Sodomy "For the Sake of Islam"

by Raymond Ibrahim

As a possibly convenient way of rationalizing what one desires while still being able to feel "pure," anything and everything that is otherwise banned becomes permissible. All that supposedly matters is one's intention, or niyya.

Not only did the original "underwear bomber" Abdullah Hassan al-Asiri hide explosives in his rectum to assassinate Saudi Prince Muhammad bin Nayef—they met in 2009 after the 22-year-old holy warrior "feigned repentance for his jihadi views"—but al-Asiri apparently had fellow jihadis repeatedly sodomize him to "widen" his anus in order to accommodate the explosives— all in accordance with the fatwas [religious edicts] of Islamic clerics.

A 2010 Arabic news video that is making the rounds on the Internet gives the details. Apparently a cleric, one Abu al-Dema al-Qasab, informed jihadis of an "innovative and unprecedented way to execute martyrdom operations: place explosive capsules in your anus. However, to undertake this jihadi approach you must agree to be sodomized for a while to widen your anus so it can hold the explosives."

Others inquired further by asking for formal fatwas. Citing his desire for "martyrdom and the virgins of paradise," one jihadi, (possibly al-Asiri himself) asked another sheikh, "Is it permissible for me to let one of the jihadi brothers sodomize me to widen my anus if the intention is good?"

After praising Allah, the sheikh's fatwa began by declaring that sodomy is forbidden in Islam,

However, jihad comes first, for it is the pinnacle of Islam, and if the pinnacle of Islam can only be achieved through sodomy, then there is no wrong in it. For the overarching rule of [Islamic] jurisprudence asserts that "necessity makes permissible the prohibited." And if obligatory matters can only be achieved by performing the prohibited, then it becomes obligatory to perform the prohibited, and there is no greater duty than jihad. After he sodomizes you, you must ask Allah for forgiveness and praise him all the more. And know that Allah will reward the jihadis on the Day of Resurrection, according to their intentions—and your intention, Allah willing, is for the victory of Islam, and we ask that Allah accept it of you.

Two important and complementary points emerge from this view: 1) that jihad is the "pinnacle" of Islam—for it makes Islam supreme (based on a hadith, the formerly oral history of the life of Muhammad); and 2) that "necessity makes permissible the prohibited." These axioms are not limited to modern day fatwas, but in fact, were crystallized centuries and ago agreed to by the ulema [Islam's leading religious scholars]. The result is that—because making Islam supreme through jihad is the greatest priority—anything and everything that is otherwise banned becomes permissible. All that comes to matter is one's intention, or niyya.

From here one may understand the many ostensible incongruities of Islamic history: lying is forbidden—but permissible to empower Islam; intentionally killing women and children is forbidden—but permissible when performed during holy war, or jihad; suicide is forbidden—but also permissible during jihad, only then called "martyrdom."

Indeed, the Five Pillars of Islam—including prayer and fasting—may be ignored during the jihad. So important is the duty of jihad that the Ottoman sultans—who often spent half their lives on the battlefield—were not permitted to perform the obligatory pilgrimage to Mecca.

More recently, these ideas appeared in a different form during Egypt's elections, when Islamic leaders portrayed voting as a form of jihad and justified anything—including cheating, which was deemed "obligatory"—to empower Islam.

According to these two doctrines—which culminate in empowering Islam, no matter how—one may expect anything from would-be jihadis, regardless of how dubious the effort might seem to us.

Ironically, this mentality, prevalent throughout the Islamic world, is the same mentality that many Western leaders and politicians think can be appeased with just a bit more respect, well-wishing, and concessions from the West.

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3158/islam-sodomy

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

The West Bank May Never Be the Same

by Ted Belman

A legal tsunami gathering strength in Israel will soon engulf the region. An official report is soon to be released that says the Fourth Geneva Convention (FGC) does not apply to Judea and Samaria aka West Bank and that Israel has every right to build settlements there.

In January of this year, PM Netanyahu set up the Levy Committee to investigate the legal status of unauthorized West Bank Jewish building. The Committee was headed by Supreme Court Justice (ret) Edmund Levy. It included Tel Aviv District Court Judge (Ret.) Tehiya Shapira and Dr. Alan Baker an international law expert, who was part of the team that devised the Oslo Accords,

The Committee reviewed legal briefs from right of center groups but also from far left groups such as Peace Now, Yesh Din and Btselem. Its 89 page Report was submitted to PM Netanyahu a few weeks ago and is now under review by his Ministerial Committee on Settlements. Though the Report has yet to be formerly published, the contents are already well known.

It found that the settlements are not illegal. To reach this conclusion it first found that the Fourth Geneva Convention which applies "to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party" does not apply to Judea and Samaria because "Israel does not meet the criteria of 'military occupation' as defined under international law" ... as "no other legal entity has ever had its sovereignty over the area cemented under international law,"

Furthermore it found that there was no provision in international law which prohibited Jews settling in the area.

The UN and the EU have for decades repeated the mantra that the land is occupied and the settlements are illegal, both pursuant to the FGC, but there has never been a binding legal decision on which they based their assertions. The US has been more cautious and considers the settlements "an obstacle to peace" or "illegitimate." Nevertheless, it leads the chorus in demanding an end to Israel's settlement construction.

In 2010, Nicholas Rostow, in the American Interest , regarding the legality of the settlements, wrote:

On February 2, 1981, President Reagan stated that the settlements were "not illegal", although he criticized them as "ill-advised" and "unnecessarily provocative." Throughout the Reagan Administration the U.S. government did not question the legality of the settlements; rather, it criticized the settlements on policy grounds as an obstacle to the peace process. In the United Nations, the United States voted against resolutions describing Israeli settlements as illegal.

President George Bush followed suit and so did President Obama.

The Levy Report confirms the opinions of a large list of experts who have long claimed the same, including Stephen M. Schwebel, Professor of International Law at the School of Advanced International Studies of The Johns Hopkins University (Washington), former Deputy Legal Advisor of the U.S. State Department and President of the International Court of Justice from 1997 to 2000; Eugene W. Rostow, former U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs and Distinguished Fellow at the U.S. Institute for Peace; Julius Stone, one of the 20^th century's leading authorities on the Law of Nations, Doctor of Juridical Science from Harvard and Professor of Jurisprudence and International Law at universities in Australia and California; David Matas, world-renowned human rights lawyer and honorary counsel to B'nai Brith Canada and David M. Phillips, Professor at Northeastern University School of Law.

The question of the applicability of the FGC was considered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), an arm of the UN, in its advisory opinion on the legality of the fence.

The ICJ held that "the Convention applies, in particular, in any territory occupied in the course of the conflict by one of the contracting parties." In other words, it ignored that the lands occupied must be the lands of "another High Contracting Party." This is not considered sound law and in any event, is not a binding decision.

The Supreme Court of Israel in its decision approving the fence as legal, said that "the question of the application of the Fourth Geneva Convention is not before us now, since the parties agree that the humanitarian rules of the Fourth Geneva Convention apply to the issue under review." Thus it didn't decide on the applicability.

The Left in Israel are screaming blue murder and referring to the Report as "born in sin" and a "political manifesto."

On Monday, while speaking to reporters, State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell said:

The US position on settlements is clear. Obviously, we've seen the reports that an Israeli government appointed panel has recommended legalizing dozens of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, but we do not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity, and we oppose any effort to legalize settlement outposts.

What is interesting about this statement is that Ventrell did not comment on the finding that the FGC did not apply or that the settlements were not illegal. He merely reiterated the US government position without substantiating it. Furthermore, the settlement outposts that the State Department doesn't want "legalized" are legal save for having not received their final approval from the Government of Israel. If they were really illegal by international law, Israel wouldn't be able to "legalize" them. Put another way, the US position is that Israel shouldn't exercise her rights because such exercise would be an obstacle to peace.

Accordingly, the legal conclusions of the Report are sound. What will the fallout be?

Well for starters, the UN may ask for another advisory opinion from the ICJ on the validity of this report but why bother, it already has one on the applicability of the FGC. It probably will choose to ignore it as just another opinion. Meanwhile the existence of the report will take the wind out of the sails of the US and the EU as they try to damn the settlements and Israel's actions. The US will have to acknowledge that since President Reagan, it has considered the settlements to be "not illegal" but only, "ill-advised."

PM Netanyahu will have to decide whether he will embrace the Report and act accordingly or whether he will wait for the issue to be adjudicated by Israel's High Court. It is highly unlikely that this Court will fly in the face of the named experts, the US Government and the Levy Report.

From a political point of view, he cannot ignore the Report. A political storm is raging. MK Tzippi Hotovely, Likud, is preparing a bill that will endorse the principles of the Levy Report and will require the establishment of a judicial tribunal in Judea and Samaria which will be given the responsibility of discussing matters related to land ownership, the establishment of an Israeli land registry in Judea and Samaria and applying Israeli building and planning laws on Judea and Samaria.

Where does that leave the international community? The foundation of their attacks on Israel will have been destroyed. It will be hard to ignore the Report and harder still to ignore a confirming decision by Israel's High Court. It will no longer be able to claim with a straight face that the lands are "occupied Palestinian lands" or that the settlements are illegal.

The upshot of all this will be that Israel will end the de facto building freeze and start construction of settlements in earnest. It will also signal the end of the pursuit by Israel of the two-state solution. The Israeli center will no longer believe that Israel is an occupier and instead will believe that the land is theirs, which it is.

Presently there is significant movement in Israel advocating Israeli sovereignty over all of Judea and Samaria, even if that means making citizenship available to qualifying Arabs.

Israel must decide between two risky alternatives; either accept the two-state solution based on '67 borders with swaps or annex the land and contend with an extra 1.5 million Arabs within its borders. With the latter alternative, the Jews would be left with a stable 2:1 majority. Israelis are already trending to the latter choice and this Report will accelerate that trend.

The Arabs in Judea and Samaria will not accept such a two state solution because it will preclude the "right of return" and will require them to recognize Israel as the Jewish State. Furthermore it will require them to sign an end-of-conflict agreement. If Israel chooses to claim sovereignty, the Arabs will have to decide whether to whether to push for citizenship or to accept autonomy.

This tsunami will change the political landscape for the better and forever.

Ted Belman

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

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

Egypt's Morsi Stands Firm Despite Court Order Nullifying his Recall of Parliament

by Rick Moran

Both the army and the courts have now come out in opposition to President Mohammed Morsi's decree to have parliament reconvene. But the Muslim Brotherhood, who run the legislature, are ignoring both.

Reuters:

In sign the standoff would not end swiftly, Brotherhood officials were quick on Tuesday to question the court's right to rule against the president's decree and vowing to fight on.

"I invited you to convene in accordance with the decree issued by the president," said parliament speaker Saad al-Katatni, a Brotherhood man like Mursi, had told parliament.

But many liberal groups - heavily outnumbered by Islamists in parliament - boycotted Tuesday's session, saying Mursi's decree was a violation of the powers of the judiciary.

Then, just hours after lawmakers gathered, the supreme court issued a fresh order: "The court ruled to halt the president's decision to recall the parliament," Maher el-Beheiry, the court's chief justice, said.

Egypt's troubled transition to democracy is increasingly being fought in the courts, but that masks a much deeper conflict with an establishment rooted in six decades of military rule, half of that period under the leadership of Mubarak.

Senior Brotherhood official Mahmoud Ghozlan said the latest court ruling was linked to the army: "It is part of a power struggle between the military council and the president who represents the people and in which the military council is using the law and the judiciary to impose its will," he told Reuters.

In a war of attrition that may play out over years, Islamists long suppressed by Mubarak and his military predecessors are seeking to push generals out of politics and reform a wider establishment still filled with Mubarak-era officials.

Protests in Cairo's Tahrir Square, which had gathered in support of Mursi's decree earlier in the evening, swiftly turned to chants against the court ruling: "Void, void," they shouted.

The Brotherhood signaled it would not retreat.

The court is in the military's pocket, but would probably have ruled that way anyway. The interpretation is that the courts dissolved the entire parliament when they invalidated 1/3 of the elections. Morsi's decree is being seen by some as a power grab by the Brotherhood who are seeking to delegitimze the court.

The Islamists don't need the liberals for anything so it is likely the standoff will continue for a while.

Rick Moran

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/07/egypts_morsi_stands_firm_despite_court_order_nullifying_his_recall_of_parliament.html

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

Britain Ruled by Political Correctness

by Soeren Kern

Nine Muslim men were found guilty of raping dozens of British children. The three month trial revealed that police and social workers had repeatedly refused to investigate; they were afraid of being called racist.

A three-month trial that recently ended in Liverpool, where nine Muslim men were found guilty of raping dozens of British children, revealed that police and social workers in northern England repeatedly refuse to investigate Muslim paedophile gangs: they said they are afraid of being called racist.

The disturbing details that emerged during the trial have opened yet another chapter in a long-running debate about multiculturalism in Britain, where many say that political correctness has gone too far.

Less than a month after the trial in Liverpool ended on May 9, it emerged that social workers in the City of Rotherham, also in northern England, had known for six years that a teenage mother (identified as Child S) who was murdered for bringing shame on the families of two Pakistani men who had used her for sex, was at clear risk from predatory Muslim gangs.

On May 29, Rotherham Council's Safeguarding Children Board published a so-called Serious Case Review, but key politically incorrect passages which reveal that they had known she was at particular risk from "Asian men" (Muslim men) were blocked out with black lines.

The council went to court in an attempt to suppress the hidden information after an uncensored copy of the report was leaked to a British newspaper, but the legal action was eventually abandoned. The uncensored report confirmed that Child S had pursued dealings with 15 different agencies, and identified "numerous missed opportunities" to protect her; observers believe the agencies failed to do so because they did not want to be branded as racist.

Other cases of political correctness abound in Britain, where the enforcement of multiculturalism is endangering the exercise of free speech, threatening public order and undermining British culture.

In Leicester, a gang of Somali Muslim women, who assaulted and nearly killed a non-Muslim passer-by in the city center, walked free after a politically correct judge decided that as Muslims, the women were "not used to being drunk."

In London, two Muslims, who laughed as they repeatedly raped a 24-year-old woman, had their sentences slashed after politically correct judges at an appeals court ruled that the men were not "dangerous."

In Wiltshire, police pulled over an 18-year-old driver for a routine spot check. The driver was stunned when a police officer ordered him to remove the Flag of England from his car; apparently they said the flag could be deemed racist and offensive to Muslim immigrants. The driver thought the officer was joking until he was threatened with a £30 fine if he refused to remove it from view. Tory MP Philip Davies, who campaigns against political correctness, said: "How on earth can it be racist to fly your own flag in your own country?"

In Southampton, a racism row broke out after taxi passengers complained that foreign drivers could not understand English. A group of drivers responded by placing stickers in their taxis with the Flag of England, reading "English Speaking Driver" (photo here). The signs, however, were branded as "racist and offensive" by Town Hall officials, who threatened to strip the drivers of their operating license -- and their livelihood -- if they refused to remove them.

In Manchester, a 14-year-old girl was arrested by police for racism after refusing to sit with a group of five Asian students who did not speak English. The incident happened after the girl asked her teacher if she could switch groups because the Asian students were talking in Urdu, a language she did not understand. The teacher apparently responded by shouting at her, "It's racist, you're going to get done by the police." After being fingerprinted and photographed, the girl was forced to spend three-and-a-half hours in a police cell on suspicion of committing a "section five racial public order offense."

In Irlam, Greater Manchester, a ten-year-old boy was brought before a court for allegedly calling an 11-year-old mixed-race pupil a "Paki" and "Bin Laden" in a playground argument at a primary school. When the case came before District Judge Jonathan Finestein, he said: "Have we really got to the stage where we are prosecuting 10-year-old boys because of political correctness? There are major crimes out there and the police don't bother to prosecute." Finestein also said the decision to prosecute, which cost taxpayers £25,000 in legal fees, showed "how stupid the whole system is getting."

In London, social workers have been accused of "misguided political correctness" after they considered sending a boy in their care to the Democratic Republic of Congo for an exorcism. Officials at Islington Council in north London considered sending the African boy to the Congo when his mother claimed he was possessed by evil spirits and needed "deliverance." City officials paid Dr. Richard Hoskins, an expert in African religion, over £4,000 to travel to Africa to investigate the possibility of an exorcism; evidently they were worried the family's "sensibilities might be affected." Hoskins completed the trip and advised the council against have the boy exorcised because the rituals can be "violent...deeply disturbing and traumatizing."

In Kent, a Christian doctor is fighting for his job after he told a suicidal patient that Christianity may offer help. According to the doctor, "The man was depressed, and had left his own faith. So I told him, 'You may find that Christianity offers you something that your own faith did not.'" The General Medical Council (GMC), which regulates standards among medical professionals, issued the doctor a warning, claiming he had "overstepped the line." The GMC, which allows doctors to promote the healing effects of homoeopathy, chiropractic and reiki, also known as palm healing -- all of which are unsupported by Western, evidence-based medicine but are backed by belief systems -- has banned the mention of faith and prayer in a consultation.

The British Navy, which has been forced to downsize its fleet due to military budget cuts, was obliged by diktats of political correctness to install a special Satanist chapel onboard one of its warships to accommodate the religious requirements of a Satanist crewman.

In London, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) -- a key promoter of multiculturalism -- recently announced that it would drop the terms BC (Before Christ) and AD (which translates from the Latin "Anno Domini" to " in the year of our Lord") and replaced them with the "religiously-neutral" Before the Common Era, BCE, and Common Era, CE. The BBC justified its move this way: "As the BBC is committed to impartiality it is appropriate that we use terms that do not offend or alienate non-Christians."

Anglican Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, who resigned as the Bishop of Rochester amid death threats from Muslim extremists in Britain, says the BBC's move "amounts to the dumbing down of the Christian basis of our culture, language and history."

The BBC has also refused to broadcast a screenplay about the threat that Islam poses to freedom of speech. The BBC's director general, Mark Thompson, said he would not air a play the National Theatre called "Can We Talk About This?" which examines multiculturalism and how it has resulted in Britain being more divided than ever.

According to Thompson, there is "a growing nervousness about discussion about Islam." He also claims that because Muslims are a religious minority in Britain, their faith should be given different coverage than that of more established groups.

In 2005, Thompson famously ordered BBC Two to air an anti-Christian musical called "Jerry Springer: The Opera," which mocked God and presented Jesus Christ as a homosexual. At least 45,000 people contacted the BBC to complain about the show, which contained an estimated 8,000 obscenities. According to one observer: "If this show portrayed Mohammed or Vishnu as homosexual, ridiculous and ineffectual, it would never have seen the light of day."

Soeren Kern is Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook.

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3141/britain-political-correctness

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

Iran Infiltrates Canada, Calls to Attack America

by Christine Williams

Mohammadi's message drew the attention of U.S. terrorist experts, who noted that Canadians do not need visas to cross the border into the U.S.

Iran is expanding a "fifth column" in Canada. This warning, articulated by David Harris, former head of operations for the Canadian Intelligence Service and now a strategic intelligence expert, highlights some disturbing facts: many expatriates have been warning of the threat of Iranian diplomats conspiring in Canada; of the stealth workings of the Hezbollah terrorist organization, and there is evidence of Iranian infiltration in the school system.

Recent evidence bears out Harris's warning, as does the news that Iran is using its embassy in Canada to mobilize loyalists of the Islamic Republic to infiltrate the Canadian Government and attack the United States.

The Toronto District school Board recently suspended the operating permit of an Islamic school that had been using teaching materials to encourage boys to keep fit for jihad and for disparaging Jews. Upon being exposed, the Islamic Shia Study Centre, which operated the East End Madrassah out of a Toronto high school, issued a public statement: " Our curriculum is not intended to promote hatred towards any individual or group of people; rather, the children are taught to respect and value other faiths and beliefs, and to uphold Canada's basic values of decency and tolerance".

The school curriculum, however, referred to Jews as being: "crafty" and "treacherous," with "plots" and "conspiracies," while contrasting Islam to "the Jews and the Nazis." These passages came from two books published by Iranian foundations, which also taught children about "unclean things," including pigs, dogs and "a person who does not believe in Allah."

So here one can see plainly the covert nature of how the Iranian "Fifth Column" manipulates diversity, multiculturalism, tolerance and even decency in a feeble attempt to cover up its agenda.

The York Region Police hate crimes unit launched an investigation, based on a complaint from Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre.

The cleric affiliated with the Islamic Shia Study Centre, Imam Moulana Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi, tried to cover up the now-public scandal by stating that the passages were wrongly copied from two websites; however further investigation revealed that the passages were excerpts from two books published by the Al Balagh Foundation in Tehran, as well as by the Mostazafan Foundation of New York, which the FBI indicated was a front organization controlled by the Iranian regime, currently the leading sponsor of worldwide terrorism, and the president of which, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, is not only outspokenly anti-West, but prominently threatens to wipe Israel off the map.

This material understandably alarmed Jewish groups, who responded that they were dismayed that such material had made its way into the Toronto District School Board. Such textbooks have also made their way into the Ottawa Carlton Public School Board, where Iranian hate literature glorifies a 13-year old child soldier who, under an Iraqi tank during the Iran-Iraq war, strapped on a grenade and blew himself up. In addition, it depicts Jews as the "sons of Apes."

Moulana Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi, the Imam affiliated with the Toronto Madrasah, is also the Imam of the Islamic Shia Ithna Asheri Jamaat of Toronto; he recently participated at Carleton University in Ottawa. as a speaker in the 2012 Imam Khomeini Conference, entitled, "The Contemporary Awakening and Imam Khomeini's Thoughts."

Although presented as an Iranian cultural event, Carleton drew a sharp letter of rebuke from ten Iranian-Canadian academics for hosting a conference honoring the "founding dictator of the Islamic Republic of Iran." The signatories of the letter pointed out that Khomeini had ordered in a fatwa the mass execution of thousands of political prisoners in 1988; that he had shut down Iranian Universities for two years, and that he had ordered the imprisonment, torture and the execution of dissidents.

The pro-Khomeini conference was jointly organized by the Iranian embassy in Ottawa and the student group, the Iranian Cultural Association of Carleton University, headed by Ehsan Mohammadi, the son of Hamid Mohammadi, the cultural counselor at the Iranian embassy in Ottawa.

An alarming article just released by Fox News revealed that Iran is using its embassy in Canada to mobilize Islamic Republic loyalists to infiltrate the Canadian Government and attack the United States, as can be seen in a chilling interview with Hamid Mohammadi and shown on an Iran-based website. In his interview, Mohammadi speaks of Iran's plan to win the hearts and minds of Iranians living in Canada. He projects that by 2031, the total immigrant population of Canada will grow by 64%, and that, due to their birthrate, the number of Iranians should substantially increase.

His message drew the attention of U.S. terrorist experts, who noted that Canadians do not need visas to cross the border into the U.S.. Mohammadi also urged all Iranian-Canadians to "resist being melted into the dominant Canadian culture," to aspire to "occupy high-level key positions," and to "be of service to our beloved Iran."

The Iranian Embassy in Canada, under its "education advisory" section, had also planned on sponsoring a three-day Iranian Students Convention in Cornwall, Ontario, from July 13th-15th; following more pressure from Iranian-Canadian academics, the conference has now been "postponed."

A tight, organized network of Iranian terrorists seems to be using elementary schools, universities and government institutions -- not to mention manipulating the multicultural system -- to promote its messages of propaganda and hate, apparently with the ultimate goal of conquering the "infidel." According to Shabnam Assadollahi, an Iranian-Canadian and anti-Iranian Regime activist, who helped translate the Mohammadi interview, "Multiculturalism is killing Canada. I am sick and tired of political correctness in this country."

The good news is, this group has been identified by watchful eyes of its freedom-loving Iranian-Canadians and the diligence of security specialists.

The bad news is that there is a level of brazenness and sophistication from a terrorist regime that has the monetary backing and an apparent wish to hijack our institutions. Once such materials become discovered on elementary school premises, it is easily dealt with; the greatest threat remains on our campuses and in government institutions, which would do well to become more aware that multiculturalism and tolerance require a plan of implementation if we are to preserve our democracy.

Christine Williams

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3162/iran-infiltrates-canada

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

Wahhabi Vandalism Reaches Timbuktu

by Irfan Al-Alawi

Now the extremist rage has reached sub-Saharan Africa.

At the beginning of July, Ansar Al-Dine (Volunteers of Faith), a Wahhabi Islamist group previously allied with Tuareg (a Berber group) rebels in Timbuktu, Mali, began systematically demolishing centuries-old Sufi shrines and mosques.

Timbuktu is known as the "City of 333 Muslim Saints," and has been the depository of hundreds of thousands of manuscripts and documents in libraries and private collections.

In 1988, the United Nations added the three main mosques in the city, and 16 cemeteries and mausoleums, to its World Heritage registry.

Wahhabi ideology, however – the official interpretation of Islam in Saudi Arabia – is destructive of Islamic heritage. Wahhabi doctrine holds that the preservation of sacred funeral monuments and prayers at them are a dilution of Islamic monotheism and a prohibited form of idol worship.

In Saudi Arabia, Islamic heritage, including houses and mosques associated with the prophet Muhammad, have been destroyed or damaged.

Elsewhere, Wahhabi devastation was mainly seen in raids on Shia holy sites in Iraq during eighteenth and nineteenth-century Wahhabi forays into that country, as well as in the recent Iraq war. Fundamentalist assaults on Sufi sanctuaries then spread in Pakistan. Wahhabi violence against Sufi installations also appeared in the Muslim Balkans. With the political changes in Egypt and Libya, Sufi shrines have been targeted by so-called "Salafis" (a cover term for Wahhabis).

Now the extremist rage has reached sub-Saharan Africa.

In March, in reaction to mishandling of a Tuareg rebellion in the country's north, the Malian government was overthrown by a military clique. With the recent Libyan overthrow and the spread of weapons throughout the region, Tuareg inhabitants, whose culture is non-Arab and whose Islam is mainly conventional and Sufi, rose up and attempted to establish their own independent state in northern Mali. Their struggle has been overtaken by Wahhabi aggression, in the form of Ansar Al-Dine.

"Ansar Al-Dine" ["Sunni Group for Preaching and Jihad"] is aligned with Al-Qa'eda and with the so-called "Boko Haram" ["Western Education is Forbidden"] fundamentalist terrorists in Nigeria. Ansar Al-Dine is led by a Tuareg figure, Iyad Ag Ghaly, who went to Saudi Arabia in 2008 as a Malian diplomat and there adopted Wahhabism.

Mali was left with three competing armed forces. One represents the "revolutionary" government, led by a soldier, Captain Amadou Sanogo, who overthrew president Amadou Toumani Toure. The post-coup regime is unrecognized by the rest of the African states. A second armed force is the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA), composed of Tuareg rebels. The third is Ansar Al-Dine. While MNLA favors Tuareg independence from Mali, Ansar Al-Dine supports the establishment of a strict Wahhabi state throughout Mali. William Wallis of the London Financial Times warned on July 6 that radical Islamists in sub-Saharan Africa have developed links with the global trade in drugs and high-ransom hostages.

Ansar Al-Dine is said to command a small number of troops compared to those of the MNLA. But when Ansar Al-Dine entered the MNLA "liberated zone," local and foreign residents of Timbuktu fled the city.

In April, word came of arson and other destruction by Ansar Al-Dine at the fifteenth-century C.E. Sufi complex of Sidi Mahmoud Ben Amar in Timbuktu. The Baba Ahmed library in the city was closed by Ansar Al-Dine to the public.

After a brief alliance with the Tuareg MNLA, the Wahhabis split from the coalition and began to realize their main intent: to eliminate the Islamic architectural legacy of Timbuktu.

Ansar Al-Dine's recent orgy of demolition began with complete leveling of the shrine of Sidi Mahmoud Ben Amar, and the obliteration of at least six more tombs, including those of Alfa Moya Lamtouni and Cheikh Sidi El Mokhtar Ben Sidi Mohammed. The Wahhabis also descended on the Sidi Yahya mosque, built more than six hundred years ago, and about which it was said that its gate to the Sidi Yahya mosque graveyard would be opened only at the end of time. The Wahhabis tore the door off the structure.

The terrorist group may have sought by its actions to defy a declaration by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) in May warning that Timbuktu was endangered.

The Wahhabis in Timbuktu have also been told by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in Brussels that armed attacks on undefended civilian structures that have no military purpose is a violation of the rules of war.

Ansar Al-Dine apparently seeks to express its contempt to UNESCO and the ICC, just as a similar disregard for international agencies and world opinion motivated Al-Qa'eda and the Taliban to destroy the Bamiyan Buddhist statues in Afghanistan in 2001.

International organizations may protest against the Wahhabi rampage in Mali, but similar foreign challenges failed to prevent the loss of hundreds of historic mosques during the Balkan wars of the 1990s, and have had little effect in ending the bloodshed in Syria.

Timbuktu, as a target of sectarian violence, is even more disadvantaged than were Sarajevo and the Syrian city of Homs. Timbuktu has long symbolized, for Westerners, the remote and exotic. Its Muslim heritage is too far away, it seems, to justify foreign intervention to preserve it. The effort to save Timbuktu must be undertaken by Malian traditional Muslims, Sufis, and other people of conscience.

Irfan Al-Alawi

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3161/timbuktu-wahhabi-vandalism

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

Coalition Ad Campaign: “No More Defense Cuts”

by Travis Korson

Washington, D.C. July 12, 2012: Today, the Coalition for the Common Defense launched a national advocacy campaign aimed at preventing further, draconian cuts to the U.S. military of $500 billion dollars or more in January 2013 pursuant to the “sequestration” mechanism created under the Budget Control Act of 2011. The campaign will feature a series of video advertisements demonstrating the dangerous absurdity of the sorts of deep and – worse-yet – indiscriminate, across-the-board defense spending cuts now in prospect. The first spot premiered today and can be viewed here: (http://youtu.be/9GOnUVsCbQs). The campaign is designed to encourage the American public to express their opposition to these cuts. The Coalition will facilitate such communications with the White House and Senate through a portal at its web-site here: (http://action.forthecommondefense.org/7301/dont-let-washington-disarm-our-soldiers/).

Regarding the campaign launch and the need to avert sequestration, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., a member of the Coalition for the Common Defense, remarked:

“Defense has already paid its fair share into deficit reduction and we cannot safely and responsibly try to balance the budget on the backs of our men and women in uniform. This campaign, and specifically the Coalition’s ads, will bring home to the American people the reckless absurdity of these defense cuts – and the need to avoid the train-wreck they will precipitate.”

The mandated sequestration cuts come on top of an already budgeted $487 billion reduction over the next 10 years as part of Budget Control Act of 2011.

The additional $500 billion in sequestration cuts would prove devastating, both militarily and economically. Militarily, this would result in the smallest ground force since 1940, the smallest Navy since 1915, and the smallest Air Force in history. Economically, sequestration could result in $62.9 billion in lost revenues for defense contractors, projected job losses of over 1.3 million, and an $86.4 billion decrease in Gross Domestic Product.

The House of Representatives has already acted on legislation that would stave off these budget reductions and their attendant impact for at least a year, giving the executive and legislative branches time to devise a different, less reckless approach to deficit reduction. The Senate has yet to act, with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Obama insisting that any such relief must be accompanied by tax increases.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. continued:

“The American people do not want the White House and the Senate to hold our military hostage to budget gamesmanship. It is unconscionable to play politics with the arming, training and sustaining of our troops – particularly if, by so doing, the President and Senate leaders may be jeopardizing not only their missions, but their lives.”

The Coalition for the Common Defense is an alliance of like-minded individuals and organizations who believe that without provision for the “common defense,” as articulated by the Founders, the freedom that has allowed unprecedented opportunity and prosperity to flourish in this country would soon be imperiled. In this new age of budgetary cuts, the Coalition rejects the false choice between military strength and economic health contending that economic prosperity depends on a strong national defense. Through a series of events and strategic partnerships, the coalition is calling on elected officials, candidates for office and others who share our commitment to the common defense to uphold these principles. We must return the United States to sensible fiscal principles without sacrificing our national security.

A full statement of principles can be located here. The Coalition of the Common Defense can be found online at www.forthecommondefense.org.

Travis Korson

Source: forthecommondefense.org

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

Egypt's Real Ruler: Mohamed Tantawi

by Daniel Pipes and Cynthia Farahat

N.B.: Differs in small ways from the Washington Times version.

What does it mean that Mohamed Morsi is president of Egypt? Speaking for the American consensus, Bret Stephens recently argued in the Wall Street Journal against the consolation that the Muslim Brotherhood's victory "is merely symbolic, since the army still has the guns." He concluded that "Egypt is lost."

We shall argue to the contrary: the election was not just symbolic but illusory, and Egypt's future remains very much in play.

Morsi is not the most powerful politician in Egypt or the commander in chief. Arguably, he does not even run the Muslim Brotherhood. His job is undefined. The military could brush him aside. For the first time since 1954, Egypt's president is a secondary figure, assigned the functionary role long associated with its prime ministers.

A picture of Morsi and Tantawi reveals the terms of their relationship: Not only is Tantawi sitting on the right side, where prior Egyptian presidents (Nasser, Sadat, Mubarak) ritualistically sat when hosting a visitor, but their meeting took place in the Ministry of Defense, not in the presidential palace, which protocol would normally require.

Mohamed Tantawi is the real ruler of Egypt. Chairman of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), Field Marshall, and Minister of Defense, he serves not only as the commander in chief but also as effective head of all three Egypt's governmental branches. Tantawi is an autocrat with near-absolute powers. As chief representative of the military junta that has been ruling Egypt since February 2011, his mission is to extend the junta's rule indefinitely into the future, thereby assuring officers their perquisites and privileges.

SCAF exploits the Muslim Brotherhood and other proxies as its civilian fronts, a role they are happy to play, by permitting Islamists to garner an outsized percentage of the parliamentary vote, then to win the presidency. During the suspicious week-long delay before the presidential votes were announced, SCAF met with the Muslim Brotherhood's real leader, Khairat El-Shater, and reached a deal whereby Morsi became president but SCAF still governs.

To understand SCAF's power, note three actions it took in conjunction with the presidential elections:

Imposition of martial law: On June 13, the Justice Minister authorized the General Intelligence Services and military police to arrest civilians at will and incarcerate them for six months if they express any form of written or artist opposition against SCAF, the police, or their Islamist proxies, while protesting these same institutions on the streets can lead to life in prison.

Dissolution of parliament: On the grounds that the parliamentary elections of Nov. 2011-Jan. 2012, breached the constitution (which prohibits party candidates to run for "individual" seats), the Supreme Administrative Court ruled them invalid in February 2012. On June 14, the SCAF-controlled Supreme Constitutional Court confirmed this decision and dissolved parliament. In retrospect, it appears that SCAF, which oversaw those elections, intentionally allowed Islamists to break the law so as to have an excuse at will to dissolve Egypt's fraudulent parliament.

Establish the premise for martial law: SCAF issued a constitutional declaration on June 17 that formalized its intention to prolong the military's 60-year-old rule. Article 53/2 states that, in the face of internal unrest, "the president can issue a decision to direct the armed forces – with the approval of SCAF - to maintain security and defend public properties." The basis for a complete military takeover could hardly be more baldly asserted; Morsi's plan to reconvene the dissolved parliament could justify such an action.

Morsi took the oath of office before the Supreme Constitutional Court and not before the parliament. Score another symbolic victory for SCAF.

If foreigners are largely blind to SCAF's power play, Egyptians widely recognize this reality. The liberal April 6 Youth Movement called its recent actions "a soft coup d'état." Journalist Zainab Abu El-Magd bitterly noted that "political coups these days are done through 'fair elections'." Ziad Abdel Tawab of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies calls the dissolution of parliament a "blatant military coup." One Egyptian newspaper called Morsi "president without powers," while an Islamist compared him to Queen Elizabeth II of Britain.

SCAF is struggling to perpetuate the status quo, whereby the officer corps enjoys the good life and the rest of the country serves its needs. Making Morsi the apparent president of Egypt cleverly saddles him with responsibility as the country's economic problems worsen. But SCAF's tricks run great dangers and could backfire, for a population fed up with tyranny and backwardness finds itself with more of the same. The next explosion could make the uprising of early 2011 look tame.

To help avoid that next explosion, Western governments should adopt a policy of pressuring SCAF gradually to permit increasing genuine political participation.

Mr. Pipes is president of the Middle East Forum and Taube fellow at the Hoover Institution. Ms Farahat, a fellow at the Forum, also works at the Center for Security Policy and Coptic Solidarity. © 2012 by Daniel Pipes and Cynthia Farahat. All rights reserved.

Source: http://www.danielpipes.org/11584/mohamed-tantawi

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

‘Adulteress’ Slaughtered in Afghanistan

by Robert Spencer

A video of a woman, Najiba, being shot dead in Afghanistan while a cheering crowd yells “Allahu akbar,” “Long live Islam,” and “Long live mujahideen” has provoked international outrage. Australia’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Bob Carr, called the shooting “a barbaric attack on a defenceless woman and another stark reminder of the brutalities that were regularly committed under Taliban rule, and of the task ahead of us in advancing the rights of Afghan women and girls.” British Foreign Secretary William Hague said: “Such deplorable actions underline the vital need for better protection of the rights of women and girls in Afghanistan.”

And so in the waning days of the West’s fruitless adventure in Afghanistan, at least two of our NATO allies have a new mission: protecting the rights of women and girls in Afghanistan. The video itself makes clear that this will be an uphill battle; and in any case the fate of Afghan women and girls was sealed, at least as far as getting any help from the West was concerned, when the Western powers oversaw the adoption of a Constitution in Afghanistan that enshrined Islamic law as the highest law of the land.

But many Muslim spokesmen have denied that the murder of Najiba had anything to do with Islam or Sharia in the first place. Many have decried the fact that Najiba was executed for adultery when there doesn’t seem to have been any evidence presented. Maulavi Sidiqullah Fedayee, an Afghan Islamic scholar, explains: “Islam has very clear rules. These clear rules of Islam cannot be changed. Those who implement Shari’a simply on the basis of accusations do not have an adequate understanding of the rules of Islam….In a case of adultery, there must be four witnesses, and these witnesses must testify that they actually saw the woman and a man together engaged in sexual intercourse.”

Fedayee is correct: absent a confession (which, for all anyone knows, may have been obtained in Najiba’s case), Islamic law requires four male Muslim witnesses who actually saw the act of adultery in order to establish it. This odd stipulation is based on Qur’an 24:4 and 24:13, which in turn are based, according to Islamic tradition, on a notorious incident in Muhammad’s life: his favorite wife, Aisha, was accused of adultery and thus had to be put to death, whereupon Muhammad received a revelation requiring four witnesses. Aisha’s accusers didn’t have them, and so she was exonerated.

Also, according to Islamic law Najiba should have been stoned to death, not shot, if she was indeed guilty of adultery. That law is not in the Qur’an, but in one hadith the caliph Umar, one of Muhammad’s closest companions, maintained that it originally was, and was still Islamic law:

‘Umar said, “I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, “We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book,” and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession.” Sufyan added, “I have memorized this narration in this way.” ‘Umar added, “Surely Allah’s Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him.” (Bukhari, vol. 8, bk. 82, no. 816)

And so Maulavi Sidiqullah Fedayee is correct: “Islam has very clear rules,” and by them one can evaluate whether or not Najiba was put to death justly from an Islamic standpoint. This belies the smooth deceptions that Islamic supremacists, faced with growing opposition to Sharia in the U.S., peddle about Islamic law. Reza Aslan, for example, has claimed: “There’s really no such thing as just Sharia, it’s not one monolithic Continuum – Sharia is understood in thousands of different ways over the 1,500 years in which multiple and competing schools of law have tried to construct some kind of civic penal and family law code that would abide by Islamic values and principles, it’s understood in many different ways.”

Yet neither Reza Aslan nor any other Muslim spokesman in the U.S. can point to any version of Sharia that does not mandate stoning for adultery, or polygamy, or female genital mutilation, or the devaluation of a woman’s testimony in court and inheritance rights, or any number of other provisions that ultimately make it impossible for the Western powers, despite the best intentions of Bob Carr and William Hague, to succeed in “advancing the rights of Afghan women and girls.”

Even if Najiba was the victim of an extrajudicial murder that violated the tenets of Islamic law, those tenets are oppressive enough for women as to ensure that the “rights of Afghan women and girls” will continue to be contravened in numerous ways, whether or not the Taliban returns to power – as long as Islam remains the dominant political and religious ideology of the land. Even if Najiba was killed unjustly in a manner that does not accord with Islamic law, other women are treated unjustly on a regular basis in Afghanistan in ways that accord perfectly with Islamic law: denied a just inheritance, treated as a commodity in a polygamous arrangement with a much older man, silenced in court, beaten (in accord with Qur’an 4:34), and more.

Everywhere that Sharia has ever been implemented, women have been oppressed, and always in the very same ways. For Carr and Hague, and other Western spokesmen who have deplored the murder of Najiba, to treat that murder as an isolated incident betrays an astonishing naivete, particularly from career diplomats who hold the post of Foreign Minister in their respective nations. They should both know that untold numbers of women suffer injustices up to and including the loss of life in Afghanistan on a daily basis; Najiba’s case is singular only in that it was filmed.

If Australia and Britain had Foreign Ministers worth their salt, they would be denouncing Sharia and calling for equal justice for women and non-Muslims in Muslim countries.

We could use a Secretary of State who would do that here, too. But the chances of getting one are about as good as those of Mitt Romney winning the Kentucky Derby.

Robert Spencer

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/robert-spencer/%E2%80%98adulteress%E2%80%99-slaughtered-in-afghanistan/

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

An Islamist President Coming to Town

by Arnold Ahlert

In yet another overture to the Islamists of Egypt, President Barack Obama has invited newly elected Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi to conduct an official visit to America. “President Obama extended an invitation to President Mursi to visit the United States when he attends the U.N. General Assembly in September,” Egyptian aide Yasser Ali said after Morsi met U.S. Deputy Secretary of State William Burns in Cairo. The visit breaks new ground in that it will be the first visit to the White House by an official member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Morsi resigned from the group after his presidential victory, but it was little more than a symbolic gesture.

Unsurprisingly, military and government officials in Israel were taken aback by the news, primarily because the move represented a breach of President Obama’s assurances to U.S. Jewish leaders at the White House last month. They had been told that Morsi would neither be invited to the White House nor maintain direct telephone contact with Obama until Morsi met certain conditions, the foremost of which concerned a public and unambiguous commitment to Egypt’s 1979 peace treaty with Israel. The American Jewish delegation was also assured that Morsi would be required to devote a section of his earliest speech on foreign affairs to a specific affirmation of that pact, as opposed to the ambiguous pledge he made upon his election on June 24 that he would uphold Egypt’s international accords.

The assurances were worthless. Secretary Burns was sent to Egypt and Morsi received his unconditional invitation. Burns, who failed to mention that invitation at an initial news conference, added insult to injury at a later meeting with reporters. ”We have taken careful note and appreciated President Mursi’s public statements about a commitment to international obligations and we certainly attach great importance to Egypt’s continuing role as a force for peace,” he said.

Peace in Egypt is still elusive. On Sunday, an ongoing power struggle between the Islamist president, Egypt’s military generals and judges intensified. Morsi ordered his political party, the Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party, back into session. The move directly challenged the authority of the military who had dismissed them based on an order by Egypt’s Supreme Constitutional Court in June, dissolving the Islamist-dominated parliament because one-third of its members were elected unlawfully. On Tuesday, Morsi re-convened them, despite a warning from the military that such a move could provoke violence. The only item on the illegitimate gathering’s agenda was the Court’s ruling. After the meeting, the Court ruled that Morsi did not have the right to reconstitute the body.

Yet Morsi’s allies remained defiant. Freedom and Justice Party spokesman Momen Zarour, contended the brief meeting served notice that Egypt’s new political leaders will not be intimidated. “We had to hold a session today, and we will hold more sessions next week,” he said. “This is the first democratically elected parliament that Egypt has had in its history.”

Next Saturday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is due in Cairo after a visit to Israel. Prime Minster Binyamin Netanyahu has already made it clear Clinton’s visit will not be a pleasant one. In response to president Obama’s fecklessness, he has ordered construction on the fortified fence on the Israel-Egyptian border to be sped up, and expanded military deployment in the border region to be completed. Netanyahu will undoubtedly bring up the other promises abandoned by Obama as well. They included the new Egyptian government’s respect for human rights, especially relating to the Christian Copts, the formation of a broad national unity government representing Egypt’s active mainstream parties (not just the Muslim Brotherhood), ending the rabid anti-American and anti-Western rhetoric pervading the Egyptian media, and reining in the terrorist elements in the Sinai Peninsula.

Yet such elements are apparently irrelevant to an Obama administration seemingly determined to facilitate the Islamist ascendancy in Egypt. As Obama prepares to hand Morsi a PR boon, the Egyptian president’s stated ambitions matter very little. Morsi pledged, for instance, that the new Egyptian constitution will be founded on the Quran, and he intends that it will impose a strict version of Sharia law. In an interview last year, Morsi told the Washington Post that the kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s ultra-conservative version of Sharia was a good model for Egypt. Thus it could only be imposed by a complete takeover by the Brotherhood, or a pan-Islamist revolution similar to that which occurred in Iran. Such an occurrence would cement Obama’s reputation as the second coming of President Jimmy Carter.

Yet the most troublesome aspect of Morsi’s invite, is that it occurred in spite of the fact that he pledged to seek the release of Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman from U.S. custody. Abdel-Rahman, also known as the “Blind Sheikh,” is serving a life sentence at a federal penitentiary for his role in planning the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City. He is also the leader of the Egyptian terrorist group Al Gama’a al Islamiyya, which has been accused of masterminding the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. Abdel-Rahman managed to leave Egypt unscathed after the assassination. He then moved to Afghanistan–where he allied himself with Osama bin Laden.

President Obama’s willingness to grant official status to a leader who openly supports a mass murdering terrorist thug is disgraceful. That he would do it less two months before the election says something else as well. It says that he believes Jewish Americans will never abandon their support for him, no matter how much he is willing to compromise Israel’s security. That bespeaks a profound level of arrogance on his part, or a belief that Jewish Americans are ideologically paralyzed to the point where they are beyond antagonizing. However, there are plenty of other Americans who are bound to wonder how far this administration is willing to go to appease radical Islamists under the banner of mutual understanding. If the Abdel-Rahman had been able to realize the totality of his vision, thousands upon thousand more Americans would have been murdered. Mohammed Morsi wants him released from prison.

That alone should make Morsi persona non grata at the White House. Instead, president Obama intends to make him an honored guest. almost anything could happen between now and September, including further violence.

Arnold Ahlert

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/the-muslim-brotherhood%E2%80%99s-invitation-to-washington/

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