Friday, April 4, 2014

Muslim Clerics: Women should Cease to Exist

by Ethel Fenig

Hey liberal feminists--feminazi this:
(And no, this is not a joke.)  
Islamabad - Sharia Correspondent: The Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) concluded their 192nd meeting on Thursday with the ruling that women are un-Islamic and that their mere existence contradicted Sharia and the will of Allah. As the meeting concluded CII Chairman Maulana Muhammad Khan Shirani noted that women by existing defied the laws of nature, and to protect Islam and the Sharia women should be forced to stop existing as soon as possible. (bold added)The announcement comes a couple of days after CII’s 191st meeting where they dubbed laws related to minimum marriage age to be un-Islamic.
After declaring women to be un-Islamic, Shirani explained that there were actually two kinds of women – haraam and makrooh. “We can divide all women in the world into two distinct categories: those who are haraam and those who are makrooh. Now the difference between haraam and makrooh is that the former is categorically forbidden while the latter is really really disliked,” Shirani said.
He further went on to explain how the women around the world can ensure that they get promoted to being makrooh, from just being downright haraam. “Any woman that exercises her will is haraam, absolutely haraam, and is conspiring against Islam and the Ummah,whereas those women who are totally subservient can reach the status of being makrooh. Such is the generosity of our ideology and such is the endeavour of Muslim men like us who are the true torchbearers of gender equality,” the CII chairman added.
Officials told Khabaristan Today that the council members deliberated over various historic references related to women and concluded that each woman is a source of fitna and a perpetual enemy of Islam. They also decided that by restricting them to their subordinate, bordering on slave status, the momineen and the mujahideen can ensure that Islam continues to be the religion of peace, prosperity and gender equality. (bold added)

Muslim girls being lead off in chains to meet their new husbands. The leading experts in Islamic Law met recently at the 191st meeting of the Council of Islamic Ideology and declared as un-Islamic any laws attempting to establish a minimum age for girls to be married
There is nothing left to add.  

Ethel Fenig


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

MEMRI Report Illustrates Abbas' Duplicity

by IPT News

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' stated positions on the core issues framing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are completely contradictory when addressing an Israeli or Western audience versus the Palestinian people and the Arab world. A Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) report outlines the contrasting positions concerning refugees, Jerusalem, and recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

For example, Abbas offers two completely different positions over the rights of Palestinian refugees. He told Israelis visiting Ramallah that he did not wish to flood Israel with Palestinian refugees and their decedents.

"We only put the issue of the refugees on the negotiating table because it is a sensitive matter that must be resolved in order to end the conflict, and so that the refugees are pleased with the peace agreement. In any case, we do not wish to flood Israel with millions and change its demographic makeup. That is nonsense and what was written in the Israeli press is untrue," Abbas said.

Yet, when Abbas spoke to a Palestinian audience, he said "the right of return is a personal right. No country, authority, organization or even Abu Mazen or [other] leaders can deny anyone of his right."

In separate remarks to students in Ramallah, Abbas said, "If you want to return to Israel and receive an Israeli citizenship or not – you are free [to decide]." In this context, Abbas is clearly advocating for a Palestinian right of return to pre-1967 Israel, should the individual refugee and his/her descendants decide to do so.

Addressing an Israeli audience, Abbas stressed that Jerusalem would not be divided in any future peace agreement, but would have two municipalities with an appropriate coordinating body.

To Palestinians, he promised that, "Occupied Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine, since without it there will be no solution. No one is authorized to sign [such an agreement]. He added: "Without East Jerusalem as Palestine's capital there will be no peace between us and Israel. I heard that they object to mentioning Jerusalem in any negotiations or talks."

Abbas told his Israeli audience that the PA would accept a United Nations decision that Israel is a Jewish state. To Palestinians, he vowed that the PA "not recognize [Israel as a Jewish state], we will reject this and it is our right to not recognize the Judaism of the state."

MEMRI's analysis comes on the heels of Abbas' decision to seek statehood benefits from 15 international bodies despite promising not to make such a move during ongoing peace talks. Those talks now face collapse.

MEMRI's report shows the folly of accepting Abbas' talk of peace and reconciliation when it is directed at Israeli and Western audiences. Read the whole report here.

IPT News


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

"Come Get Us"

by Peter Huessy

The entire purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter possible threats to the United States, especially the use of nuclear weapons against us by a major nuclear-armed state. They are primarily weapons of "war prevention" rather than "war fighting."
Destroying a mere 10 targets would be a far less daunting task than taking on the 567 American nuclear assets an adversary has to fear today. Why would anyone make it easier for our enemies to target U.S. nuclear forces? The Global Zero study even admitted this critical flaw. What assessment has been done by Global Zero to determine that the world is going to be a lot less dangerous then?

In the latest proposed defense budget, a preview of which had been discussed a day earlier by DOD leaders at the Pentagon, on February 26, 2014, Doyle McManus of the LA Times took Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel to task for not slashing the funding for the US nuclear deterrent.

McManus concluded that U.S. nuclear deterrent forces can be dramatically curtailed through a series of sleight-of-hand moves mixed in with a mash of disarmament happy talk, including cooking the books on the relevant nuclear numbers based almost entirely on a 2012 report by an organization known as "Global Zero."

McManus began with the claim that, "Almost every expert on nuclear weapons agrees that the United States has a far larger nuclear force than it needs to deter attacks," including more warheads and platforms upon which the warheads are carried. He then reassures his readers that the U.S. has even more nuclear weapons than our main adversary Russia, so there apparently is nothing to worry about.

What are the facts?

It is true that Russia does not publish exact date on its nuclear forces. Two arms control experts, Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists and Robert Norris of the Natural Resources Defense Council, explain "Russia does not disclose how many nuclear weapons it has....[we] use public statements made by Russian officials, newspaper articles, observations from commercial satellite images, private conversations with government officials, and analysis of Russian nuclear forces over many years to provide the best available unclassified estimate of Russian nuclear forces."[1]

With those caveats in mind, they place Russian nuclear warheads -- deployed on platforms, in reserve and awaiting dismantlement, at 7800 while U.S. warheads are estimated to be 7400.

While the U.S. and Russia both will deploy roughly an equal number of warheads on their long-range strategic systems as required by the New Start Treaty of 2010, Russia has a major advantage in smaller-yield nuclear weapons. These are generally thought to be mated to shorter-range delivery systems, often referred to as "tactical nuclear weapons" for which there are no arms control limits.

Even the current estimates of greater numbers of Russian tactical nuclear weapons assume we are not underestimating Moscow's nuclear stockpile which we did throughout the Cold War.[2]

This Russian advantage was highlighted in an essay by the former Commander of the US Strategic Command and the top military authority over America's nuclear deterrent, retired Admiral Richard Mies. In the Spring 2012 issue of Undersea Warfare Magazine, dedicated to the nuclear strategic deterrent mission[3], the retired admiral explained Russia's warhead advantage -- that could actually be as great as four to one -- by highlighting the US elimination of most of its tactical nuclear warheads and our countries lack of warhead production capacity, which contrasts sharply with Russia's many thousands of theater nuclear weapons it has kept in its stockpile and its robust warhead production capability.

Given current Russian aggression against Ukraine, and its massing of 20,000 troops on Ukraine's eastern border,[4] the US-Russian nuclear balance may be a critical aspect of whether hostilities break out between Ukraine and Russia.

McManus however appears to make light of Russian nuclear modernization. He references comments from Brookings Institute arms control expert Steven Pifer, a former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, who explains away Russian nuclear weapons modernization as indicative only that "Putin needs the political support of the small towns in Russia that produce military equipment."

McManus also similarly leads us to believe that it is only members of the U.S. Congress "from missile states" who support the nuclear missiles making up our nuclear Triad for land, sea and air because they provide jobs in their states.

He does bow briefly in the direction of "fairness," with an aside that representatives in Congress "might" be motivated by "honest differences in strategy," but in his essay, that remark is the only indication that there might indeed be reasonable differences in strategy among Americans concerning their nuclear deterrent future.

As explained by leading nuclear expert Dr. Mark Schneider[5], Russia has adopted a nuclear weapons use doctrine that allows for the first use of nuclear weapons in local and regional wars not only in response to WMD attack but also in a conventional war. Schneider underscores that it was Putin who was directly responsible for this doctrine when he was National Security Council Secretary in the 1990s. He signed the policy into law as acting President of Russia in 2000.

This doctrine even goes so far as to view the first use of nuclear weapons in a crisis as a "de-escalation of a conflict." Additionally, Russia employs various types of nuclear attack threats as a means of intimidating its neighbors. Since 2007, there have been about 15 overt Russian nuclear targeting threats from senior officials, including four from Putin.

Then McManus, having assumed Russia has fewer nuclear warheads than America (highly certain a false assumption) and that Russian arms modernization is largely due to retail politics and not a hostile intent against the US or its allies (again a highly dubious assumption), endorses the Global Zero 2012 report.[6]

The report calls for cutting our deployed nuclear warheads to no more than 450-900 from our current deployed inventory of roughly1600 strategic weapons. It also simultaneously eliminates 95% of all our nuclear platforms (bombers, submarines and ICBMs) that carry our warheads, ending up with a nuclear force of eight submarines, zero ICBMs and a token (18-21) number of nuclear capable bombers compared to the current force of 567 ICBMs, submarine, launch control centers and bombers.

Does this study make any sense?

In more detail: at three recent Triad-related conferences in the past 18 months, top nuclear experts gathered in Washington, D.C., Minot, North Dakota and Kings Bay, Georgia to discuss the future of nuclear deterrence. They addressed a key issue of whether the United States should continue to support, modernize and deploy a Triad of nuclear forces -- submarines, land based missiles and strategic bombers.

The three main bombers of the US strategic bombing fleet: The B-52, B1-B, and B2. (Image source: U.S. Air Force)

Included in these meetings were the top officials in the USAF and Navy, as well as top civilian and military officials from the current and previous administrations. These included the past Chief of Staff of the USAF and Strategic Air Commander General Larry Welch and the then current commander of US Strategic Command General Robert Kehler.

At these three events, top American nuclear officials -- currently serving and retired -- all fully supported the nuclear Triad of missiles, bombers and submarines and the current plan to modernize and sustain the force into the future.[7]

Many arms control groups support the Triad as well. The Federation of Americans Scientists, the Stimson Center and the Arms Control Association, for example, all support the continued deployment of a strategic nuclear Triad including bombers, submarines and land-based missiles although at lower warhead levels than those allowed by the 2010 New Start Treaty.

Central to the Global Zero report's conclusions and endorsed by McManus is the false assumption that current American nuclear policy assumes our entire stockpile of weapons of nearly 5000 warheads is somehow "needed for deterrence" and is far more than is needed.

But the day-to-day deterrent force of the United States numbers around 2000, including theater or tactical nuclear weapons. Warheads in storage facilities or awaiting dismantlement -- which are included in the 5000 number -- are hardly available for either day-to-day deterrence or a possible future emergency build-up. Should the geostrategic landscape change for the worse, however, there are warheads in reserve for a build-up of U.S. forces. So there is no argument that 5000 warheads are now required for deterrence.

But having said that, the question remains: What number of nuclear warheads should the US maintain in its deterrent? For the past 70 years that has been based largely on a simple axiom: We wish to maintain a secure retaliatory capability so that should the U.S. be attacked first with nuclear weapons, our secure retaliatory capability is sufficient that it would be able completely to destroy any adversary and its military capability.

Not every American president would want to be forced to use nuclear weapons in a crisis; thus every American president has called for a capability to ensure we can retaliate -- go second -- in the use of such awesome weapons even if many of our own nuclear weapons are destroyed by an adversary hitting us first.

Not having to go first is what helps insure crisis stability. Therefore our deployed day-to-day in-the-field warhead numbers need to exceed those that would be available for retaliation, as some percentage of our force -- land based missiles in silos and submarines in port and bombers not on alert -- could be destroyed by an adversary in a first strike.

That secure retaliatory capability, however, is designed never actually to be used -- just to be demonstrated every day as indicative of America's resolve and capability. But even if designed never to be fired in anger, our nuclear arms have to possess a demonstrated capability to make sure that under any scenario, any nuclear-armed adversary will not be able to secure any advantage -- during a crisis or conventional conflict -- by striking us with nuclear weapons.

In support of its push to go to low levels of nuclear weapons, the Global Zero study makes the astounding claim that existing threats to the US such as terrorism "cannot be resolved by using our nuclear arsenal"[8], as if any American leader has ever thought nuclear weapons could solve geostrategic disputes. The entire purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter possible threats to the United States, especially the use of nuclear weapons against us by a major nuclear-armed state.

Nuclear weapons serve not only as a deterrent against major war, but also as a hedge against an uncertain future, a guarantee of our security commitments to our allies and friends, and a disincentive to those who would contemplate developing or otherwise acquiring their own nuclear weapons. They are primarily weapons of "war prevention" as opposed to "war fighting."

At the dawn of the nuclear age Frederick Dunn, Bernard Brodie, Arnold Wolfers, Percy Corbett and William T.R. Fox explained "Thus far [prior to 1945] the chief purpose of our military establishment has been to win wars. From now on its principal purpose must be to avert them."[9]

Here Global Zero makes the further mistake by asserting "the capacity to deliver 900 warheads would project a threat of draconian dimensions to any aggressor country,"[10] thus who could oppose their conclusion that 900 warheads is sufficient for deterrence purposes?

But remember the entire inventory of deployed warheads supported by Global Zero is 900 weapons. To deliver all these weapons against an enemy implies that the US would be going first in a crisis -- an event that has never been (to my knowledge) American policy, and to suggest it could be is a dramatic and highly destabilizing idea.[11]

While on the surface it appears 900 warheads would be available to use if we were attacked, that number is belied by the further proposal by Global Zero that half of these warheads would not be ready to be deployed but would be in storage.

On top of that, Global Zero then additionally proposes that the remaining 450 submarine missile warheads not in storage be taken off "alert" and not be able to be fired for 24-72 hours from when a threat emerges. This is tantamount to taking our entire nuclear deterrent and locking it away and eliminating it from any role in day to day deterrence.[12]

It is thus unclear from the Global Zero report whether -- because it would take so long to reconstitute the force from a de-alerted posture -- the U.S. would have any warheads in a day-to-day secure retaliatory force. Are we therefore going to trust that our adversaries will wait 24-72 hours prior to attacking us, or between attacks on us, knowing full well that we could not retaliate? Is this a new deterrent policy of "fair fight only"?

Worse, while we may de-alert, we could never be sure our adversaries had de-alerted: other countries' de-alerts are simply not verifiable by technical means such as satellites, which are all that is presently available to verify such activity apart from continuous intrusive on-site inspections which have never been agreed to by Russia for any previous arms agreement.

This leads to the possibility that in a crisis, each adversary would seek to put its missiles surreptitiously back on alert -- or never take them off alert in the first place -- and thereby be able to launch first, along with the great advantage a first launch would provide.

According to the Global Zero proposal, American submarine warheads would also have to be stored in secure areas on land; thus making them useless for day-to-day deterrence. Submarines, according to Global Zero, could be on ocean patrol without any warheads aboard.

Deterrence then would be reduced to one "big bluff," that assumed an adversary would wait days or weeks until the U.S. re-armed its submarines and placed them on patrol, from where they could resume their deterrent role. How is this an improvement in deterrent policy?

Finally, to get to a level of 900 deployed warheads, Global Zero makes the further proposal that all ICBMs, or land-based missiles, be eliminated. This move would lead to the situation where America has fewer than 10 discrete nuclear targets -- submarines at sea (4-6), submarines at our two ports in Washington and Georgia and one bomber base -- which if taken out would leave the U.S. without any nuclear capability.

Also, at some time in the future with all warheads stored on land or de-alerted, our entire submarine capability might be destroyed using non-nuclear cruise missiles against U.S. bases and ports and underwater torpedoes against U.S. submarines at sea.

Destroying a mere 10 targets would be a far less daunting task than taking on the 567 American nuclear assets an adversary has to fear today. These are made up of 12 submarines in port and at sea, some 40-60 B-52 and B2 bombers and 495 land based missiles silos and their launch control centers.

Why would anyone make it easier for our enemies to target U.S. nuclear forces and take America out of the nuclear business? 500 targets is indeed a formidable task to attack successfully. But fewer than 10? Why make attacking America inviting?

The Global Zero study even admitted this critical flaw. It acknowledged that if there were a future anti-submarine warfare [ASW] breakthrough capable of finding U.S. submarines at sea, the conclusions of the study that eliminating ICBMs is safe to do would have to be discarded.[13]

Thus McManus makes the potentially deadly mistake of assuming the nuclear deterrent Global Zero proposed now (no ICBMs) is somehow sufficient for the future when technology could make the U.S. submarine force vulnerable -- and at a time when it is difficult enough to determine what exactly the technological threats we face are, let alone the Chinese or Russian potential threats in 2030, 2040 or 2060, the very periods during which our planned future deterrent must do its job.

What assessment has been done by Global Zero to determine the world is going to be a lot less dangerous then, or that technology will not change our requirements? Or that a future ASW breakthrough is not in the cards? None that is in the report. Asserting the world is going to be safe does not make it so.

Not only U.S. security may be placed in jeopardy; at least 31 allied nations now depend upon America's nuclear umbrella. If they believe the U.S. is adopting rash proposals that would undermine our nuclear deterrent, there may well be enormous potential pressure on our allies to seek their own nuclear deterrent, thus contributing to increased WMD proliferation.[14]

While McManus tries to make it appear there is only one view of the future of nuclear deterrence, there is actually no uniform view among experts regarding the number of warheads, platforms or reserves the U.S. should maintain. There is, however, an overwhelmingly predominant view of American nuclear experts that a Triad of submarines, bombers and land-based missiles should be maintained, and that 1550 deployed warheads -- what we have now -- is a reasonable and sound number.

Finally, McManus attempts to seal his argument with the claim that the cost of modernizing the U.S. Triad nuclear deterrent will somehow "break the bank." He relies on Steven Pifer of the Brookings Institution, who says the U.S. cannot afford simultaneously to modernize all three legs of its Triad, the nuclear warhead and laboratory enterprise and the necessary command and control facilities.

But is this true?

McManus quotes a Congressional Budget Office [CBO] report that asserts that nuclear modernization efforts over the next decade would cost roughly $350 billion or $35 billion a year. And he concludes that is too much.

Unfortunately, the CBO report is based on seriously flawed assumptions, primarily because it can only reflect information that is fed to it, so if this information is faulty, the projected program cost will be faulty as well, as we have clearly seen with the contrast between the projected and real expenses of Obamacare.

The CBO projects, for example, that a new land based missile would cost $30-$50 billion more than the cost projected by a new February 4, 2014 RAND report. The CBO also includes all the new conventional bomber costs in these estimates, even though, as former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Jim Miller explained, the cost of the added nuclear capability is only 3% of the bombers' cost.

The new bomber is going to be built for conventional or non-nuclear purposes regardless of whether it eventually becomes capable of carrying and delivering nuclear weapons. Logically then, one would count the cost of the new bomber not as a new cost to nuclear deterrence but part of the ongoing ordinary modernization of our non-nuclear bombers.[15]

The CBO added in both the cost of missile defense and some of the costs to stop proliferation -- and then, apparently arbitrarily, added yet another $60 billion in "inflation" costs over ten years. The projected costs of American missile defense programs are allocated at nearly 95% for defenses against non-nuclear-tipped missiles, and thus can hardly be accurately counted as a cost of nuclear deterrence. In addition, the projected "inflation" estimates of CBO are totally arbitrary and assume that current program estimates will only increase in the future although just recently joint US Navy and USAF missile work has cut new technology additions by 50%. In short both the missile defense costs and the inflation estimates can be reasonably removed from the CBO cost estimates for the future U.S. nuclear deterrent.

What then would a reasonable modernization and sustainment program cost? Over the next 10 years, this author's analysis concludes that the U.S. could reasonably spend somewhere between the current annual outlay ($21 billion) and the high CBO estimate ($35 billion). Simply taking out the excess missile defense, bomber, inflation and ICBM costs estimates from the CBO leaves one with an annual required nuclear deterrent modernization expenditure of roughly $27-30 billion annually, a modest increase from current expenditures.

As some other studies have shown, such an estimate is reasonable.[16] The annual costs for a fully modernized U.S. deterrent would probably peak at around $27-31billion a year for 3-4 years, and then decline. This was the projected cost laid out for future nuclear programs by the Department of Defense CAPE [Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation] in a study done precisely to estimate DOD and DOE nuclear deterrent costs.[17]

Nuclear deterrent costs now come to 3.7% of all defense spending, a sharp drop from nearly 18% at the end of the Cold War. By 2025, for example, a $27 billion annual modernization investment in our nuclear deterrent -- should we decide that is an appropriate investment -- would still be approximately only 4% of the projected defense budget, and less than half of 1% of the federal budget.

By comparison, we now spend $18 billion a year on job training programs which the GAO studied -- and for which it could not find any justification. According to the U.S. Treasury Department, there are fraudulent tax returns claiming at least $4.2 billion annually in child tax credits to illegal aliens each year.

The GAO also found that the U.S. government has 2100 data centers -- compared to 432 ten years ago -- across 24 federal agencies. It concludes that the U.S. could save $200 billion over the next decade just by consolidating them.[18]

Taken together the U.S. could take this money and pay the entire current strategic nuclear modernization plans of the United States twice over.


Deterrence requires a secure retaliatory capability, which only a Triad of nuclear forces can provide -- as has been true for the past 69 years. Lower levels of weapons, based on too few platforms, could lead to serious instabilities in a crisis where the temptation to use such weapons would increase.

In looking to the future, the threats the U.S. faces are many, extreme and dispersed. Some could erupt in superpower confrontation. To deter the use of nuclear arms, the U.S. should be totally secure in the knowledge that it could retaliate with a secure second strike.

President Reagan said early in his presidency that given the stakes involved, America's defenses needed a "significant margin of safety" to ensure no adversary armed with nuclear weapons attacked. Today, that margin requires a Triad of forces. And at half-a-percent to one percent of the federal budget, such nuclear safety is a bargain.[19]

[1] 2013 Status of World Nuclear Forces, Federation of American Scientists, 1725 DeSale Street, Washington, D.C. 20036.
[2] "Disinformation," Commentary, July 1982, by Edward Jay Epstein.
[3] "The Strategic Deterrence Mission: Ensuring a Strong Foundation for America's Security," by Admiral (ret.) Richard Mies, Undersea Warfare, Spring 2012, p.12.
[4] Fox News, Special Report by Brett Baier, Friday, March 21, 2014.
[5] Dr. Mark B. Schneider, Senior Analyst, National Institute for Public Policy June 20, 2012 Talking Points from Remarks made to an Air Force Association, National Defense Industrial Association and Reserve Officers Association Seminar.
[6] "Global Zero US Nuclear Policy Commission Report, 2012, Global Zero.
[7] See the transcripts of the remarks of the more than 35 experts that presented papers at the events.
[8] Op.cit. p.20.
[9] "The Absolute Weapon", New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co, 1946, pp 21-107
[10] Op Cit, p.9
[11] Remarks by former USAF Chief of Staff General Larry Welch, Kings Bay, Georgia, November 6, 2013.
[12] Global Zero US Nuclear Policy Commission Report, 2012, Global Zero, p. 14-16.
[13] Ibid, p.6.
[14] See for example, the remarks on June 11, 2013 by Senator Jon Kyl to the AFA-NDIA-ROA Congressional Seminar Series on Nuclear Deterrence, "The Enduring Requirements of US Strategic Security".
[15] Remarks by James Miller, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, "Nuclear Deterrence: New Guidance, Constant Commitment", Seminar Presentation to the AFA-NDIA and ROA, July 17, 2013.
[16] The Future of America's Strategic Nuclear Deterrent, by Evan Montgomery, CSBA Briefing at the Center for Strategic International Studies, December 5, 2013
[17] CAPE summary material provided in briefing by USAF General James Kowalski, Commander, US Global Strike Command, Minot, North Dakota, May 4, 2013.
[18] Government Waste by the Numbers, Fox News March 1, 2011.
[19] "A 21st Century & Affordable Nuclear Deterrent", Exchange Monitor Sixth Annual Nuclear Deterrence Summit, February 11-14, 2014.

Peter Huessy


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

UK: Our New Sharia Law

by Douglas Murray

The question of what constitutes "voluntary" remains. Could the state ever have confidence that a woman whose marital problems were put before a Sharia court actually "volunteered" for this process, or avoided it, or would have any say whatsoever in accepting the court's judgement? In reality, the woman never stood a chance.
If we are indeed seeing the beginning of this process, we are far from seeing what lies at the end of it.

What is Sharia and what should be our attitude towards it? These questions, which have intermittently swirled around Britain in recent years, have just re-erupted thanks to a recent story in the Sunday Telegraph.

The story revealed that The Law Society -- the body which represents and advises solicitors in England and Wales -- has drawn up guidance for its members on how to draw up wills in accordance with Islamic law. The document can be seen here. As the Telegraph pointed out, High Street solicitors in England and Wales will now be assisted in drawing up documents that refuse women an equal share of inheritance and that discounts the potential inheritance of non-believers entirely. Nicholas Fluck, president of The Law Society, told the Sunday Telegraph that the document, which would be recognised by the national courts, would promote "good practice" in applying Islamic principles. The paper claims that this document effectively enshrines Sharia law in the British legal system for the first time.

Since this is such an important matter it is crucial to note what is right and what is wrong about this story. First the good news: this is not the first entry of Sharia into British law. Now the bad news: it has happened a lot already. This is just one in a string of such developments.

The first opening that adherents and advocates of Sharia law were given in the UK came from the 1996 Arbitration Act, which allowed civil disputes to be settled by any means of arbitration to which both parties consented. So, for instance, if two parties wished to have a dispute voluntarily arbitrated by a religious or other social arbiter, they could.

The point was that so long as the arbitration did not run contrary to, or above, the rest of the law of the land (and this is an important distinction to keep in mind), then the arbitration would get the stamp of state approval. This condition was apparently intended to save the courts' time and satisfy the religious demands of some groups.

The result, of course, was to leave an opening for advocates of Sharia.

Five years ago, stories began to emerge of some of these "arbitrations." It turned out that not only had they overstepped the confines of the law, but strayed far beyond it. They strayed, for instance, into and above family law, when Sharia courts were found to have advocated steps -- such as non-cooperation with police and forcing a wife to remain with her husband even if he had abused her -- perversions of justice that should have been of immediate interest both to the Crown Prosecution Service and the police. Yet nothing happened. No arrests were made, and the various Sharia "arbitration" tribunals were allowed to grow and keep growing.

Several years ago, there were said to be 85 such courts in operation in the UK. In reality the number -- as most are informally put together -- is doubtless much higher. The Muslim preacher, Anjem Choudary, mentioned during an interview several years ago, that he runs his "Sharia court" via his van and his mobile phone. All the issues that came along with this and similar stories were ignored by a society intent (after the first shocks) to look the other way.

The question, for instance, of what constitutes "voluntary" remains. Could the state ever have confidence that a woman whose marital problems were put in front of a Sharia court actually "volunteered" for this process, or avoided it, or would have any say whatsoever in accepting the court's judgement? The legal -- and indeed religious -- authorities claimed that they could know this. In reality, the woman never stood a chance.

Before this latest eruption, we had already come across the case of Sharia wills. In 2010, in the Times of London, a piece (by this author) appeared that focused on a known case of a Muslim British man who had died without leaving a will. The dispute over his estate was arbitrated -- and the estate disbursed -- according to the principles of Sharia as overseen by a local Sharia court. The daughters got half of the inheritance of their brothers, and so on.

So, to this extent, the Law Society's advice is not so much the opening of a flood-gate as another drip in the slow drip-drip by which Sharia principles are beginning to flood through the body of our Common Law tradition.

The movement of Sharia principles into -- and over -- Family Law is just one example. Other cases cover a huge variety of areas. There is, for instance, the UK government's perpetual desire -- whether Labour or Conservative -- to make Britain a center for Islamic Sharia finance. This includes the issuing by the British government -- the first in a non-Muslim country -- of Sharia-compliant bonds [sukuk]. All these financial decisions, and the decisions on the probity of investments, will be made by a team of Islamic scholars. Whether their idea of reputable investment is what the average UK citizen regards as being reputable investment we shall have to see. But by pushing people towards investing with them, the British government is supporting the growth of investment in Sharia funds and thus strengthening such funds and the people who promote them.

"I want London to stand alongside Dubai and Kuala Lumpur as one of the great capitals of Islamic finance anywhere in the world." — UK Prime Minister David Cameron, addressing the World Islamic Economic Forum in London on October 29, 2013. (Image source: 10 Downing St. Facebook page)

The strangest thing of all about this is not the slow erosion of the principle of one law for all. It is not even the offering up of an increasing number of parts of British life to an extremist ideology. It is the ease with which it is all done. "This is not chopping off hands," Sharia's defenders say, scoffingly. "It is not chopping off heads or lashing people," they continue. Some people already complain that critics of Sharia are giving Sharia as a whole a bad name, lumping in the "bad" Sharia with the "good" Sharia. In reality, of course, Sharia law, officially adopted just this week by Brunei, apparently complete with amputations and stoning, is not compatible with law as we have been practicing it for over 2000 years in the West. The short-term political gains for the political leaders who support it hardly seem worth the long-term losses that will befall our society if we continue incorporating this system of law into our national life. If we are indeed seeing the beginning of this process, we are far from seeing what lies at the end of it.

Douglas Murray


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

Campus Free Speech: For Jew-Haters Only

by Charles Jacobs and Ilya Feoktistov

Two weeks ago in Boston, Northeastern University suspended a student group — Students for Justice in Palestine (NU SJP) – for an assortment of infractions against Jewish students and those who support Israel. The stunts that got them suspended were consistent with the strategy of anti-Israel forces at universities around the country: Campus enemies of Israel directly target the free speech of pro-Israel student groups by having their speakers disinvited, their members intimidated, and their events shouted down.  So it is with a fair amount of gall that SJP has now launched a shrill campaign, aided by Massachusetts media, claiming that free speech is a value they cherish and that theirs has been abrogated by the University.

The reason this duplicitous campaign has gotten a warm response in some circles has to do with a double standard in academia and the media. When it comes to certain protected groups, free speech is trumped by “sensitivity.” Two-thirds of universities have speech codes meant to provide a safe environment for minority groups. The use of certain offensive words is forbidden and the use of certain offensive symbols can shut down a campus. However, these protections hypocritically do not extend to pro-Israel Jews. 

Anti-Semitism is defined as treating Jews as you would treat no others. SJP attacks the only Jewish state. It does not deny post-WWII Germans or genocidal Sudanese or Rwandans their right to self-rule. Only the Jewish people may not have a state. SJP is an anti-Semitic organization and anti-Semitism is the only hatred still accepted on American campuses.

On February 16th, members of a Mississippi State University student group vandalized the statue of Ole Miss’s first black alumnus with a noose and a Confederate-type flag. Campus police posted a $25,000 reward for finding the suspects, the three students were caught and the FBI is planning to charge them with hate crimes. Their student group was suspended. The students’ actions were widely covered and roundly condemned in the national media.

Tori Porell’s “favorite thing ever.” 

Among the infractions that got Northeastern SJP suspended was vandalizing the statue of a Jewish alumnus twice in two days by taping over the statue’s mouth with the message: “Zionism = Racism” superimposed over a Jewish star.  Upon seeing a photo of the vandalism posted to Facebook, the group’s president, Tori Porell, commented, “This is my favorite thing ever.” National and local media also covered the act of racist vandalism at Northeastern and SJP’s suspension, but in this case, media sympathy (led by the Boston Globe, of course) was not for the victimized minority group, but for the punished victimizer’s supposed loss of “free speech.”

In the current campus climate, ‘free speech” arguments are typically invoked on behalf of those who offend and intimidate Jews, Christians and conservatives. When NU SJP marched across campus a little over a year ago shouting “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” — a genocidal call for the destruction of the only Jewish state, nothing was done in response. In contrast, when Yale’s Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity members marched across campus in 2010 shouting, “No means yes, yes means anal,” Yale suspended the frat for 5 years and the US Department of Education forced the university to institute greater protections for female students.

When Arizona State University’s Tau Kappa Epsilon posted pictures of themselves at an MLK party this past January dressed in urban street clothes and sipping alcohol from watermelon cups, the university immediately suspended the chapter.

Yet SJP leaders have posted photos of themselves posing with terrorists’ machine guns. They come to protests wearing t-shirts glorifying gun violence and designated terrorist groups like Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. These terrorist groups explicitly call for the murder of all Jews and have murdered hundreds of Israelis (and in the case of Hezbollah, Americans as well). Yet nothing has been done to sanction these particular Northeastern University students.

The offense that finally earned SJP its suspension was what Northeastern terms “dorm storming” in the student conduct list of don’ts.  They entered student dorms in the middle of the night and slipped fake eviction notices under bedroom doors telling students that they are being kicked out for no reason, because that’s exactly what Israel does to the Palestinians. Even the ACLU considers the violation of privacy with the intent to intimidate and single out students to be outside the bounds of free speech at universities. In 2013, three San Jose State University students were charged with hate crimes for writing racial slurs on a black student’s dorm room message board. Nobody would dare call that “free speech.”

Indeed, SJP’s message wasn’t meant for the uninvolved student, who will maybe take a half second look at the piece of paper before throwing it away. This action was aimed directly at Jewish pro-Israel students. The clear message was:  “We who hate you can reach you at the very door to your room. We can come back again. And we will try to make others hate you as we do.”

NU SJP protest against free speech for pro-Israel students.

While demanding freedom of speech for themselves, SJP and its supporters are perfectly happy to suppress the free speech of pro-Israel Jews. An SJP violation that contributed to its suspension was the disruption of a Holocaust Awareness Week event put on by Huskies for Israel in 2013. In this case, NU SJP actively plotted to violate the free speech rights of Jewish students. SJP sent an email to its members calling for a “creative disruption” of the event. The goal: “we need to show them that war criminals are NOT welcome at Northeastern,” emphasis theirs. At the event, SJP members chanted slogans en-masse and disrupted the free speech of the speakers.

Speaking to an SJP meeting in 2013, SJP faculty advisor M. Shahid Alam bragged how he has made pro-Israel students in his classes afraid to argue with his anti-Israel lectures, “because they can sense that they will get no support from the class.”

Northeastern Law School’s chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, which is closely affiliated with SJP, has put out a poorly-argued legal brief about supposed violations of SJP’s free speech rights. Yet the brief demands the suppression of free speech rights for Zionist groups like Americans for Peace and Tolerance:

At the same time, it is important that groups such as ZOA and APT not be allowed to marginalize politically oppressed student groups through hate speech. To that end, we ask the University to adopt a more comprehensive hate speech policy that provides for transformative justice, anti-oppression training and, at the prerogative of the victim, disciplinary action.

(Stalin must be smiling in his grave.)

Anti-Semitic cartoon posted by NU SJP.

The National Lawyers Guild even invoked a standard anti-Semitic smear, claiming that Northeastern has bowed to pressure from wealthy Jewish donors when it suspended SJP. (“No free speech for rich Jews!”) This was echoed by NBC News “journalist” Nona Aronowitz, who interviewed us, NEU’s Hillel director and pro-Israel students and then simply ignored in her “report” every one of our points which did not fit her preconceived narrative.

On March 19th, as Northeastern SJP held a rally demanding that the university reinstate it, a Jewish student was watching. Here is his reaction:

I stood across the street and watched in complete awe as they shouted messages of hate, screamed how Zionism was racism, and that they were in no way being anti-Semitic. They continued with their chants of “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” When I hear that, I hear anti-Semitism, I hear a call for the complete destruction of the Jewish state and all that they call home.
I am what they call a member of the “Zionist war/propaganda machine,” and while I stood across the street and watched this rally, I kept a folded Israeli flag underneath my jacket. I kept on wanting to unfold it and hold it up high, but I was scared. I was afraid for one of the first times in my life as I heard their chants of anti-Semitism, full of hatred and shouting for intifada and increased violence. I was scared, but I am even more afraid of the idea of what happens when nothing is done, when nobody stands up.

When it comes to women, blacks, Latinos and gays, hate speech that creates a “hostile campus environment” is punished. Their right to live hostility-free limits the free speech rights of those who hector them. Yet the right to hate and hector Jewish students, argue the mainstream media and the National Lawyers’ Guild, is “protected free speech.” 

Jewish students need our help. Brownshirt tactics cannot be tolerated even when masquerading as free speech or academic freedom.

It is about time that the only hatred still acceptable on college campuses – the hatred of Jews and the only Jewish state – is treated like all other hatreds. The entire Jewish community must publicly stand up and fight to protect our students.

Charles Jacobs and Ilya Feoktistov


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

Muslim Brotherhood Supporters Slaughter Christian Woman

by Raymond Ibrahim


On Friday, March 28, in Ain Shams, a suburb of Cairo, Muslim Brotherhood supporters attacked the Virgin Mary and Archangel Michael Coptic Orthodox Church, including by opening fire on it and setting parked cars aflame.  Four people died.

One of the slain, a young Coptic woman, was savagely mauled and molested before being murdered—simply because her cross identified her as a Christian to the Brotherhood rioters.
According to an eyewitness who discussed the entire event on the Egyptian program, 90 Minutes, Mary Sameh George was parking by the church to deliver medicine to a sickly, elderly woman:
Once they saw that she was a Christian [because of the cross hanging on her rear view mirror], they jumped on top of the car, to the point that the vehicle was no longer visible. The roof of the car collapsed in.  When they realized that she was starting to die, they pulled her out of the car and started pounding on her and pulling her hair—to the point that portions of her hair and scalp came off.  They kept beating her, kicking her, stabbing her with any object or weapon they could find….  Throughout [her ordeal] she tried to protect her face, giving her back to the attackers, till one of them came and stabbed her right in the back, near the heart, finishing her off.  Then another came and grabbed her by the hair, shaking her head, and with the other hand slit her throat.  Another pulled her pants off, to the point that she was totally naked.
The eyewitness, as well as many others who have since appeared on videos, complained about Egyptian State Security and how it did not intervene—just like under Morsi, when St. Mark Cathedral was besieged, even as security stood by—how it knows exactly who the murderers are, and how one of Mary’s murderers, whom “everyone reported to Security,” was simply relaxing in his home, not even hiding.

Added the eyewitness: “Let me tell you, here in Ain Shams, we [Christians] know that every Friday is a day of death; that the day after Friday, Saturday, we’ll be carried to the morgue!”

In fact, the overwhelming majority of attacks on Egypt’s Christians occur on Friday—the day when pious Muslims meet in mosque for prayers and to hear sermons.

The significance of this fact can only be understood by analogy: what if Christians were especially violent to non-Christian minorities on Sunday—right after they got out of church?  What would that say about what goes on in Christian churches?

What does it say about what goes on in Muslim mosques?

A video of Mary’s family members has one woman screaming out the following words—which may be of interest to some Americans:
A message to [U.S. President Barack] Obama, who is calling for the Brotherhood to return to power again.   I want to tell him, have mercy, enough is enough!  His brother is in the al-Qaeda organization!  Why do you want to destroy Egypt?….Egypt will remain whether you, the Brotherhood, or anyone else likes it or not!
She was referring to something that is as well known in Egypt as it is little known in the United States: that the Obama administration is a sponsor of the Muslim Brotherhood, which itself is connected to al-Qaeda.

The rest of the video portrays some of Mary’s other family members—many in tears and near hysteria—prompting one to wonder: where is the U.S media?  I have not seen a word on this latest Islamic attack on a church and Christians on BBC, CNN, or any of the so-called “mainstream media”?  Why is that?  They had no problem constantly showing us (over and over again) a video clip of a hysterical female relative of a member of Malaysian flight MH370.

The mainstream media is silent because Muslim persecution of Christians in general—Obama-sponsored Muslim Brotherhood in particular—throws a huge wrench in that narrative.

After all, how many Americans ever heard of the largest massacre of Syrian Christians by U.S.-supported Islamic rebels?

Responding to this latest murder of a Christian, Coptic Bishop Raphaeil wrote:
Oh how lucky you are, Mary, you who are beloved of Christ.  They tore your body because of the Cross.  Yet they offered you the greatest service and gave you a name of honor as one who has attained the crown of martyrdom.
More poignantly, the bishop quoted Christ in the Bible, “Yes, the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God service” (John 16:2)—a reference to the fact that the Muslims slaughtering the followers of Christ all around the world quite often believe they are doing God’s (or Allah’s) work.

Hence why anecdotes such as Friday’s are becoming immensely regular in the Muslim world. Indeed, only a few months ago, two other Coptic Christian girls — both also named “Mary” — were slain when Brotherhood supporters opened fire on yet another church.

Such is the dramatic, eye-opening, and medieval world outside U.S. borders that that the “powers that be” do not want you to know about—for only their well-crafted, self-serving narratives must prevail.

Raymond Ibrahim


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