The US and Terrorism: Use Your Head, America!

by Fred Skolnik

Out of 35,000 State Department employees, fewer than ten are fluent in Arabic. This is simply incredible. And that is not the only impediment preventing the US from fighting terror successfully.

The debate about how the United States should combat global terrorism and insurgency is in effect a debate about how the United States should act in a world it does not understand. When such a debate is conducted at the level of the media, it is pointless. When such a debate is conducted at the level of government, it is dangerous. The results, for the United States, have thus far been Iraq and, before that, Vietnam.

America's stumbling block since World War II has been irregular warfare. To defeat Germany and Japan it was enough to understand the art of war. To defeat terrorists and insurgents you have to understand entire cultures. This the United States has never been able to do, and certainly not the language, religion, politics and history of the Muslim East.

Though the United States has had at least 20 years to understand that the next world threat, replacing the Soviet Union, I suppose, was going to be Muslim fanaticism, it has done nothing to prepare for it. I mean to say that the United States has done nothing to develop a military and political doctrine suitable for fighting terrorism and insurgency, or developed a cadre of Arabic speakers who understand the Muslim world, which is the basis for developing such a doctrine.

It is by now a notorious fact that out of 35,000 State Department employees, fewer than ten are fluent in Arabic. This is simply incredible, for just as the American news organizations find it perfectly acceptable to have correspondents who do not speak Arabic "reporting" from the Middle East, and analysts and even "experts" who do not speak Arabic "analyzing" these reports, such being the standards by which their journalists operate, so too the American intelligence community gathers its information with the aid of "interpreters" who as often as not speak pidgin English and then has this information worked up into intelligence reports by officials who also do not understand Arabic, not to mention Hebrew, and finally passes these reports on to the American president and the officials who surround him, who are as capable of understanding the culture of the Middle East as grade school children.

The ignorance of American officials is reflected in such guileless statements as Obama's confession that he had "underrated" the difficulty of reviving negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, which creates the illusion that some understandable misreading of the situation had led to a raising of expectations, whereas in actual fact the American reading of the Middle East transpires in total darkness (as is the case with its reading of events in Libya and Egypt, where the only real alternatives to the old tyranny are chaos or tyranny of a different kind).

Ignorance, it must be said, is just one of the impediments to fighting terrorism and insurgency. Another is the perpetuation of the myth that the American fighting man is the best in the world. The truth is that Muslim insurgents, in training, motivation, discipline and fighting ability, are the equals of the American soldier, and when fighting is on their terms and on their ground, the advantage is always theirs, no matter how many bombs are dropped on their heads. Israeli officers have actually rated Hizbollah fighters higher than Israeli soldiers in just these qualities. When American thinking is conditioned by Hollywood films and gung-ho journalism, and it most certainly is in that these have created the frame of mind in which Americans see the world, then the results are bound to be disastrous, just as they were in Iraq and Vietnam.

The question of doctrine, however, is also problematic in itself. In conventional warfare, military thinking can lag behind technological innovation by a full generation. Though the rifled musket was in overwhelming use by the middle of the American Civil War, increasing the effective range of small arms fire from 100 to 300-500 yards, generals continued to order Napoleonic infantry charges not only to the very end of the Civil War but throughout World War I as well (and hence 60,000 British casualties on the first day of their offensive on the Somme and a million casualties on both sides in the space of four and a half months). Irregular warfare is just this kind of innovation.

The depth of the problem is best exemplified by the case of Israel, which has made little headway against Hizbullah and Hamas though its experience, knowledge and capabilities in this kind of conflict exceed those of the United States by many fold.

It is therefore time to look the problem squarely in the face and prepare for a future whose horrors cannot even be imagined. The world certainly needs a policeman. The natural candidate would be the United Nations, but unfortunately all too many of its members are criminals themselves. This leaves the United States, by default, but to be a policeman it will have to learn how to use the tools of the trade.

This it has not even begun to do. Use your head, America!

Fred Skolnik moved to Israel from NYC in 1963 and was editor in chief of the 22-volume second edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica, winner of the 2007 Dartmouth Medal.

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/11291#.T0ZmX1FvIi4

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

Ron Paul: No Need to Attack Iran

by Rachel Hirshfeld

During Wednesday night’s Arizona Republican presidential debate, Ron Paul, once again, professed his conviction that there is no need to attack Iran.

“We don’t know that they have a weapon. In fact, there is no evidence they have it... I don’t want them to get a weapon, but I think we are encouraging them to have a weapon because they feel threatened,” he said.

“If you look at a map of Iran, we have 45 bases around their country, plus our submarines. The Iranians can’t possibly attack anybody and we are worrying about the possibility of one nuclear weapon.”

“Just think about the Cold War. The Soviets had 30,000 of them, and we talked to them. The Soviets killed 100,000,000 people…”

He said that going to war “rapidly like this” would be “risky and reckless,” but, addressing his fellow Republican nominees said, “If you are so determined to go to war, the only thing I plead with you for is to do it properly- ask the people and ask the congress for a declaration of war”

“This is war, people. People are going to die. You need to get a declaration of war.”

He said the sanctions against Iran, to date, have only served to “enhance their power.”

He said if American could talk to the Soviets, “we can, at least, can talk to someone who we don’t have proof has nuclear weapons.”

However, as Gary Bauer, Reagan Republican who briefly ran for president in 1999 and 2000 stated, “Ron Paul’s conservatism is isolationist and conspiratorial. He’s hostile to our military, hostile to our allies like Israel, and was hostile to great conservatives like Ronald Reagan. He denies that Iran is building nuclear weapons. He says that it was a crime to kill Osama bin Laden. He blames America for creating terrorism. He says that we don’t know the truth of the 9/11 attacks because of a government cover-up. He condemns our ally Israel for defending herself. Ron Paul is not a Reagan Republican. We can do better.”

Rachel Hirshfeld

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/153082#.T0Zl1lFvIi4

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

First Iran and Now Syria. Why Does Obama Protect Violent anti-Israel Regimes?

by Farid Ghadry

I just wrote an email to a friend in which I stated:

“For the first-generation American that I am, It’s very hard to watch my people die like flies and the world just keep paying us lip service. It’s Obama, the Arab League, Erdogan, the Russians, the Mullahs, and the Chinese. It seems innocent Syrians had more invisible enemies before even firing one bullet in self-defense.”

But of all the above named, with the exception of the barbaric Assad, President Obama is the only one with no excuses unless one observes a pattern forming.

The Russians are protecting their 50-year investment in the Assads, the Chinese are playing international politics and creating another Darfur seems less important than their factories churning exportable products, the Mullahs are Assad’s Siamese twins, the Arab League is in business to protect the ruling families at the expense of who else but the Arab flocks, and Erdogan is content to sell Syria in return for the Islamists in Egypt and Libya.

But why is President Obama so adamant about not helping the Iranian and the Syrian revolutions when he helped the Tunisians, the Egyptians, and the Libyans? Is it because new governments in Syria and Iran will not create more problems for Israel than the existing ones? Even those he helped with their freedom, two of the three have become staunch enemies to Israel. When a pattern forms, one must ask the tough questions.

Why do the Syrian people have to pay such a high price for the President’s steady hand of attempting to harm the interests of one country at the expense of theirs and four more? What do Syrians have to do with Israel or his own personal journey?

Every month or so, Reuters or AP publish a story about the White House finally deciding to arm the rebels. Needless to say, they are getting blank leaks. Have no illusions, Washington is in Defcon 1 when it comes to spin on Syria.

Speaking of spin, the US State Department, the main opposition to the Syrian opposition and to helping Syrians defend themselves, established “Friends of Syria”, which is another grand meeting with grand entrances and grand speeches but no action. Not even a humanitarian action. Generally speaking, when it comes to heavy PR by the US government, exchange big words with their antonyms when you fail to understand the logic of an action or its purpose.

The killings in Syria won’t go away and it seems President Obama will not be distracted from his singular obsession with Israel. If our President is willing to establish Islamist governments in the Middle East or shore-up stealthily Israel’s enemies at the expense of the Syrian and the Iranian peoples, then I cannot fathom what he will do if he gets elected another four years with nothing to lose.

“And if it is a despot you would dethrone, see first that his throne erected within you is destroyed. For how can a tyrant rule the free and the proud, but for a tyranny in their own freedom and a shame in their own pride?” – Gibran Khalil Gibran, passage from The Prophet.

Farid Ghadry

Source: http://ghadry.com/2012/02/22/first-iran-and-now-syria-why-does-obama-protect-violent-anti-israel-regimes/

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

Homs Bloodbath continues as UN Accuses Assad of 'Crimes Against Humanity'

by Rick Moran

The carnage continues in Homs where the Syrian military continues to use tanks, mortars and artillery to shell a couple of Sunni neighborhoods where a few Free Syrian Army troops are holed up.

Meanwhille, another UN report has been released detailing the bloody crackdown by Assad and accusing him of "Crimes against Humanity."

Reuters:

World outrage has swelled over the carnage in Syria, where thousands have been killed since the anti-Assad uprising flared in March, inspired by revolts against Arab autocrats elsewhere.

U.N. investigators said Syrian forces had shot dead unarmed women and children, shelled residential areas and tortured wounded protesters in hospital under orders issued at the "highest levels" of the army and government.

In their report to the U.N. Human Rights Council, they called for perpetrators of such crimes against humanity to face prosecution and said they had drawn up a confidential list of names of commanders and officials alleged to be responsible.

The commission, led by Brazilian Paulo Pinheiro, found that Free Syrian Army rebels had also committed abuses including killings and abductions, "although not comparable in scale."

Syrian authorities could not be immediately reached for comment on the commission's latest findings, but they rejected its previous report in November as "totally false."

Eighty people died in Syria yesterday alone. And in Tunis, a "Friends of Syria" meeting with 80 countries being represented will discuss ways to get humanitarian assistance to people in Homs and other flashpoints where medical supplies and food are almost non-existent.

Their efforts will come to naught. There is no way in except with an army willing to fight Assad's forces. And that isn't going to happen.

Rick Moran

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/02/homs_bloodbath_continues_as_un_accuses_assad_of_crimes_against_humanity.html

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

The Iranian Plan to Annihilate the Jews

by Reza Kahlili

(See also in AT today: Reza Kahlili and the Truth About Iran)

For many years, I have tried to raise awareness not only of the threat posed by the fanatics ruling Iran, but also of the injustices done to the Iranian people. This has drawn the ire of the mullah-appeasers and those in alliance with the criminal Islamic regime in Iran.

Recently, I revealed a shocking piece, "Ayatollah: Kill All Jews, Annihilate Israel," in which a well-known strategist within the Iranian government introduced a new doctrine not only to destroy Israel in a preemptive attack, but also to commit to genocide and kill the Jewish people. The piece got international attention and made headlines across the world.

The facts in my piece were an exact copy of the original piece, which was published in Iran. I even left a link to the Iranian piece that interestingly was not only written in Farsi, but also translated into English. I wanted to make sure that the world could see that my piece was a true and accurate reflection of what was said in Iran.

I wanted the world to see that the jihadists in Tehran had no shame in openly calling for the mass murder of the people of another nation. I wanted the world to realize that we were once again dealing with madmen who had no interest in humanity, love, or peace, and that they were determined to commit a grave crime, based on their belief in glorifying Allah.

Even though I did my best to make it easy to verify the facts, many Islamists, and those supporting negotiations with the regime in Iran, launched an attack against me and my article and did not hide their hatred for Israel and the Jewish people.

In their attacks, they not only tried to assassinate my character, but also tried to deceive the readers, claiming that my piece was a lie and that no one in Iran was calling for the killing of the Jewish people.

These people failed to mention that just recently, the Iranian supreme leader once again called Israel "a cancerous tumor that should and will be cut" during his recent Friday prayer sermon. One must be living in a cave not to have heard Khamenei, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and other officials of the Islamic regime call for the destruction of Israel and how this "cancerous cell" needs to be wiped off the face of the earth.

But the clarity is in the piece that was published in Iran, which has a full paragraph with the title "Israeli People Must be Annihilated." All Iranian state media are strictly pro-government and highly sensitive to any statement that might cause the regime problems. The original piece was published in over 28 major official media sites of the Islamic regime, including the Revolutionary Guards' Fars News Agency and Mashregh News. It does represent the official view of the Islamic regime.

The site, Alef, which ran the piece, belongs to Ahmad Tavakoli, a hard-line parliamentarian and a close ally of Khamenei. The author, Alireza Forghani (who recently resigned his post as governor of southern Iran's Kish Province over tensions with pro-Ahmadinejad circles), entered the Basij forces when he was 14 and served one of the most fanatical elements of the regime, the Ansare Hezb'allah in the city of Mashhad, from age 17 to 21. He continued his education in the field of analytical strategy. He was one of the first within the Iranian government to call Khamenei an imam, and is an analyst and a strategy specialist in Khamenei's camp. He has the following in his bio on his blog:

Favorite book: The Absolute Rule of the Jurisprudent

Favorite sport: Jihad in fierce war

But let's take direct quotes from the original piece, which was published in English:

In the name of Allah
Iran must attack Israel...

The necessity of Israel annihilation ... :

Today, the first Qibla of the Muslims has been occupied by Israel, a cancerous tumor for the Middle East. Today, Israel is causing division using all evil means. Every Muslim is obliged to equip themselves against Israel. ... and since the potential danger is facing the foundations of Islam, it is necessary for the Islamic governments in particular and other Muslims in general to remove this corrupting material by any means. All our troubles are due to Israel! And Israel results from America too.

Military Aspects of Iranian Attack on Israel

In order to attack Iran, Israel needs western and U.S. assistance, permission and coordination. In the current situation and passiveness of U.S. and the West, Iran should wipe out Israel.

... Based on preemptive defense doctrine, Israel should get under heavy military strikes through first and final strikes. In the primary step of first scene, ground zero points of Israel should be annihilated by Iranian military attacks. To get this end, Iran can use long-range missiles. The distance from Iranian easternmost point to westernmost point of Israel is about ۲۶۰۰ km (2,600km). Strategic targets deep inside Israeli soil are in the range of Iranian conventional missiles.

Israeli People Must Be Annihilated

Israel is the only country in the world with a Jewish majority. According to the last census of Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, this country has a population of ۷.۵ (7.5) million including ۵.۷ (5.7) million Jews ...

Residents of Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa can be targeted even by Shahb ۳ (3). Population density in these three adjacent areas composes about ۶۰ % (60%) of Israeli population. Sejjil missiles can target power plants, sewage treatment facilities, energy resources, transportation and communication infrastructures; and in the second stage Shahab ۳ and Ghadr missiles can target urban settlements until final annihilation of Israel people.

There is no need to post the whole piece, as the link here is available for all to see.

The point is that my piece was a true reflection of this new doctrine and shocking ideology of genocide of the Jewish people.

However, in order to see the truth, one must be faithful to one's spirit. In Iran, Basiji bullies, Revolutionary Guards armed to the teeth, and Ansare Hezb'allah thugs with chains and knives attack those bold enough to reveal the truth. In America, the mullah-appeasers attack and character-assassinate those who reveal the truth about this criminal regime. There's no difference between the two.

I do not take these attacks on me to heart, as I choose truth over lies, love over hate, justice over injustice, and light over darkness. I choose to be the voice of the voiceless. Although it is a constant battle on many fronts, I know that in my heart that I walk the path of My Lord.

I do not expect those who have chosen evil to understand, but again, if they had any dignity, if they had respect for humanity, then they would not support a regime that stones women to death, a regime that rapes and tortures Iranian boys and girls to suppress their desire for freedom, a regime that chops off hands and feet in punishment for stealing, a regime that lashes Iranians as punishment for not adhering to Islamic rules and savagely attacks anyone opposing it. This is a regime that is at the helm of worldwide terrorism in which many of its officials are wanted either by Interpol or courts around the world for terrorist acts and assassinations.

Though it saddens me to know there are such individuals among us -- individuals who profess loyalty to a barbaric regime -- I am happy to report that even they will not be able save the criminals ruling Iran. Their final outcome is in the hands of God.

Long Live the Iranian People.

God Bless America.

Reza Kahlili is a pseudonym for a former CIA operative in Iran's Revolutionary Guards and the author of the award-winning book A Time to Betray. He is a senior fellow with EMPact America and teaches at the U.S. Department of Defense's Joint Counterintelligence Training Academy (JCITA).

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/the_iranian_plan_to_annihilate_the_jews.html

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

McCain, Graham Praise Muslim Brotherhood While in Egypt

by Rick Moran

I have no idea if they were simply being nice to their hosts in a diplomatic sort of way, or if they really believe this guff about the Brotherhood.

Wall Street Journal:

Mr. McCain (R., Ariz.) and his delegation of four other senators, three of them Republicans, also hinted at warming relations between conservative American lawmakers and the Muslim Brotherhood, an Egyptian Islamist group whose triumphant performance in parliamentary elections rattled U.S. nerves among U.S. policy makers.

The warm comments mark a climbdown from previous threats by congressmen from both parties that the prosecution of American NGO staff will endanger the $1.3 billion in aid that Washington has given Egypt's military each year since 1987.

Despite months of warnings of a potential aid cut, the visiting senators projected a dramatically different posture toward Egypt's government on Monday, portraying the dispute as little more than an inevitable collision between a new generation of Egyptian reformers and the repressive legal system they inherited.

Mr. McCain, who is chairman of the board of the International Republican Institute, one of the accused American NGOs, told reporters in Egypt's capital that Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi, Egypt's de facto president, assured the senators that the leading council of generals is "working very diligently" to "resolve" the NGO issue.

Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Egypt's newly elected Parliament also told the lawmakers that they would redraft a restrictive NGO law that the deposed regime of President Hosni Mubarak used to repress civil-society organizations.

"After talking with the Muslim Brotherhood, I was struck with their commitment to change the law because they believe it's unfair," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), who was traveling with Mr. McCain. Mr. Graham and other lawmakers praised the Brotherhood, whose Freedom and Justice Party won a plurality of nearly 50% of the seats in Parliament, as a strong potential partner for the future of U.S. relations with Egypt.

Graham added:

"I was very apprehensive when I heard the election results," Mr. Graham said on Monday. "But after visiting and talking with the Muslim Brotherhood I am hopeful that...we can have a relationship with Egypt where the Muslim Brotherhood is a strong political voice."

No doubt they're dancing a jig at MB headquarters. Are McCain and Graham actually being snowed by the Brotherhood, or are they just making nice so that the 19 Americans set to be tried in a kangaroo court next week are released without having to go to jail?

I hope it's the latter. To believe that the MB has changed their spots is to believe in fairy tales. This is true especially since they have not backed down one iota from their goal of destroying Israel.

The Muslim Brotherhood may be talking in soothing tones today about not altering Egyptian society immediately. But let's revisit this question in 2 or three years and see where Egypt is. It is likely that Graham and McCain will look even more idiotic than they appear now.

Rick Moran

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/02/mccain_graham_praise_muslim_brotherhood_while_in_egypt.html

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

Is Sharia Law Compatible with Democracy?

by Michael Curtis

The judge held that according to the Islamic religion, the woman should submit completely to her husband's will, thus effectively accepting rape.

In European and American communities the principle of a secular law equally applied to everyone is today being challenged, if not yet under assault, by Muslim communities wanting to insert decisions made in Islamic sharia ["the path"] courts and tribunals into the normal , common-law, legal system.

The question has arisen of whether legal decisions based on cultural values at odds with democratic principles be accepted and incorporated into laws of democratic countries in the name of religious freedom.

A proposed amendment to the Constitution of Oklahoma, State Question 755, stating that, "The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or sharia law," was blocked by an order of U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange. Her decision was upheld by the Federal 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver on January 10, 2012.

Proponents of the amendment argue that only the federal and state laws of the U.S. should apply before the courts. Judge Miles-LaGrange, however, in issuing a preliminary injunction preventing implementation of the amendment, said that the amendment conveyed a message that the state favored one religion or belief over others. She argued it singled out sharia law,conveying a message of disapproval of the Muslim faith, and had the effect of inhibiting the Muslim religion. The Federal Court similarly held that the proposed amendment was discriminatory because it twice specifically mentioned sharia law.

A cardinal principle in democratic systems is that the same law applies to everyone in the society -- and that this law is secular. In European countries and in the United States, concepts of multiculturalism and cultural relativism have led many groups in the social fabric to assert their cultural heritage. In some cases, as in the arts and literature, the result has been an eloquent profusion of different heritages. In the political arena, however, the result has been more problematic, sometimes threatening the rights of freedom of expression and behavior as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the US Bill of Rights, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free expression thereof…."

Within the United States voluntary systems of rabbinical courts and American Indian tribal courts have existed for some time, but they have not intruded into the general legal system. The problem remains, however, as stated in 2008 by the Archbishop of Canterbury, to "what degree of accommodation the laws of the land can and will give to minority communities within their strongly entrenched legal and moral codes." The American philosopher John Rawls proposed a "comprehensive doctrine" by which reasonable people accept the existence of different beliefs about life and law, and do not impose their own doctrine on others who are equally willing to abide by this principle.

The answer given by the Oklahoma electorate, in trying to prevent the introduction of other systems of law, is that the secular state must have a monopoly of legal authority. Because the proposed amendment refers specifically to sharia law, it implies that Islamic values and law might be harmful to individual rights and the rule of law.

Ironically, if the proposed amendment had not twice mentioned sharia law, it might have been passed without effort.

The Supreme Court will have to face the constitutional question of whether the judicial branch of government can block or veto a decision of the people made in proper legal fashion -- the amendment of the Oklahoma Constitution was approved by 70 percent of the electorate in November 2010. But that question should not override the issue, already a significant one in European countries, especially in Britain, of whether Islamic sharia law is compatible with a democratic legal system, or can be integrated into it. Can the Islamic law applying to Muslims on issues of marriage, divorce, inheritance, and custody of children be accepted as part of the regular civil code?

This problem had already arisen in New Jersey. In August 2010, Judge Joseph Charles, a family court judge, refused to grant a restraining order to a woman who had been sexually abused by her Moroccan husband. The judge held that the man thought he had behaved according to his Muslim beliefs. His argument was that according to the Islamic religion the woman should submit completely to her husband's will, a submission which in this instance meant having sex whenever he desired, thus effectively accepting rape. The judge's decision was overruled by the Appellate Court of New Jersey, which held that the religious beliefs of the husband were irrelevant to the case and that assault was illegal. This ruling follows the well -known decision of the Supreme Court in Reynolds v. United States, 1878, that the claimed religious duty of a Mormon to engage in bigamy was not a defense against criminal indictment.

No doubt there are some myths and social stereotypes that have been articulated in the West, and may not be accurate representations about behavior and relationships in the Islamic world. Nevertheless, the starting point of objective analysis is that sharia law is not compatible with democratic law.

Sharia law, which regulates all aspects of Muslim communal and private life, is discriminatory against women and children, denying them rights that have been won over the last two centuries in democratic countries. Muslim women, treated as inferiors, are often not allowed to take advantage of the protection from discrimination or abuse provided by the secular courts. They are often pressured by their families to go to tribunals where the principles of Sharia law are applied. That law is implemented by councils, or arbitration tribunals, that operate on religious principles, derived from a number of sources: the Koran, the sayings and actions of Prophet Muhammad, Islamic jurisprudence, and rulings or fatwas issued by scholars. Can this law be compatible with that of law in states not constructed on a religious basis? Can decisions from those courts be considered part of the ordinary legal system?

It is difficult to envisage the compatibility of alternative legal systems with the law in democratic societies, particularly with an Islamic legal system that calls for the death penalty for apostasy, sexual "crimes" of women including adultery, and homosexuality. Women are handicapped on issues of marriage, divorce, inheritance, and child custody. A Muslim man is permitted to have four wives and can divorce one of them with ease, but women must follow a difficult path to obtain a divorce. At the worst,women can be stoned to death for sex outside marriage. Judgment in criminal cases can be harsh; thieves may be punished by amputation.

The cases in Oklahoma and New Jersey have paved the way for an important decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in the near future. Will it allow Muslim law to be used in civil cases relating to the Muslim community? Will the decisions of Sharia tribunals become legally binding? Or will the Supreme Court decide, as did the highest court in Britain, the Law Lords, when it ruled in a case involving a woman and custody of her child in 2008, that the Sharia law applied in that particular case was discriminatory and a violation of human rights?

It is not a manifestation of xenophobia or prejudice that the voters in Oklahoma acted on the belief that Muslim Sharia law is antithetical to democratic values. The courts and legislators in the United States must be conscious of a real and growing difficulty in our society.

Michael Curtis is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Rutgers University, and author of Should Israel Exist? A Sovereign Nation under attack by the International Community.

Source: http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/2869/sharia-law-democracy

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

Is Jordan Speeding Toward Anarchy?

by Abdel Jabbar Rawashdeh

A growing number of Jordanians believe king's measures are "cosmetic" steps designed to contain public outrage and discontent.

The enemies of reform and transparency in the King Abdullah's Hashemite Kingdom have begun targeting women who dare to speak out against dictatorship and corruption.

Some Jordanians claim that the enemies belong to the the notorious and much-feared General Intelligence Department. They note that in several cases over the past few months, security agents posing as street thugs have attacked pro-democracy activists in various parts of the kingdom.

Other Jordanians have expressed fear that their country could be descending toward anarchy and lawlessness as a result of growing street protests and violence. "The Arab Spring seems to [be] knocking on Jordan's doors," remarked a Jordanian newspaper editor. "Unfortunately, the king and the government are continuing to bury their heads in the sand."

Earlier this week, a masked man stabbed and moderately wounded Inas Msallam, a Jordanian university stunted [student?] and blogger who had played a vital role in anti-government protests in the kingdom over the past few months.

Msallam, a fourth-year student at Jordan University, was attacked shortly after she criticized the monarch's uncle, Prince Hassan bin Talal.

The prince enraged many Jordanians after he had raised doubts as to whether those who are demanding reforms and democracy really represent a majority of Jordanians.

Msallam wrote on her blog: "All those who watched the interview with Prince Hassan have condemned his statements. Those who once thought that he was the right man in the right place have now reconsidered their stance."

The victim's mother, Noor Turkumani, said her daughter was targeted by "terrorists" and "thugs."

The mother added that her daughter had received death threats by phone because of her involvement in anti-government demonstrations and defense of student's rights on campus.

Although Jordanian security forces and government officials have strongly denounced the stabbing of the young woman, some Jordanians hold the authorities responsible.

These Jordanians point out this was not the first attack on its kind against anti-government protesters.

Earlier this month, another prominent Jordanian woman, Toujan Faisal, received death threats after she called for reforms and an end to corruption in the kingdom. When she was invited to speak at a seminar on reforms a few weeks ago, Faisal was assigned several bodyguards from Jordan's General Intelligence Department, which also provided her with a police vehicle to ensure her safety.

Faisal, who was the first female member of the Jordanian parliament, was held in custody for 15 days in 2002 after she sent a letter to the late King Hussein demanding reforms and transparency.

Although King Abdullah has taken a number of measures to fight corruption, many Jordanians feel that the kingdom still has a long way to go before it implements real reforms and democracy. Even worse, there is a growing number of Jordanians who believe that the king's measures are "cosmetic" steps that are designed to contain public outrage and discontent.

Abdel Jabbar Rawashdeh

Source: http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/2871/jordan-anarchy

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

Salafists in Tunisia

by Anna Mahjar-Barducci

"They are at the antipodes of human rights... [and] have an open road in front of them."

The French-based North African media outlet, Le Courrier de l'Atlas, recently published an article on Salafists in Tunisia, describing who is who in the jihadist Tunisian scene.

Although the Salafists are a small minority group there, they are extremely active and threatening the country's individual freedoms. In a clash between Tunisian security forces and armed jihadists in early February, several officers were injured and two of the attackers were killed; a third was captured and many arrests have followed.

Salafism is now a new political subject in the Tunisian scene and is competing for power with Muslim Brotherhood-oriented parties, such as the Tunisian ruling party Ennahda. Salafists consider Ennahda, which won the elections last October, a movement that is too moderate; they would like to enforce throughout the country their vision of Islam, which is more extremist than the Muslim Brotherhood's vision.

Following are excerpts from the article published by le Courrier de l'Atlas.

What is Salafism?

[…] Salafists quote a hadith [acts and sayings attributed to the Prophet Mohammed] that reads, "the best among you are those of my century and, after them, those who will follow them and then those who will follow the latter ones." In other words, the first three centuries of Islam have produced the best possible men.

[…] Present day Salafist leaders, in all their writings and sermons, quote the Quran, the hadiths and the theologians of the first three centuries. For them, these are the only admissible sources. Contemporary theologians are taken into consideration only if they quote these three sources as their sole point of reference.

[…] In general terms, Salafists deem that the norms decreed between twelve and fifteen centuries ago, in particular circumstances and in a particular place, are valid for all times and for all places and that they should be enforced. This is what they call Shariah ["The Path;" official Islamic law], which, according to them, includes corporal punishments, polygamy, inequality between men and women… and that recognizes only one type of human kind: the true Muslim.

One of their worst enemies is innovation. They consider as innovation […] even democracy. Music (with the exception of religious chants), cinema, dance, plastic arts, sculpture are equally considered illegal. […] They wear an Afghan kameez (convinced that the Prophet used to dress that way), don an unkempt beard, that they never shave, and trim their moustaches.

[…] Their convictions place them at the antipodes of human rights as we understand them today and, in fact, they totally reject this concept. Their community is characterized by the strict reclusion of women (who can go out only wearing a niqab [total headcovering]), and their way of life is very rigorous and at the same very generous and altruistic towards "true" Muslims. They help each other at any moment [of their lives]. It is therefore a very united and supportive community.

Who are they and how many are they in Tunisia?

There are no recent studies on this subject. Some years ago, it was estimated that they were a few hundred, 1,200 as a maximum, according to researchers.

Today, it is difficult to make an evaluation [about their number], but they have become numerous and visible. They have many pages in Facebook; this allows a rough estimation of their troops.

For instance, Bechir Ben Hassan, one of the most important Tunisian Salafist leaders, hosts almost 60,000 fans on his page. The page of Khatib Idrissi [another known Tunisian Salafist] hosts 13,000 fans, whereas [other Salafists' pages] host more than 5,000 fans. There are many, several dozen, of such pages.

On this basis, we can estimate that the number of activists and sympathizers put together is over 100.000 individuals, as it is logical to assume that many among them do not frequent the Internet.

Salafists have two strongholds: mosques that are under their control and Quranic schools.

Most of Tunisian Salafists are dedicated to preaching in the mosques; officially they are against violence and want to re-Islamize society, starting from the re-Islamization of individuals. Those who officially praise violence and take part in jihadist movements are not very numerous, but are, however, very active. […]. Some of the Tunisian Salafist leaders, in the past, have been sentenced to prison for violating anti-terrorism laws. They do not hesitate to praise violence on their Facebook pages and to spread hatred.

What are their plans for the future?

They have an open road in front of them: the regional and international context is in their favor, and many Salafist satellite TV stations are preparing the ground for them:

• They are going to continue to accuse [the ruling Islamist party] Ennahda of compromising, in other terms of apostasy, in order to attract the most [extremist] factions among those who militate in this party. [Salafist groups accuse Ennahda of not being a "real" Islamist party, as they consider Ennahda to hold only moderate Islamic views]
• They are going to continue the offensive towards mosques which, consequently, will become more and more under their Salafist control.
• They will launch several TV stations dedicated to preaching Tunisian Salafism, thus out-powering completely Ennahda on the religious flank.
• Some of them will be tempted to create a political party as did the [Salafist] group in Alexandria, Egypt, which created the Nour ["Light"] party, thereby obtaining a quarter of the seats in the Egyptian Assembly.

In the end, Salafism represents a new [political] subject, unexpected and which will remain a long time in the Tunisian landscape. Its objective is not to set up a democratic model and a modern state, but [to impose] social norms which are from twelve to fifteen centuries old.

Ennahda has little room for maneuver [to counter the Salafists]; this explains its great prudence in dealing with Salafists, and the preference for dialogue […].The new Tunisian minister of religious affairs will have a hard time trying to restructure the religious apparatus.

Anna Mahjar-Barducci

Source: http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/2874/tunisia-salafists

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

Iran Knows More About Syria Than Obama

by Jonathan S. Tobin

The imminent demise of the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria has become such an article of faith among many American pundits that most have come to discuss the subject as no longer a matter of if, but merely when, his fall will occur. Unfortunately, for Western talking heads as well as President Obama, who has also predicted imminent regime change in Damascus, Assad has preferred to ignore their advice and instead stick to what his family has always done best: slaughter any and all domestic foes. After watching the fall of dictatorial regimes in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, the assumption was the logic of the Arab Spring would inevitably force out the Syrian member of a rapidly diminishing club of Arab autocrats. Few in the West believed Assad could survive. But it appears there was at least one group of observers who may have pegged the Syrian as a keeper: his Iranian allies.

The news that a pair of Iranian naval vessels just left a Syrian port and are now heading home through the Suez Canal ought to have brought home the fact that the Iranian ayatollahs may understand their client better than Western editorial writers. Combined with the decision of Russia to boycott a diplomatic effort aimed at bolstering Assad’s domestic foes, it is now clear that Syria’s two major foreign sponsors have not given up on the regime. Unlike Westerners who simply took it for granted that Assad must go, Ayatollah Khamenei and Vladimir Putin have remembered an ironclad rule of history: tyrants fall when they lose their taste for spilling their people’s blood, not when they loosen the reins.

While the Pentagon was saying it had no knowledge of the Iranian ships ever docking in Syria, the brazen dash through the Mediterranean by Tehran’s mariners may have been more than just a morale boost for Assad. The ships, which reportedly consisted of a supply ship and an accompanying destroyer, may have delivered vital munitions to the Syrian security forces just as they were in the process of leveling the opposition stronghold of Homs.

Though defections from his army are a lethal threat to Assad, so long as he retains the loyalty of most of his regime’s security forces, the belief that his fall is inevitable is more a matter of wishful thinking than hardheaded analysis. Assad understands the stakes in the fighting in the streets of Homs and other cities where dissent has flourished is a life and death matter for him and his family. Moreover, it is often forgotten that unlike other dictatorial regimes where military elites can easily switch sides, many, if not most, of Assad’s praetorian guards don’t have that option. Since Bashar’s father first seized power in 1970, the government there has always been as much a sinecure for the Alawite minority to which his clan belonged as it was for the Assad family. The fate of the Alawites in a post-Assad Syria will be difficult, and that gives the many members of this group in positions of power within the army and security forces the same motive for hanging on no matter what the cost.

Iran also has much to lose if their Syrian ally falls, so it is to be expected it will do all in its power to help him prevail. With Russia and China prepared to prevent the United Nations from even condemning Assad, let alone sanctioning support for the opposition, that leaves the opposition looking to Europe and the United States for help. Even though Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham voiced their support for arming the Syrian rebels over the weekend, it isn’t likely that President Obama or the European Union will follow the same pattern that led to intervention in Libya last year as Qaddafi tottered, despite the fact that the situation was far less desperate than the human catastrophe unfolding in Homs.

The Arab Spring led many Westerners to believe that a paradigm shift in which murderous regimes could no longer get away with atrocities had rendered men like Assad obsolete. But Iran may have figured out that as long as Assad is willing to go on killing his countrymen, there is no reason to assume he can’t hold onto power. That’s an important lesson Western diplomats and leaders like President Obama–who have also underestimated Iran’s own willingness to abandon its nuclear ambitions–should learn.

Jonathan S. Tobin

Source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/21/iran-syria-obama-assad/

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