul Babeu has requested repeatedly a list of released detainees from the ICE facility [in Florence, Arizona] and a list of the charges they currently face and have faced in the past along with their threat levels.
“This has been met with constant refusals to provide the information,” said Pinal County Sheriff’s Office spokesperson Tamra Ingersoll in an email.

Continuing later in the email, Ingersoll also said that despite assurances by the administration that all those released were non-violent, a whistle blower told their office that several of those released were suspected of committing violent crimes.
We do have very reliable information from “Whistle Blowers” within ICE that the “non-violent” offenders that the federal government keeps stating were the only ones released is not the truth.
The whistle blowers within ICE have contacted Sheriff Babeu with information that some of these detainees are inside for crimes against children; manslaughter, aggravated assault of officer, weapon offenses and other such violent crimes.
Amber Cargile, a spokesperson for ICE in Arizona, initially attempted to blame the sequester for the administration releasing these illegal aliens from custody. When pressed to explain why nothing about these individuals was shared with the Sheriff’s Office in Pinal County, Cargile said the generic statement was all she was authorized to release.

“The statement and background are all I’m authorized to provide at this time,” Cargile said in an email.

Starting in the middle of February, the administration began releasing suspected illegal aliens from a number of ICE facilities at about one thousand detainees per week. According to an internal ICE document, ICE plans to release one thousand detainees per week until the end of March, when the total number held will be just below 26,000. ICE facilities can hold a bit more than 34,000 detainees.

The move has sparked outrage from many in Congress. Earlier in the week, Matt Salmon of Arizona, whose 5th District includes Pinal County, was one of 37 members of Congress to send a letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano expressing frustration that the sequester would be used as an excuse to release criminal illegal aliens. The statement read:
We are deeply concerned that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is using sequestration as a vehicle to further the Administration’s disregard for enforcing our immigration laws.  Specifically, we are troubled by recent reports that DHS has released hundreds of illegal immigrants, rather than finding cost savings elsewhere in the agency.
Your agency’s decision to release “low-risk” illegal immigrants back into the public under the guise of saving money is extraordinary, unprecedented and dangerous.  We understand that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), like all federal agencies, must find cost savings in order to comply with their new budget allocation.  However, it is frankly irresponsible that your agency chose releasing detained immigrants as its first effort to control spending.
Because the cuts represent a 30% reduction in detainees, it’s difficult to believe that all of these suspected illegal aliens were released due to the sequester, which was supposed to enact a 5% reduction. So far, the administration, which once boasted it would be the most transparent in history, has not been very forthcoming in its explanation. The White House claimed the decision came from DHS. Meanwhile, Secretary Napolitano said the decision was made entirely by career bureaucrats, none of whom have explained themselves publicly. As such, it’s not yet clear what the basis was for this decision.

Michael Volpe


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

The Palestinians: Ten Points The U.S. Needs To Consider

by Khaled Abu Toameh

Even if a Palestinian State were established, Hamas and other groups would work to take control of it, and, with the help of Iran and Al-Qaeda, turn it into a launching pad for attacking Israel and other neighbors.
It is hard to find one Palestinian who believes that US President Barack Obama's upcoming visit to the region will lead to a breakthrough in the Middle East "peace process."

Palestinian Authority officials in Ramallah said they too are not pinning any hopes on Obama's visit. "The situation is much more complicated than Obama thinks," remarked a top PA official in a briefing ahead of the US president's visit. "We do not believe we will see any changes on the ground."

But as Obama prepares to visit the region, he would do well to take the following facts into consideration:

1. Any agreement reached between Israel and the Palestinian Authority would be rejected by a large number of Palestinians, especially Palestinian refugees who continue to insist on the "right of return" to their former villages inside Israel.

2. A majority of Arabs and Muslims would also reject a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, especially in wake of the "Arab Spring," which has seen the rise of Islamists to power in a number of Arab countries. It is hard to see how the ruling Muslim Brotherhood organization in Egypt, for example, would welcome any peace agreement with the "Zionist entity."

3. Even if a Palestinian state were established in the West Bank, Hamas and other groups would work to take control of it and, with the help of Iran and Al-Qaeda, turn it into a launching pad for attacking Israel and other neighbors. The Palestinian Authority is in power thanks to the presence of the Israel Defense Force in the West Bank. Ironically, ending Israeli "occupation" would also bring an end to Abbas's rule.

4. Most Palestinians do not see the US as an honest broker. Any agreement reached under the auspices of the US Administration would be received with utmost suspicion. Already, many Palestinian activists are waging a campaign on Facebook and Twitter to "prevent Obama from desecrating the land of Palestine." The activists have called for "huge demonstrations" in the West Bank to protest against Obama's visit; they are even preparing shoes to throw at his motorcade.

5. With the exception of Fatah, all Palestinian organizations -- primarily Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine -- would automatically reject any peace agreement with Israel for various reasons. Some of these groups want to see Israel wiped off the face of the earth, while others believe that Israel would never accept all their demands, such as a full withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines and the release of all Palestinian prisoners.

6. The Palestinians are divided into two camps not only geographically, but also ideologically. The first is a radical camp that does not want to deliver on any front: it believes that Israel has no right to exist. The second is the less-radical camp, or the "moderates." This second camp is also not able to deliver: it does not have enough control over the Palestinian territories, let alone a mandate from the Palestinians.

7. Abbas is opposed to the idea of reaching an interim agreement with Israel that would lead to the establishment of a temporary Palestinian state on the parts of the West Bank that are controlled by the Palestinian Authority.

8. Even the Palestinian Authority appears to be divided into two camps, one headed by Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and the second led by Abbas. Tensions between the two have been mounting in wake of the resignation of Palestinian Finance Minister Nabil Qassis. While Abbas has rejected the resignation, Fayyad has accepted it, triggering a crisis with the Palestinian Authority president.

9. Many Palestinians, including Abbas and the Palestinian Authority leadership, are opposed to the resumption of peace talks unless Israel releases a significant number of Palestinian prisoners, halts all construction in settlements, as well as east Jerusalem, and accepts the pre-1967 lines as the future borders of a Palestinian state.

10. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas does not have a mandate from his people to reach any agreement with Israel: his term in office expired in January 2009.

Khaled Abu Toameh


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

Extreme Islamist Group Denies "Hate Preaching"

by Samuel Westrop

If this is not enough to constitute "hate preaching," what is?
The Islamic Education and Research Academy (iERA) has threatened the Gatestone Institute with legal action over an article detailing its speakers' expressed support for terror and hatred towards Jews, homosexuals and women. The iERA claims it is neither "pro-terror," nor are their speakers "hate preachers."

A letter from Saleem Chagtai, Head of Media at the iERA, reads:
I am writing to you after coming across the following article posted on your website by Samuel Westrop:
In this article are some outrageous allegations made against the Islamic Education & Research Academy (iERA) such as labeling us as "pro-terror" and calling some of our staff members "hate preachers."
We condemn terrorist acts and have actively spoken against them. Our work is about dialogue with the wider community and that is very clear from the activities we conduct. We do not advocate "hate" as this goes against the very nature of our work which is "dawah" or inviting people to Islam.
The letter goes on to claim that comments about one iERA speaker, Abdurraheem Green, has been taken out of context.

Unfortunately, this denial flies in the face of the evidence.

He recommends that death is a "suitable" punishment for adultery and homosexuality:
"Such crimes thus need suitable and effective punishments that act as a sever [sic] warning to others. A public crime deserves a public punishment. Adultery is punishable by death, and a slow and painful death by stoning. All of this also goes some way to help understand way acts of homosexuality are similarly treated so harshly."
According to Green, beating women, in order to "bring them to goodness," is permissible:
The husband is allowed, to prevent her from evil, to apply some type of physical force … It is not allowed to break the skin, does not allow to break a bone or even leave a mark on the skin. A beating that is that severe is forbidden and this is a type of assault, and is haram, and a crime in Islam to treat your wife like that. But a type of physical reprimand in order to bring her to goodness is allowed.
Green is particularly disparaging about non-Muslims, describing them as "evil" and their schools as "sewers":
"If we leave (Muslims) in these (non-Muslim Australian) schools they will be destroyed … You know very well what takes place in these schools ... it is all about evolution, Christmas, Easter, St Valentine's Day - a barrage. And you expect your children to survive? You think you live in a sewer and you come up smelling of roses? … Merely living in the company of evil people will inevitably begin to rub off on us and we will begin to acquire their characteristics."
He condemns criticism of the Taliban:
"Supporting the disbelievers against the Muslims is in fact kufr, it is disbelief. This is something that has been clearly stated by Allah in the Quran, that to aid the unbelievers against the believers is an act of kufr, of disbelief.
"Brothers and sisters you can support the kuffar [disbeliever, infidel] against the Muslims even by a word...For example, slandering and attacking the Muslims unjustly, such as you find many Muslims have done this about the Taliban. Slandering them and attacking them and reviling them based upon news that has come from the disbelieving media, helping the kuffar against the Muslims."
Green does not attempt to hide his distaste for Jews. In one video, Green has said, "Why don't you take the Yahudi [Jew] over there, far away, so his stench doesn't disturb us, okay?"
Green also claims that Turkish leader Ataturk was "an extremely, thoroughly unpleasant, nasty kafir [unbeliever of Islam]. He was a Jew, he was a Jew. And not only was he a Jew, he belonged to a sect of the Jews that even the Jews think are far astray."

In 2005, Green gave a speech at University College London, uncovered by the Daily Telegraph, in which he said that a "permanent state of war exists between the people of Islam and the people who opposed Islam." Referring to Bin Laden, he added, "His rational [sic] is … we are going to keep on killing your women and children until you stop killing our women and children. How do you argue with that?" Citing the Irish Republican Army, he added: "The other thing is that it seems that terrorism works. We certainly have precedent." Green initially objected to the Telegraph's report but later withdrew his complaint.

Other iERA speakers include Bilal Philips, described by the US an "unindicted co-conspirator" in the 1993 al-Qaeda attack on the World Trade Center; Zakir Naik, banned from the UK for saying that "every Muslim should be a terrorist;" and Shady Sulieman, who has said that for those who commit adultery, "their punishment is stoning to death."

Green has hinted a few times that these views are no longer his. The continued presence of other unrepentant pro-terror speakers in the iERA, however, indicates that this is not true. In 2009, Green told the BBC, "I surely have said some pretty radical things and maybe even written some radical things in the past. But one thing I have been very consistent on is terrorism, participating in terrorist activities, violent revolution – is not something that I have ever thought was part of the religion of Islam."

Since then, Green has failed to put his words into action.

Several months after speaking to the BBC, he invited two supporters of terrorism -- and fellow iERA speakers -- Bilal Philips and Hussein Ye, on a speaking tour. He has called on his website for the release of Ali al Timimi, whom he describes as "a treasure of this ummah [nation of Islam], but a treasure purposely buried by the opposer's [sic] of divine guidance." Timimi has been convicted of terrorism offenses in the United States and sentenced to life in prison. Green has also testified in defence of Yassin Nassari, another Islamist convicted of terrorism offenses.

The iERA's letter states that "labeling us as 'pro-terror' and calling some of our staff members 'hate preachers'" is "outrageous."

Three of the iERA's "advisors" have been banned from entering the UK, because of their extremist statements and support for terror. It is noteworthy, however, that the iERA does not consider stoning women and homosexuals to death extremism. But if this is not enough to constitute hate preaching, what is?

Samuel Westrop


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